A Masterpiece!

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

I am an American who never really read any Lucky Luke comics. I watched this movie on the strength of its trailer, and the fact that I am an enormous fan of Goscinny's other creation, Asterix the Gaul.Die hard Lucky Luke fans seem to dislike this movie as being untrue to the comic books, whereas people unfamiliar with the comics seem to enjoy the movie more.I definitely fall into the latter category. I found the movie to be, generally, very pleasant, very stylish, and well-acted. From what little I know of Lucky Luke's character, I don't think the movie diverged very far from the spirit of the comics. Lucky Luke was given a back-story in the movie, and a fairly dark one, at that. It worked in the movie, I don't know how much it would have upset me, had I been a real fan of the comics.The biggest fault I found with the movie was that the script was very weak in parts, and felt VERY rushed. I would have liked more time in the beginning of the film, to establish Daisy Town, and Luke's efforts to clean up the town. More time could have also been spent, establishing the character of the villain, Pat Poker. The movie relied on the viewer having past knowledge of many of the character, but in particular, Pat Poker had a very vague character definition.The settings were wonderful, and the real stand-out, in my mind, was the climax of the movie, which took place in Pat Poker's hideout, It was an absolutely beautiful set, which, for me, was worth the price of admission.I'm actually pretty surprised that this movie didn't get released in this country. It was a pretty solid action-comedy with good acting, and great style. I found that these positives made up for occasional weaknesses in the writing.

Unlike 99% of the English-speaking population of North America, I have some familiarity with the French "Lucky Luke" comic books. The filmmakers of this cinematic adaptation managed to get some things right. The production values, for one thing, are top-notch. The locations (the film was shot in Argentina) look gorgeous and look like the American west, and the sets are elaborate and eye-catching. Also, the actor chosen to play Lucky Luke was a good choice, looking somewhat like how the character appears in the comics, and has some natural comic talent.Unfortunately, despite positive points like those, the movie has some serious problems that make me unable to recommend it. For one thing, there is barely a plot here, and things are stretched out to last 105 minutes. There are also some inconsistencies, like how some signs are in English, and others are in French. But what really sinks the movie is its tone. The comics were breezy and amusing, but this movie for the most part plays out in a surprisingly bleak and dark manner. There's no joy or amusement here.Even if you are curious about how France tries to compete against Hollywood blockbusters, I recommend that you skip this movie and try something better, like "The Crimson Rivers" or even "Don't Die Too Hard".

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.

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!