Lucky Luke

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.

Based on the classic characters from comic books by Morris and Goscinny , that was never meant to be an accuracy description of the existence in the Far West , but a fun satire or spoof . This amusing and funny film contains an entertaining but absurd plot , western action, crossfire , bits of campy and embarrassing humor , historical inaccuracies , and factual errors. The film deals with the famous fearless gunslinger hero from French comic books , Lucky Luke : Jean Dujardin , who is assigned by the US President to make up Daisy Town ; though , unfortunately, here doesn't appears his likeable dog . There Luke , along with his beloved speaking horse Jollie Jumper , take on dangerous gunfighters as Pat Poker , Billy the Kid : Michael Youn , and about to be hanged , being saved by Calamity Jane : Sylvie Testud and Jesse James : Melvin Poupad . Meanwhile , Luke falls in love for a beautiful girl, Belle : Alexandra Lamy .

This is an acceptable rendition packed with ridiculous situations , anachronisms , noisy action , shootouts , thrills , exaggerated characters , tongue in cheek , and lots of silly humor. Jean Dujardin is pretty well as the gunman who is ordened by the USA President to bring peace to Daisy Town where he has problems .Here Lucky suffers sad records when being a child : Mathias Sandor as young Luke , witnessed the killing of his parents . This Luke character attracted certain controversy for a gunfighter smoker ; however , considered to be one of the most popular French comic books , along with Asterix and Obelix , both of them created by Rene Goscinny . It is usually balancing among Terence Hill/Bud Spencer style movies , Lucky Luke personal drama , goofy humor , Spaghetti Western and guaranteeing gun-play , fights or stunts every few minutes. Amiable but sometimes lumbering Western satire goes on and on about the same premise , as a lot of escenes are superfluous .

The prestigious musician Bruno Coulais composes an attractive soundtrack with catching leitmotif and well conducted . Colorful and sunny cinematography by Stephane Le Parc . The motion picture was professionally directed by James Huth , though it has some flaws and gaps . He is a good writer , producer , and director who has made some decent films , such as Brice 3 , Hellphone , Serial cover , Brice de Nice and Happiness never comes alone .

Other retelling about Lucky Luke are the followings : " Lucky Luke Television series" , 8 episodes, starred and directed by Terence Hill . "Lucky Luke and the Daltons" 2004 by Philippe Haim with Til Schweiger , Ramzy Bedia , Berger , Javivi . And cartoon movie version as "Go west : a Lucky Luke adventure" 2007 ; "the new adventures of Lucky Luke" , "Ballade Del Dalton" 1978 , and "Lucky Luke the intrepid" 1971

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.

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.