Lucky Luke

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.

Lucky Luke is a great character. The comics are fun and funny and usually send up Westerns in amusing ways. This film is rather confusing in its tone. It is still a bit bizarre and cartoonish, with talking horses, people hiding in barrels, and Luke's ability to never miss. But then some of the thematic elements are insanely dark. It starts with the murder of Luke's parents, and at one point he considers suicide after making his first kill, something he swore he would never do. The humour can also be peculiar, such as Luke slapping a woman in the face as it's part of his tradition. That was actually the biggest laugh because it took me completely off guard. The film also has poor pacing, as there isn't one strong plot, but about 5 weak ones. It seems like a TV show edited down into a feature length film, with each segment having a clear beginning and end. Dujardin is great in the role, and gives us a likable cartoon hero that also has depth. The film looks amazing, with sweeping landscapes, brilliant costumes, and some inventive transitions and editing. I didn't laugh as much as I should, but I still enjoyed it, even if just because it had a unique tone.

Unlike 99% of the English-speaking population of North America, I have some familiarity with the French "Lucky Luke" comic books. The filmmakers of this cinematic adaptation managed to get some things right. The production values, for one thing, are top-notch. The locations (the film was shot in Argentina) look gorgeous and look like the American west, and the sets are elaborate and eye-catching. Also, the actor chosen to play Lucky Luke was a good choice, looking somewhat like how the character appears in the comics, and has some natural comic talent.

Unfortunately, despite positive points like those, the movie has some serious problems that make me unable to recommend it. For one thing, there is barely a plot here, and things are stretched out to last 105 minutes. There are also some inconsistencies, like how some signs are in English, and others are in French. But what really sinks the movie is its tone. The comics were breezy and amusing, but this movie for the most part plays out in a surprisingly bleak and dark manner. There's no joy or amusement here.

Even if you are curious about how France tries to compete against Hollywood blockbusters, I recommend that you skip this movie and try something better, like "The Crimson Rivers" or even "Don't Die Too Hard".

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.

On the bright side, the to date latest installment of Lucky Luke on the big screen can brag with great sets, customes and make-up and even some CGI one wouldn't expect from a movie that was shot on a budget of 27 million Euros (approximatly 36 million Dollars).

The obvious downside is what the movie was widely criticized for: the plot. While it has it's troubles following or even developing a story, some character traits are somewhat disregarding the comic original.

Its biggest problem still is that the movie cannot decide whether it wants to approach a western setting via emphasizing action, drama or comedy. It succeeds in neither of these approaches, leaving the audience unsatisfied. This makes it also difficult to tell which would be the appropriate audience. While the comedic reliefs are definitely hitting the sense of humor of eight year olds, the action and drama parts are far more suitable for older viewers. Or would you want your kids to see one of their comic heroes suffer a psychotic breakdown for murdering people?

The quality of acting varies both with the actors as well as in different scenes. Summed up it could be considered as adequate.

The director has some really interesting shots and angles but keeps overusing them to an extend that completely different scenes on different sets give you the feeling it was the very same scene repeated once more. Less would have been more.

If you are a die hard fan of Lucky Luke, french movies or one of the actors, it can be recommended. If you are looking for a western, a family movie or simply quality entertainment, skip this one.