Clevercell Very disappointing...

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

ma-cortes 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

ElMaruecan82 In 2005, James Huth directed the "Brice de Nice" film with Jean Dujardin, the film met with huge box-office success but it was 'surfing' on the popularity of the character that went suddenly viral in the early 2000's. Brice is a French pop culture icon but the movie had no role to play on that effect. But it worked and since it did, the director and the actor teamed again in 2009 and made "Lucky Luke".It was a childhood dream for the French actor to portray his favorite hero and there's no debate that he was perfect for the role. Physically, the yellow shirt, black jacket and red scarf were tailor made for Dujardin. It's just a pity that the film doesn't exactly know what angle to take for the hero, it tries to be many things: a revisionist half- drama half-comedy Spaghetti-like Western but the humor it adopts works very sporadically and there's no second act whatsoever. The middle-part of the film feels like a drag and becomes dangerously boring until the film recovers and ends in a very interesting finale.I avoided "Lucky Luke" for years thinking it would be one of these sorry excuses for star-studded spectacles with big names but no substance, exactly like "The Daltons", a movie I despised. but the beginning had me strangely drawn. It starts with Luke's childhood and the traumatic witnessing his parents' deaths. That was an iconoclast bit I didn't see coming, but why not? I love a movie that challenges itself and tries to take some distance from the original format. I didn't mind Luke's real name being John (logical since Lucky is a nickname) I actually liked it, a director handles his film as he pleases. It was unexpected and daring, the execution is another matter but I liked the approach.That version of Lucky Luke could have been a drama if it wanted to, or works on a more adult humor like "Rango" did. There's a confrontation between Luke and notorious cheater Pat Poker (Daniel Prevost) that feels pretty atmospheric and Dujardin does look good in the shadows, I was like "am I really watching a Lucky Luke film?" but had the film followed that pattern of weird creativity, it might have been something to be remembered. Now, let me make a chronological leap and say that I thoroughly enjoyed the climactic confrontation in that giant slot machine with Billy the Kid (Michael Youn), Calamity Jane (Sylvie Testud) and Shakespeare wannabe Jesse James (Melvin Poulpaux). It was spectacular in a way that would have made Terry Gilliam proud.But the problem is in the blatant lack of a second act. The middle features the kind of jokes that wouldn't belong to a film with such a start, like in "The Daltons", the parts with Jolly Jumper talking with the voice of Bruno Salomone were mildly funny but they were TV programs or spoof level. It seems as if the producers or directors thought the film needed more peps or zaniness to work with the audience, maybe they were right since the film did good at the box office, but the result is uneven and perplexing. It's almost as plain as the nose on one face: great beginning, great ending, there's no way you can enjoy the middle, it doesn't even exist, it's just plot points totally disjointed that don't even enhance the film but serve lousy gags on a plastic platter.It's a real shame because the film had a lot of potential, Dujardin was good and even Michael Youn finds the right note as Billy the Kid (after some overacting in the beginning), this is a film that could have benefited from a better editing and trimming, and less romantic subplot with Alexandra Lamy. It was still the time of their marriage and naturally, you can watch her without feeling sorry their marriage ended, it seems like her presence was obligatory in every movie her 'Jean' did, I wonder how she feels now about these roles. But she wasn't the worst thing about the film, it is just that some parts were very boring, which is the least thing you expect from the iconic cowboy.To conclude, "Lucky Luke" tries to be as grandstanding as a Western Spaghetti and plays a bit of revisionism but is victim of its own commercial temptations and ends up being a bit too heavy for its own good. And allow me to borrow that line from Telerama journalist who called it "Western Ravioli", whatever it means, it gives you the idea. I don't often borrow lines but it's too tempting, but I couldn't have described the film better.

theolonius 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.

Nenko Genov 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.