Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

dudemaninc Imagine the barbaric Fire and Ice! The epicness of Heavy Metal! The acid-laced mystique of Fantastic Planet! All of these wrapped into one powerhouse of an animated classic! You'll watch this movie, and wonder if you're watching the prequel to the story of Rush's 2112. It has an undertone of a monolithic society, but with sentinel invaders from the future trying to kill them off like thousands of Sara Connors. Although I've only seen versions of this with English subtitles, the masterpiece that it is kept me drawn in with interesting characters and awesome action sequences. I showed this movie to many of my friends and some people that love '80s animation, and they added this to their Top 10 animated list. As a kid, this is one of the styles that made me want to be an artist and animator. One of my favorite animated movies of all time!

Nick Dets The Harvey Weinstein-edited, American version of Rene Laloux's ambitious 1988 feature "Gandahar" is a lavish, mostly satisfying animated spectacle. It suspends Isaac Asimov's sci/fi philosophy, Cold-War politics and psychedelic, Daliesque imagery with conventional plotting that keeps the story clicking along briskly with an accessible, user-friendly approach. Having not seen the pre-Weistein version, it is frustrating to wonder how much of Laloux's original intent was lost in Weistein's decidedly Americanized cut, but what remains is an intelligent, fresh and well-layered fantasy romp.Weinstein seemed to hold "Star Wars" as a reference point, as he wielded the classical, Campbellian hero structure to ground its complex visual designs in familiar storytelling. These designs immediately plunge the viewer into the peaceful alien civilization of Gandahar, a beautiful blue world inhabited by intelligent creatures who enjoy a blissful political harmony. Gandahar is so peaceful, in fact, that its leaders completely neglect technological advancement due to a universal contentedness in the progress of the civilization. Inevitably, the peace is threatened when mysterious, unidentified rays are reported in nearby areas, causing Gandahar's leaders to send their young, precocious prince Sylvain to investigate the possible alien threat.After coming into contact with the grotesquely deformed remaining members of a previous civilization, Sylvain learns of an army of metallic soldiers who are operated by an enormous brain called the Metamorphosis. They pull their resources together and fight the army using their wits, giving way to a third act that puts its building ideas into a fine focus while also delivering the expectedly rousing action goods."Gandahar" grounds its thesis in the fact that a civilization's strength lies in a fully integrated sense of past, present and future. The historical connections are obvious, as the film cleverly points out the inherent weakness of domineering political powers that combine brute force and radicalism in order to eradicate truths demonstrated by history and tradition. As a political statement, the film works incredibly well, as its blend of sci/fi philosophy and politics fit together naturally - reminding one that great mythology is traditionally political.As an auteur piece, however, it's hard to ignore an overall lack of sheer, artistic wonder. Weinstein's (or whoever's) familiar structuring balances the film's many layers elegantly, but there is a definite artistic compromise present that will likely be disappointing to fans of Laloux's "Fantastic Planet." Much of the movie has a Disney-like simplification of its world and logic that prevents it from fully captivating the viewer with its whimsical absurdities. "Fantastic Planet" is spellbinding because it treats its viewer like a visiting alien, never over-explaining or belaboring its genuinely bizarre imagery and focusing mainly on an amazingly distanced, otherworldly mood – one which would have been suffocated by a driving, centralized plot. In this way, "Gandahar" disappoints in its overall familiarity, favoring traditional story tropes over bold originality.To a viewer looking for a multifaceted, accessible science fiction fantasy, however, the film is a treat. With so many balls in the air, it understandably picked a straightforward approach and is able to satisfy a wide variety of viewers. It's just unfortunate that such an approach is what separated a good film from a potentially great film.

arsenick It is a very good anticipation movie. the part describing the lovely and environmental gandahar is wonderful. While renewing a 70's vision of sex, nature and happiness, the colors, sounds and pictures (a young girl offering her breast to a new born invented animal who looks like a tapir, born out of a grown plant). the story: mixing future and past, threatening the present by having itself created in the past, the elements that will be dangerous in the future. It is also a huge criticism of the liability of the human being regarding its evil habit to master the nature, th human body and science. In the end, scientific rubbish save the human beings from a great scientific discovery they made years ago. Happiness is conditioned by assuming one's mistakes. A great philosophical tale. The blue skinned woman with head-wings is very impressive, as well as the very beautiful nude females.

darrylb500 I noticed this movie at a local rental place the other week and thought, 'What on Earth is THIS?'My dad has a book with 17,000 movie reviews--just reviews ranging from a sentence to a couple of paragraphs--and they gave it 2 1/2 stars--3 being good--so it was almost good (to them). They chastised the almost non-existent characterizations, which I agree; we're given a character, we're given about half a minute background on them, and then this is what the character has to do. I was surprised that they didn't mention the almost non-existent voice "acting" (note the quotes), as everyone just pretty much mumbled their lines...even such a big talent as Glenn Close (playing the queen) didn't help.However, please note these are VERY minor gripes. I would've given the movie three stars myself. It's not the typical sci-fi, with the stupidity of childhood geniuses and robots with feelings abound (and I don't think the stereotypes of "oh no, it's sci-fi AND a cartoon!" help either). It's very imaginative, but pretty dark and apocalyptic; probably not for kids under the age of 6, if not 8.And on a side note, there was some pretty good music in it, too, and a lot of it.