Lucky Luke

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".