Simply A Masterpiece

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

A Masterpiece!

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

...and it could not be more. because it is one of easy films, seductive for the names from cast, for use of cliches and stereotypes, for humor and for cultural references in clothes of not real good irony. a mixture of history and cartoons. so, just nice. or only nice. but nothing more because it is a film giving to each viewer a small present , from great actors in sketches of characters, cultural clash , contemporary references and the absence of Clavier as Asterix by effort of admirable Baer.

Astérix' adaptation are less a matter of animation or live-action than hit or miss. Some convince you that it's time to end the franchise, other that the little Gaul had good days still. I'm glad that the last two opus, the animated "Mansion of the Gods" and the live-action "Asterix and Obelix: God Save Britannia" belong to the more optimism- inducing category.And by all the Roman and Gallic Gods of animation, it better had to, after that dreadful "Astérix at the Olympic Games", a blockbuster endorsed by Thomas Langmann (Claude Berri's son) with expensive budget, expensive effects and expensive stars to make up for the script's poverty. Yet this piece of business-ridden mediocrity managed to grab six million viewers in 2008 despite the worst critics of the series. And its effect on the fourth was inevitable: "Britannia" had the lowest box office result despite some mixed to positive critics.I wasn't in a urge to watch the film either, nothing that could convince me that it was going to be better than "Olympic Games". Stellar cast? I'm tired of playing another 'spot-the-star' game… and Deneuve as the Queen, had the same atrocious vibes than Delon as Caesar, not to mention the anachronism. Uderzo's endorsement? Well he supported "Olympic" as well, before changing sides and wishing his Gallic warriors had bigger roles, and who can trust the judgment of someone who despised Alain Chabat's "Mission Cleopatra".Speaking of Chabat, was the director as much a fan of Astérix? Well, Laurent Tirard directed the "Little Nicholas" movies, also adapted from Goscinny's stories… so there was a connection. Besides, "Asterix in Britain" is one of the most entertaining book, and inspired one of the best animated adaptations, so it could join "Cleopatra" as the only adventure to be adapted in the three formats. Besides, the film couldn't be worse than the previous, well, Tirard not only made a more watchable film, but a more rewatchable one too.And if the CGI aren't less overused, the're less irritating because you finally have something to distract you from then, starting right at the opening scene, with the pirates' boat mercilessly sunk by the Roman fleet. First surprise: the ill-fated red- bearded Captain is played by Gérard Jugnot. I don't know if it's a nod to the fact that he first wanted to direct the third live-adaptation (a project whose refusal lead to the 2008 disaster) but his presence is a way to come full circle with these bad memories. And the good omen is immediately confirmed by another reassuring presence: Fabrice Luchini as Julius Caesar.Luchini is known as an intellectual actor whose trademark is to embark viewers into delirious monologues with deliberately histrionic gestures and over-the-top deliveries. He's so unlike Caesar, and the genuinely pedantic Delon, that the gag works by a simple contrast effect. Then the film goes faster with the conquest of Britannia (owing to the exploitation of their peculiar time schedules) and the story takes off when Jolithorax is assigned a mission to bring the magic potion to the last British village resisting the invaders. At that point, I was thinking that if the film maintained itself to this level, it would be all right, but then one sight made me 'uh-oh!' the Chief's Lutetian nephew, cocky as cowardly, Justfokix. Didn't he have his shining moment in the "Vikings" animated film already? What was he doing here?Apparently, the screenwriters decided to inject the Vikings story as a subplot, and much to my surprise, not only it didn't distract from the British story line, but it kind of redeemed a few aspects I criticized from the "Vikings" animated film. I wish it could show Obelix throwing Justforkix off the bed, and that we could have the (in the book, magnificently drawn) scene where the poor frightened kid, laying on the ground, is surrounded by towering Vikings and their Chief solemnly asks him to scare them. I got these two parts and it felt like another loop-closing moment, the subplot perfectly grafted to the main story-line, almost improving what it could have been had it stuck on the comic-book material.By the way, "Asterix in Britain" is a peculiar story, I just read the book and I realized that the animated film improved many parts of it, including the… McGuffin, just like the Vikings, when the director takes liberties with the story or insert characters, it's always for good pay-offs. There's an Indian migrant played by Atmen Kelif, Ophelia, Jolithorax' love interest played by a magnificent Charlotte Lebon, and the rigid and straight-laced Miss MacIntosh played by Valérie Lemercier. These additional characters, unlike the previous film, are integral to the story's appeal, because "God Save Britannia" is also a movie that deals with relationships, maybe more than any other Astérix adaptation.The film questions the Gallic manners with women, the rivalry with Britons, and takes an iconoclast turn when Asterix realizes that his friendship with Obélix prevent him from enjoying his freedom or looking for a life partner of feminine persuasion. Edouard Baer, who was in Chabat's film, is an unforgettable Astérix and his chemistry with Obélix (Depardieu, who else?) leaves no doubt. Meanwhile, Justforkix has to prove his value as a man while Jolithorax, tries to overcome his "gentlemanly" rigidity, and Ophélia plays a central role in their 'evolution'. The film has the merit to play with things that the fans take for granted, and this is what we expect from an adaptation, to explore new dimensions.The film was criticized for not taking too much risks, well, it did take a few gutsy moves with the characters, even making them more important than the plot itself and maybe it had good reasons to keep a low-profile, given how atrociously flashy was the predecessor, and for such a disastrous story. And maybe this is the greatest lesson the French can learn from the British, to learn to let some things 'understated'...

This is a very cute adaptation (with updates) of the classic Asterix comics. The version I had only had French audio with subtitles available in English. This wasn't a problem, as one of the running gags of the film is that French actors playing English characters (most notably the impossibly elegant Catherine Deneuve) speak with their French with horrible English accents. The prize for best/worst Frenglish goes to Charlotte Le Bon, who sounds like she's flunking her first semester of French. The jokes are generally cute-but-harmless, notably the 5:00 hot water break that defines life in England at the time of Caesar. There are references to Star Wars and A Clockwork Orange that don't appear in the 1966 source material, and an Indian character who might strike a contemporary audience as uncomfortable. Still, of all the live-action Asterix films, this one seems to best capture the spirit and absurdity of the comics. Very sweet, very fun, and well worth catching on video.

i couldn't believe what they did! Even by trying i have a hard time seeing how you can fail at making a movie to that point; I mean how hard can it be? If you look at the comic book, they had a plot, a storyboard, the costumes and the background ready to be used. they could have repeated the cartoon version word for word and release something that was better! firstly they make a Remarque of Asterix and Obelix as a homosexual couple (I am serious) as they apparently live in the same house (which they do not if the director read the comic carefully). Unlike the last movie there was not one love story that ruined the whole movie but TWO so twice the amount of boredom. the special effects were better in the Cleopatra movie. and the acting is awful. in the movie Goudrix(from Asterix and the Normans aka Asterix and the vikings(he looks like the complete opposite from the comic))wants to be with Jolitorax's fiancée(who was not in the cartoon), and so does Asterix for a while and at one point Jolitorax was completely in the nude. at that point I wanted to leave the room shocked for life ( I wish but I was actually stuck in there). so I suffered the whole movie. the actual story that the movie is based on takes around half an hour. the other hour is the stupid love story that was added on top. the cartoon version of this movie was absolutely brilliant although there is probably the translation problem (I saw it in French). if there was one good Asterix movie with actors, it's definitely the Cleopatra one. Asterix should not be treated as a kids cartoon. i actually enjoy the cartoon for its caricature of reality and of its subtle intelligent humor that is hard to find these days. i highly recommend this movie if you want to torture an Asterix fan or if you want to painfully waste an hour. the twilight saga seems all right next to this junk. avoid at all costs. I think of this movie as a mocking parody of the brilliant comic books and hopefully there will be a better one.( i said doubtfully).this is still an OK romantic comedy but it does not feel like you are watching an Asterix movie. to be honest by the end of it i forgot it was an Asterix movie. the worst of it all is the fact that they took away the friendship between the two characters. during 3/4 of the movie the two characters are irritated at each other. this is going against the rules of the Asterix series and that is a mistake that one should not do.