Lucky Luke

The script of the first Astérix movie combined elements from a few different books and it wasn't very successful. Then came the second, which was based in a single book. This was by far the best Astérix movie. The third one was based on one of the books but had a lot of extra stuff thrown in there, and it resulted in a resounding failure. What conclusion can be drawn from this? That you should just trust Goscinny, who was a great writer, and keep your film as close as possible to his material. With this "Lucky Luke" film they picked characters and plot elements from a dozen different books, and the resulting screenplay was a huge mess.

I still enjoyed it, but I think it could have been much better.

I must admit I had really high hopes for this one, and to be honest this is probably the best live action Lucky Luke movie I've seen, and I've seen em all. There are some funny scenes, and instances where it pays homage to the source material.

Now.

Cast wasn't bad, specially Billy The Kid, he was spot on, acting was well... alright I'll ...accept, costume could not have been better, seriously a solid 9 out of 10 for costumes, the set was very good, Daisy Town looked fantastic,.... so why such a low rating? if the freaking thing just had a damn plot! Its just random scenes, they "look" pretty cool, but doesn't always serve any purpose, the writing is VERY cheap.

Its like something happens, the music hints its something dramatic/beautiful or even a plot twist, and you don't get it, then it cuts to flashback that shows you why its a twist,(this happens at least twice) its like what if in Fight Club SPOILER ALERT! if Ed Norton is told he is Durden, without establishing the character of Pitt, and then in a cheap flashback its explained that he thought Pitt was Durden all this time(Im aware of that, the flashback actually occurs), but as if its the first and only time we see Pitt. END SPOILER .... and you are never sure what its trying to be. A western, spaghetti western, a spoof, Is it a comedy?, well there is a kid who witness the brutal murder of his parents, and is therefore seeking revenge, but our hero never kills anyone, so what in the holy name of God almighty, is he going to do when he finds the killer? it makes no sense, and the revenge theme is absent throughout the movie except maybe 4 minutes, near the end.

The first half of the movie isn't horrible, the second half on the other hand, is cheap, doesn't make much sense, tries to be clever, and is plain boring.

Its really sad, because it could have been a great film, they had the budget and the actors, what a wasted opportunity, if you are a fan you would be very disappointed, if you are not a fan then you are definitely going to be disappointed, because it wouldn't even have any nostalgic value.

I am an American who never really read any Lucky Luke comics. I watched this movie on the strength of its trailer, and the fact that I am an enormous fan of Goscinny's other creation, Asterix the Gaul.

Die hard Lucky Luke fans seem to dislike this movie as being untrue to the comic books, whereas people unfamiliar with the comics seem to enjoy the movie more.

I definitely fall into the latter category. I found the movie to be, generally, very pleasant, very stylish, and well-acted. From what little I know of Lucky Luke's character, I don't think the movie diverged very far from the spirit of the comics. Lucky Luke was given a back-story in the movie, and a fairly dark one, at that. It worked in the movie, I don't know how much it would have upset me, had I been a real fan of the comics.

The biggest fault I found with the movie was that the script was very weak in parts, and felt VERY rushed. I would have liked more time in the beginning of the film, to establish Daisy Town, and Luke's efforts to clean up the town. More time could have also been spent, establishing the character of the villain, Pat Poker. The movie relied on the viewer having past knowledge of many of the character, but in particular, Pat Poker had a very vague character definition.

The settings were wonderful, and the real stand-out, in my mind, was the climax of the movie, which took place in Pat Poker's hideout, It was an absolutely beautiful set, which, for me, was worth the price of admission.

I'm actually pretty surprised that this movie didn't get released in this country. It was a pretty solid action-comedy with good acting, and great style. I found that these positives made up for occasional weaknesses in the writing.

A famous cowboy is ordered by the president to clean up a crime-infested town. The town's crime boss is not happy about this and tries to have him killed, which turns out to be quite a difficult task.

The good things about this film must be the great visual style. The sets, costumes and props look great and in some cases a bit cartoony. The camera-work is nice to, lots of use of interesting angles. And the acting is decent as well. It was neat to see some other villains than the Dalton gang used this time. But they do go a bit overboard with the crooks. One of the things why I didn't think the sequels to Batman were as good as the first was that they kept adding more and more villains in each film. And as a result the films become somewhat cluttered and didn't have as good focus on all the characters. That is what happens here to, as this film features Pat Poker, Billy the kid, Jesse James and Phil Defer. (And a cameo by Doc Doxey) Some of these seem more like they were added as fanservice and not because they were crucial to the plot.

There are also some pretty dark parts here which clashes with the more light-hearted and comical ones. Like in one scene you have a child witnessing his parents being shot to death and then later you have a goofy desperado play around with lollipops and water-pistols.

Still, it is probably the best live-action adaptation of Lucky Luke to date. I would recommend this over the Terrence Hill film or Les Daltons, but if we're talking Lucky Luke films in general then I would advise you to check out the animated "Go West" instead.

I'm a Lucky Luke fan, I live in Bulgaria and I've seen and read as much as I could get my hands on here. I adore the cartoons, they are entertaining and stick to the style of the comics. I like the Terence Hill TV series - even that they really look quite different from the comic book character designs, they are entertaining in their own way, and watching Terence Hill is always a delight.

When I got to know that a new Lucky Luke film is in the making I got very excited, and when I saw the trailers I thought it looks great and it's going to be lots of fun and a comic book brought to life.

Well, that was partially true. This film is really great from a visual point of view - camera-work, costumes, sets, makeup... The production design stays as close to the comics as possible. There's an apparent care for detail and the film is an eye candy for sure. It's done on a budget, and it looks great on screen.

But the script... That's where the problem is, and that's what ruins the whole experience. I was excited when I got to know that so many characters will appear in the movie - except for Lucky Luke and Jolie Jumper we have also Pat Poker, Jessie James, Billy The Kid, Calamity Jane... But there is no coherent storyline or straight storytelling. The film is constantly swinging between the goofy comedy, the spaghetti western parody and the personal drama of Luke, presented as an orphan who witnessed the murder of his parents as a kid. There are some obscure scenes which seem to me like just randomly thrown around the script. The film couldn't make me involved, I didn't really care what's happening on screen, and after like 50 minutes I found myself bored and almost forcing myself to see the rest. Nevertheless, there were a couple of funny and cool scenes here and there, I especially love the sequence where Lucky Luke appears for the first time in the beginning of the film.

I feel cheated, because it could have been really an amazing movie, with such a great look, if only they paid more attention to the story itself.