Powerful

One of my all time favorites.

As Good As It Gets

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

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

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.

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.

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.