Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.

Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far.

A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Peter Fonda is so intentionally enervated as an actor that his lachrymose line-readings cancel out any irony or humor in the dialogue. He trades sassy barbs and non-witty repartee with Brooke Shields as if he were a wooden block with receding hair; even his smaller touches (like fingering a non-existent mustache on his grizzled face) don't reveal a character so much as an unsure actor being directed by himself, an unsure filmmaker. In the Southwest circa 1950, a poor gambler (not above a little cheating) wins an orphaned, would-be teen Lolita in a botched poker game; after getting hold of a treasure map promising gold in the Grand Canyon, the bickering twosome become prospectors. Some lovely vistas, and an odd but interesting cameo by Henry Fonda as a grizzled canyon man, are the sole compensations in fatigued comedy-drama, with the two leads being trailed by cartoonish killers who will stop at nothing until they get their hands on that map. Shields is very pretty, but--although the camera loves her pouty, glossy beauty--she has no screen presence (and her tinny voice has no range whatsoever); every time she opens her mouth, one is inclined to either cringe or duck. *1/2 from ****

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
I won't claim to be a fan of Ralph Bakshi, because i am not. I have only watched 5 of his animated films so far: Coonskin, Wizards, Fritz the Cat and Lord of the Rings and finally "Fire and Ice". What i CAN claim, is that i found "Fire and Ice" to be the most enjoyable of the lot. It is a straightforward fantasy tale of swords and sorcery along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but the beautiful artwork, realistic animation and lively film score effectively lends a very classic charm to this movie.

Deserving first mention, is the animation itself. I do not care what people say about rotoscoping but in my opinion Ralph Bakshi used that technique very effectively here. I was amazed at how realistic the movements of the characters were. The style of directing and the photo-realistic character designs made "Fire and Ice" feel more like a big budget fantasy blockbuster than a cartoon. Sadly the level of art detail tends to get a little inconsistent, especially near the end of the movie. Some scenes just look really flat with little to no body contour details or fabric folds and shadows on the characters.

With realistic moving characters, realistic action would naturally follow. Not only was the action well choreographed, but it was really brutal. I would be so bold as to compare the brutality of the action to live action movies like Zack Snyder's 300. I did notice however that though there was blood shed, the blood splatters were kept to a minimum. Again, a great choice by the creative team that only heightens the viewing experience by not taking things too "over the top".

Though i do not recognize any "big names" in the cast, the voice actors manage to deliver a satisfying performance; keeping the delivery of every line realistically subdued and only hamming it up in the case of the bad guys.

Did i say bad guys?? yes i did. Because that is exactly what the story is about, a standard good vs evil tale. Nothing really original about the story which seems to merely be a mix of pre-existing fantasy film cliches that involve scantly clad warriors and maidens. Anyone looking for "depth" would be sorely disappointed. THe characters are not given much development and some of them like Nekron and Darkwolf are one dimensional at best(I did however hear rumor of some deleted scenes that explains Darkwolf's obsession with killing Nekron and his mother. Scenes like that deserved full restoration and should have been included in the final cut to add a level of depth to the show). In fact, i would not be surprised to find out that the whole movie was just a "tech demo" of sorts to showcase the awesome animation and art, with the story cobbled together and thrown in as an afterthought in order to pass it off as a proper "movie".

A true classic of a bygone era, "Fire and Ice" really captures the blazing spirit of adventure and mysticism with its beautiful renderings of fantastic creatures and charming characters. It is a unique vision of a world created by Ralph Bakshi and artist Frank Frazetta with a good measure of action and suspense.

Would it hold up to animated film standards of today? Definitely not. But i urge animation fans in general to "get off your high horse" and give this simple but beautiful film a chance to grow on you. It is Truly a gem of the 80s worth checking out.