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.

imdb-4055 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.

Jep_Gambardella 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.

leplatypus 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!