Lucky Luke (2009)

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.

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.

What a boring mess ! A few funny scenes, most of them in the trailers.Apart from the names of the places and the characters, very little material from the comics.And, worst sin, the main character is a total impostor, completely different from the "real" LL, the one created by Goscinny and Morris, the one we love since childhood.The one redeeming feature is the Pat Poker character played by Daniel Prévost, who does a wonderful job as usual.Specially lame is the whole 'Belle' subplot, probably only added to justify the presence on screen of Dujardin's wife.

How to summarize my feelings after having seen this movie? mixed at best... Jean Dujardin is still a great actor and his depiction of Lucky Luke is a true representative of his strengths. The cast is also good and funny. However, the scenario is dubious. The plot is weak, with pieces from various albums being thrown into the mix relatively randomly rather than forming a consistent movie. As a true fan of "Bande Dessinee", it is good to see live version of some of the characters forming the true spine of Lucky Luke but it still feels like some kind of elaborate parody of Lucky Luke rather than a true depiction. Diving into the youth of Luke, with such "tragic" origins feels misplaced too... only the relationship with Belle was a welcome and funny innovation. As a summary: should have been better. Luke, Dujardin, Morris and Goscinny deserve better!