Lucky Luke

This movie is very bad. The only reason I rented it was because I know someone in it. And by the way, it WAS filmed in the United States (it was filmed here in New Mexico). I think this is supposed to be a comedy, but it was only stupid. Since Terrance Hill directed it too, he has himself in almost every shot. Long, long shots of him just riding a horse or walking or a long look into the camera. This is just a waste of time.

I really wanted to like this movie: firstly, I'm a lifelong fan of the „Lucky Luke"-comics (second only to „Asterix the Gaul"); secondly, like most German kids of my generation, I grew up with the Terence Hill films of the 70's and early 80's. Especially the Spaghetti-Westerns with Bud Spencer, where Hill would play the unwashed, gluttonous yet always fair (and "drawing faster than his own shadow") "Trinity" were cult. Later Hill would sort of reprise the role under the name "Nobody" (or "Nessuno" in the original version), playing a similarly fast and witty, yet cleaner version of "Trinity". In many ways, "Nobody" was a more anarchistic, lawless version of "Lucky Luke".

Indeed, what could go wrong casting Terence Hill in a real "Lucky Luke"-film? Well, theoretically the glove fit Hill like Pierce Brosnan would make the ultimate James Bond – in theory.

Technically both the short-lived series and the film (edited together from the show) are so flawed that they're virtually unwatchable as "Lucky Luke"-films and make it hard to choose what to start with. For one, Terence Hill is roughly 20 years beyond his prime. Had this film been produced in the 70's, Hill could have gotten away with pure panache – in the 90's he simply looks worn out, trying to reproduce the moves from "Trinity"-times.

Hill could have even gotten away, had the "Lucky Luke"-character been named for what it really is: "Nobody" AKA "Nessuno". Even down to the outfit (which has nothing in common with the iconic Lucky Luke outfit), the character had every physical trademark of Nobody but none of Lucky Luke.

The comic-book Luke is a sombre character, who only talks when needed, forever having a rolled cigarette between his lips, virtually unimpressionable but always ready to help those in need of a fast-drawing gunman. But this here is Nobody: somewhere between goofy, super-cool who will occasionally play the simpleton in order to mask his superior wit and imagination.

Trying to find something good to say about "Lucky Luke": the film is good, wholesome, family-friendly fun that can be enjoyed by both young and old – unless you're a hardcore "Lucky Luke"-fan, that is. And it's good to see Terence Hill again even though it's like seeing a relative whom one lost connection with over the decades: one is happy to see them again, reminded of the 'good old days' and still very fond off – but in the back of your head you're thinking that time hasn't been kind to them and that the youthful vigour is forever gone.

I hate to recommend any film featuring Til Schweiger but if you need to feel a real life film about "Lucky Luke", rather go for the 2003 version – at least Lucky is wearing blue jeans, a yellow shirt and a black coat, though I still can't see Lucky Luke without the iconic cigarette.

As a later-Terence Hill vehicle I'd give it six points; as a Lucky Luke film it get's merely four so I'll settle for the middle-ground.

I don’t really understand all the negative comments about this movie. First off, how do you expect to make a serious impression out of a comic book that didn't even take itself serious? This movie is not to be taken serious, it’s a comedy. (com•e•dy n. pl. com•e•dies 1. a. A dramatic work that is light and often humorous or satirical in tone and that usually contains a happy resolution of the thematic conflict. b. The genre made up of such works.

2. A literary or cinematic work of a comic nature or that uses the themes or methods of comedy. 3. Popular entertainment composed of jokes, satire, or humorous performance. 4. The art of composing or performing comedy. 5. A humorous element of life or literature: the human comedy of political campaigns. 6. A humorous occurrence.)

I read all of Morris and Goscinny’s work when they were at their best. In addition, there was always with a twinkle in their eyes creating this hero what he is today.

IMHO Terence Hill makes a great job capturing that from the comic books and here for those that think Morris made a mistake. (All the movies he was in had an angle with tongue-in-cheek perspective). Why would they continue their collaboration if he (Morris) had not approved of Terence Hill and the screen writing. Terence Hill doesn’t take himself to serious and that shows in his movies. No cussing or questionable “nude” scenes, just pure good old fashion fun. As a movie buff I enjoy a good movie and I don’t judge how and who and why this and that is awful or faithful to whatever the source of a movie. I watch a movie to be entertained without to have to dissect every move or scene I see. This one is great, full of humour and with a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Life’s too short to grumble about how bad this is etc. Enjoy the show, grab a bag of popcorn and kick back in your favourite chair or couch and just have fun.

Lucky Luke .. one of my childhood cartoon heroes! Really dug the comics and remember them fondly. Having said that, some of the decisions made here, especially casting wise do not check with what I remember. Beginning with Terence Hill, whom I love not just as a "sidekick" to Bud Spencer, but he's especially good in those movies.

I only watched this real life adaptation and not the sequel it spawned ... they might have done some things better there once they learned the ropes ... I did watch the French version of this ... which was especially funny because of the way they pronounce Lucky Luke ... I never thought of it be uttered that way. Anyway back to this and the movie is quite ok/decent, but not really that great. You got some interesting mannerisms by Hill and some throwbacks to the comics. One I especially liked was the "talking horse" (well it's more thinking horse, but we can hear its thoughts ... Jolly Jumper for the win) .... I was missing Rantanplan to be honest - but again maybe the sequel had him in it.

This sure is a great entertaining film with a talking horse acting and thinking human; but the main premise doesnt make sense, with people wanting a skilled sheriff out, but who cares.

Great movie that honors American natives, and shows off their cultures without humiliating them.

Jumper almost drowning was funny. Yes, TH was trying to show what a super star he is, but thats bcoz he IS. People want to see those stunts. Most Americans are not aware of Terence Hill & Bus Spencer, the comedy action duo of spaghetti-western era. Those who downgraded this movie obviously expect a Spielberg-standard film and have no sense of humor.

You need to appreciate this spaghetti-Italian-superstar guy makin a movie about the Wild West, includes chinese, barfights, damsels & gold rush, all clean, all without too much stupid gunfights. If there was a sequel to this I would sure watch it.

As a kid I didn't appreciate all the Western connotations but now when I watch it again after decades, I think it deserves a place in the Smithsonian library for all things American.

This movie feels like a breath of fresh air compared with today's mostly crappy digitally enhanced movies or superhero crap with 0 humor.