Lucky Luke (2009)

The Age of Commercialism

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

I had no preconceptions on this film, I just bought the DVD in France as it had English sub-titles, I did not know anything of the book etc. I was rolling about with laughter, and I am hard to please, but this is the best spoof western since Blazing Saddles, and IMHO sometimes beats it. Do let the false prophets deter you, or the "I have read the book brigade", take it for what it is, a western comedy, and you will enjoy it. I am hoping they make a sequel to this, and this time put it on release in England with sub-titles again, and I will buy it without hesitation, it is very imaginative and fresh. If you like Blazing Saddles you should love this too.

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.

This was the choice of the kid and I was pleased to accompany him and made it possible for him. Thanks to him, I have discovered a lot of movies that alone I would never have watched.About this movie, like their American cousins, French-Belgium comics are adapted for screen: after Asterix, Largo Winch and now the lonesome cowboy. But except Tintin, XIII, Schtroumphs (Smurfs), I never read French-Belgium comics so I can't judge this adaptation and can only tell what I felt: I find it dark and gritty: Along Spiderman, Daredevil, Batman, this Lucky is a traumatized orphan and seeks revenge and absolution. As I said about "Bad Girls", western is a very restricted genre and there isn't surprises here.Worst, all the cast is dull: Poupaud? The US President? Sylvie Testud as Calamity Jane? But we aren't in shortage of cool people! On the other hand, the final is rather enjoyable because the set is cool: This Poker Man shares the same taste as the Joker! Above all, Michael Youn is irresistible: as the never grown-up he is, he delivers a very funny characterization. But his name isn't the title, so the movie gets feathers and tar!