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.

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.

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.

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".