MovieChat Forums > Wizards (1977) Discussion > What's so good about this film?

What's so good about this film?

posted 8 years ago by Etxpeme
18 replies | jump to latest

What's so good about this film that apparently everyone likes it? I found the story a typical good vs evil and not at all original. The story was really really simple and felt underdeveloped, I think they should have spent more time on it. And there's the issue of the voices, which in general I don't think fitted the characters and could be at times annoying (the voices felt fake and not suiting for the characters, specially the exaggerated screams that were so abundant). Also, the nazi imagery felt like a cheap trick. Also, there's people questioning if it's for kids or for adults. I don't think it's for either. It's too sexual and crude and violent to be for kids and at the same time too simple for adults.

I don't think this is a good movie at all. But maybe I'm missing something?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

Well, watching Bakshi do an interview on the DVD, it just seems like he's trying to sell his film. Whatever.

Contrary to what he says here about this being the only interview he's done, he actually did an interview on Fire and Ice, and maybe did one on either Heavy Traffic or American Pop.

And on the popularity of this film ... I don't recall seeing a single ad for this film. Or if I did, then it didn't register. I do recall seeing oddles of ads for Star Wars.

As for it being good. I don't think it's that good. In fact I don't think it's very good, and it comes across as more of an effort at social psychology regarding Nazism than it does as a fantasy film.

A good film would have just been about wizards and elves slugging it out the old fashioned way without all the Nazi junk thrown in there, and it would have had a higher budget.

I caught a glimpse of it at a comic book shop I used to visit, so I got myself a copy ... eh, at least it was cheap.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

I think if it had just been about wizards and elves slugging it out, it just would have been another formulaic fantasy film. The Nazi imagery was indeed social commentary re: the power fantasies of the emotionally stunted & insecure, the worship of technology, the dehumanization of society. It's very much a countercultural film; Bakshi's built-in audience would have instantly & viscerally made historical & societal connections to the everyday world. One of those connections is that some ideas, ideologies, and worldviews kill & exist for no other purpose than to kill & control.

Granted, I'm of the generation that responded well to the counterculture, so of course this film really spoke to me & others like me. But much of what it's saying, however crudely (which is not necessarily a bad thing), is still quite applicable to current society.

[–] whynotwriteme (7747) 4 years ago

I love this movie. I saw it in the theater at age 12 a few months before Star Wars came out and I vastly preferred Wizards. I have seen Wizards dozens if not hundreds of times since then.

To me, the greatest appeal is visual. I love the weird, 1970s style fantasy landscapes and character designs. I was already a Mike Ploog fan from Planet of the Apes comic books and his work in this is amazing. I love the blend of Lord of the Rings style fantasy with post-apocalyptic mutants and technology.

Other elements that I love are the huge epic battles, the humor of the cantankerous Avatar, the Indian warrior-like elves, the beautiful Princess Elinore, Andrew Belling's music... Wizards is one of a kind.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

Oh, the Mike Ploog art was a big draw all by itself!

And you're right about the sense of humor, sometimes slapstick, sometimes sardonic. The film just has its own style, unlike anything else out there.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Bakshi always had something to say, he always said it his way, and his films felt fresh and original from beginning to end. They didn't always hit, but even when they missed, they missed on Bakshi's terms.

I often turn over and over in my head what it is about Bakshi's work that I love, because sometimes I'm not sure they are "good" movies, but they're counterculture films and they've got this brazen, "I don't care what you think, here's my art," vibe. They're unafraid. They hit the throttle. They try something. It's like he was experimenting while creating a final cut, and that's so appealing, especially when every movie that comes out these days is xeroxed from the last one. Mainstream is superhero movies and Disney-Pixar-Dreamworks CGI films that are blurring into each other more and more, you can barely tell them apart.

Never with Bakshi. Can't mistake anything else for Bakshi. They've got heart and guts. Maybe they aren't always that polished but...

Heck, an acoustic guitar that's only mostly in tune, a scratchy vocal recording, and some pitchy vocals wailing out some blues, and those elements put together make Robert Johnson one of my favourite artists ever. I don't want perfectly-crafted, I want perfect.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 3 years ago

"I'm not sure they are "good" movies, but they're counterculture films and they've got this brazen, "I don't care what you think, here's my art," vibe. They're unafraid. They hit the throttle. They try something."

This is 100% why this movie appeals to me. It defies conventional rules of storytelling. The animation can be sloppy. The social themes are on the nose. But it has this compelling power, this passion that makes it far more interesting than slicker, safer work. I love the psychedelic 70s vibe blended with traditional fantasy and post-apocalyptic wastelands. It might be messy, but it's so unique.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

Even live film at that time had an experimental quality. It feels "fly on the wall" because the messiness of it makes it feel more like just watching real life.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Suddenly realized that a lot of what I said about Bakshi applies to Terry Gilliam. Both are masterful filmmakers, often with crazy, surreal experiences that they dare to put on film. And I'd rather watch a lesser Terry Gilliam or Ralph Bakshi than something "safer". A lot of people didn't like Gilliam's Brothers Grimm, but isn't it way more interesting and watchable than a lot of the rubber-stamp MCU stuff?

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

Agree with both of your posts completely. The difference between Bakshi & Gilliam on the one hand, and so many CGI blockbusters today on the other hand, is that Bakshi & Gilliam are each the prime driving force & vision behind their respective movies. The current CGI blockbusters are made by committee & driven by demographics. Bakshi & Gilliam are driven by what they want & must make—even if it doesn't always work perfectly, it's their individual vision that's on the screen, and that carries a power of its own that no consensus by committee can ever deliver.

Your Robert Johnson analogy is spot-on. A little honest raggedness is far preferable to something so polished & smooth that it always slides away from you. Like you, I want something that has integrity & sticks with you!

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

One of my all-time favourite poems is Herrick's "Delight in Disorder". Although it is in the context of amorous affection, it can be expanded to speak to my feelings on the "perfection of imperfection":

A sweet disorder in the dress
Kindles in clothes a wantonness;
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction;
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthrals the crimson stomacher;
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribands to flow confusedly;
A winning wave, deserving note,
In the tempestuous petticoat;
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility:
Do more bewitch me, than when art
Is too precise in every part.

Anything made with care, love, passion, and vision is inevitably worth something, even if strange, unwieldy, or unkempt.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

I've been wondering that myself, because I was obsessed with this movie when it came out. Saw it about 10 times in the theater, and would have worn out a videotape of it if they existed back then.

I don't know why, I don't even know if the movie is good.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

My exposure to this movie was the little 2 minute clip they showed for its nomination for best sci-fi (iirc) on an award show at the time. I was glued to the TV for any little clip of Star Wars they would play (as one could not see anything like that outside a theater). The scene they show id that chase ending with an arrow in the beast's neck. I thought that scene looked incredible and yearned to see the movie. Being only 8, that wasn't going to happen.
10 years later I watched it and that chase scene is the only thing I liked. I'll take Fire and Ice over this hands down.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Weed helps.

[–] Redsfan001 (6180) 3 years ago

Definitely a stoner vibe to it.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

There's a lot of the "Make Love Not War" hippy stuff here, but I think there's a lunatic charm to the picture that works. I dunno, I just love Bakshi's stuff. The flaws almost make them more endearing to me.

[–] Redsfan001 (6180) 3 years ago

Yeah, I'm not knocking it. It is certainly different, which is a good thing.

[–] huwdj (4571) 4 years ago

I remember seeing this when it came out. Not seen it since but still remember some of the imagery - I really should hunt down a copy. It was described as a preliminary essay for The Lord of the Rings but I cannot remember where that came from. I suspect it wasn't supposed to be a polished production - rather a bit of an experiment splicing together different stock to tell the story.