User reviews

I found this movie as a teen and used to show it to friends the morning after parties. It's sort of a Saturday morning cartoon gone horribly awry. I've never seen animation like it before, though I understand Bakshi has other stuff out there. I like it better than Heavy Metal and American Pop. I found it while looking for Rock and Rule, which I didn't find very memorable. This, however, I saw once and had to see again! Everyone I've shown it to has liked it- it's a sci-fi fantasy cartoon with a moral message and enough plot and humor to keep things interesting. Again, great morning after type stuff, though perhaps a bit intense and/or slow at times.

This is one of the trio of Ralph Bakshi animated features that appeared in cinemas in the 70's. The most high profile was his adaption of The Lord of the Rings, while his most respected was the subversive Fritz the Cat. Wizards falls somewhere between these two. It combines the fantasy world of the former with the adult themes of the latter. As a result it is a bizarre and somewhat uneven feature that is undoubtedly somewhat unique. Like Fantastic Planet and Heavy Metal, it falls into that small group of animated movies that can be considered bona fide cult movies.

Its story has a couple of twins, one good (Avatar) and one evil (Blackwolf) fight one and other for domination; the former with magic, the latter with technology. This is our world in the future, a world of elves and wizards. Old war machinery and Nazi propaganda films are rediscovered by evil beings and used as a means to militarily conquer weaker peoples. It's quite clear that the story as such presents a cautionary tale. It suggests that uncontrolled technology is a very bad thing, while it also reiterates the evil of fascism. What, of course, is so strange with all of this is that it is presented within the framework of an all-out fantasy adventure cartoon. Wizards is a good example of one of the earliest examples of animation that was consciously moving away from children's stories. In truth, though, the story here isn't all that great and the characters not especially good. For this reason, the film never fully engages.

In terms of visual artistry Wizards is something of a mixed bag. It combines traditional animation alongside detailed still drawings, real footage and rotoscoping. The latter always feels like a bit of a cheap way to do animation but it is done here more successfully than it was in Bakshi's later Lord of the Rings. It's used in a more stylised way here and doesn't seem so out-of-place. The various art styles are put together in what has to be termed a multi-media approach. I think it mainly works and certainly gives the film a different look and feel. Some of the animated characters are a little poor though such as the character of Avatar who looks ridiculously comical. This juxtaposition of children's comic characters with decidedly heavy imagery such as swastikas and Nazi footage is weird to say the least. The scene where cartoon characters watch old Nazi films is certainly very memorable.

In the final analysis Wizards is a strange movie. Not an entirely successful one but at least it was daring to be different. For fans of cult 'toons this is a must though.

I first saw this film as recommended by my father and my friends. I had seen Heavy Metal unedited for the first time (this is in the days when you had to go to a sci-fi con and buy a bootleg copy if you wanted to see anything more than the edited TBS version.) This film was recommended to me along with Fritz the Cat (this is far superior, I may add.) I quickly became a fan of all Bakshi animation. In fact, in the annals of animation, this film is exceeded only by American Pop. It's that good!

The Hitler imagery struck me as out of place, or perhaps a little too much. Other than that, this is a classic animation. Well drawn, good story, adds up to a great film. If you're a fan of the 70's or 80's style animation (or even if you just saw Cool World once) this film will be a must watch.

Very...bizarre. Be prepared for a lot of psychedelicness if you watch this film. Some people dislike that stuff. I personally love it.I would talk a bit more about WHAT was bizarre, but I won't spoil anything. I'd like to say, though, that this film does actually have meaning to it. Many reviews go on about it being a greatly uneven jumble of battles, nudity, decapitations, kung fu, mutants, prostitutes, fairies, robots, gnomes, dwarfs, wizards, elves, machine guns, lasers, tanks, and bright colors, but if you actually pay attention and think about it, you can find both morals and metaphors. Unfortunately, I won't be able to compare it with any of Ralph Bakshi's other films, as this is the only one I've seen, but I hope to see others in the future. One more thing, though. Bakshi may have called this his first "family" film, but it has some language (d***, hell, b****, slut), sexual undertones, and bloody, mildly intense violence.

This movie is probably most notable for Mark Hamill providing vocals for a character, although another film was his best-known project that same year. Ralph Bakshi's use of rotoscoping is probably the best part of the production. The movie is hysterically funny in spots, but is deadly boring in others and is wildly uneven. On the whole, I found it enjoyable, but I've seen better. Not for kids (at least chronological ones) by any means, but somewhat tame for Bakshi. Recommended to those with an interest in movies, period-the good, the bad and the strange. This one is all three at some point in time.

This movie might look a bit amateurish and thrown together to modern eyes. But when I saw this back in the day it was vivid. It came off the screen like an hallucination. The rotoscoped scenes that people think look cheap or sloppy today looked electric on the big screen.

But then this isn't a normal movie. This is more akin to what is called by some psychotronic cinema. Deliberately crafted for people that are high or who enjoy high weirdness. Other examples would be Evil Dead 1&2, Caligari, Forbidden Zone, and most Cheech and Chong films.

It's not supposed to be deft and subtle in it's storytelling. In some cases the story is just a general guide that is only slightly adhered to. More as an overarching theme that connects the scenes and vignettes which comprise the film.

These kind of films are built for short, intoxicated attention spans. So they are in a way the film equivalent of junk food. Trippy visuals, sexy characters and rock and roll are usually the order of the day.

Another thing about Ralph Bakshi, well he is kind of offensive sometimes to our modern sensibilities. A lot of his animation work includes prominent breasts, racial stereotypes and other things which would get 'canceled' today.

I think this and the kind of goofy animation should be taken together. When his movies were made, VCRs for consumers were only just starting to come out. There really was no idea that people would pick over your film and notice things. Most of the time you saw a movie once and that was it.

And we don't just see that in Bakshi films. In most low and mid budget movies of the 60s and 70s you have all kinds of stuff that they just let slide. Boom operator in shot, oh well. Likewise I think some of the criticism for this being sloppy is unfounded. It's meant to be an experience, not a linear narrative.

The modern equivalent would be Fury Road. If you write the plot of that movie out on paper it's ridiculous. But the experience of the film transcends whatever the plot was. Shiny Chrome Valhalla indeed. Of course this movie isn't quite as transcendent.

But if it was 1983 and you saw this as a double feature with Fritz the Cat you wouldn't be complaining. Not after that hogs leg you smoked in the parking lot.

I'm tempted to say that this is the thinking person's Lord of the Rings but that would be douchey.

There is the exact right balance of story, spectacle and world building in this compelling and apocalyptic meditation, superficially about the battle of nature and technology but is really much deeper.

In a crazy age for animation Wizards delivers a crazy story where radio-decayed mutants fueled by footage of Nazi propaganda and other artifacts of the earths aggressive past attempt to take over the future.

The only thing that can stop domination is a party of forest creatures, a derelict assassin, the old wizard himself, and one psychedelic trip of a movie.

The film can get preachy, and sometimes maybe too blunt. But hey, something rare and cool to come out of '77, stop messing around and watch Wizards.

I still think that Bakshi should have been a great story writer and animator but he should not get involved in directing jobs. This is probably his best work and it´s still out of balance, incoherent and not so greatly directed. Fortunately, the vision and story is powerful enough to forget some missguideness. Bakshi truly is an artist, but he somehow can´t reach the audience. When "Fritz the Cat" appeared, everyone thought it to be masterful, ´cause it showed some new levels of animated urban philosophy. It was like Mickey Mouse directed by John Lennon. But during the years Bakshi obviously became trapped in his own style, and he changed genres but never the concept. That was his crucial failure and probably the main reason of such bad treatment he received for "The Lord of the Rings". But I think that with "Wizards" he did tried his best, story is original enough, characters are strangely strong and the best part is probably satirical humor which is sometimes hilarious. I still consider this to be the best animated fantasy movie, but maybe that´s ´cause there´s not so many competitors.