Lucky Luke

I don’t really understand all the negative comments about this movie. First off, how do you expect to make a serious impression out of a comic book that didn't even take itself serious? This movie is not to be taken serious, it’s a comedy. (com•e•dy n. pl. com•e•dies 1. a. A dramatic work that is light and often humorous or satirical in tone and that usually contains a happy resolution of the thematic conflict. b. The genre made up of such works.

2. A literary or cinematic work of a comic nature or that uses the themes or methods of comedy. 3. Popular entertainment composed of jokes, satire, or humorous performance. 4. The art of composing or performing comedy. 5. A humorous element of life or literature: the human comedy of political campaigns. 6. A humorous occurrence.)

I read all of Morris and Goscinny’s work when they were at their best. In addition, there was always with a twinkle in their eyes creating this hero what he is today.

IMHO Terence Hill makes a great job capturing that from the comic books and here for those that think Morris made a mistake. (All the movies he was in had an angle with tongue-in-cheek perspective). Why would they continue their collaboration if he (Morris) had not approved of Terence Hill and the screen writing. Terence Hill doesn’t take himself to serious and that shows in his movies. No cussing or questionable “nude” scenes, just pure good old fashion fun. As a movie buff I enjoy a good movie and I don’t judge how and who and why this and that is awful or faithful to whatever the source of a movie. I watch a movie to be entertained without to have to dissect every move or scene I see. This one is great, full of humour and with a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Life’s too short to grumble about how bad this is etc. Enjoy the show, grab a bag of popcorn and kick back in your favourite chair or couch and just have fun.

This sure is a great entertaining film with a talking horse acting and thinking human; but the main premise doesnt make sense, with people wanting a skilled sheriff out, but who cares.

Great movie that honors American natives, and shows off their cultures without humiliating them.

Jumper almost drowning was funny. Yes, TH was trying to show what a super star he is, but thats bcoz he IS. People want to see those stunts. Most Americans are not aware of Terence Hill & Bus Spencer, the comedy action duo of spaghetti-western era. Those who downgraded this movie obviously expect a Spielberg-standard film and have no sense of humor.

You need to appreciate this spaghetti-Italian-superstar guy makin a movie about the Wild West, includes chinese, barfights, damsels & gold rush, all clean, all without too much stupid gunfights. If there was a sequel to this I would sure watch it.

As a kid I didn't appreciate all the Western connotations but now when I watch it again after decades, I think it deserves a place in the Smithsonian library for all things American.

This movie feels like a breath of fresh air compared with today's mostly crappy digitally enhanced movies or superhero crap with 0 humor.

I really wanted to like this movie: firstly, I'm a lifelong fan of the „Lucky Luke"-comics (second only to „Asterix the Gaul"); secondly, like most German kids of my generation, I grew up with the Terence Hill films of the 70's and early 80's. Especially the Spaghetti-Westerns with Bud Spencer, where Hill would play the unwashed, gluttonous yet always fair (and "drawing faster than his own shadow") "Trinity" were cult. Later Hill would sort of reprise the role under the name "Nobody" (or "Nessuno" in the original version), playing a similarly fast and witty, yet cleaner version of "Trinity". In many ways, "Nobody" was a more anarchistic, lawless version of "Lucky Luke".

Indeed, what could go wrong casting Terence Hill in a real "Lucky Luke"-film? Well, theoretically the glove fit Hill like Pierce Brosnan would make the ultimate James Bond – in theory.

Technically both the short-lived series and the film (edited together from the show) are so flawed that they're virtually unwatchable as "Lucky Luke"-films and make it hard to choose what to start with. For one, Terence Hill is roughly 20 years beyond his prime. Had this film been produced in the 70's, Hill could have gotten away with pure panache – in the 90's he simply looks worn out, trying to reproduce the moves from "Trinity"-times.

Hill could have even gotten away, had the "Lucky Luke"-character been named for what it really is: "Nobody" AKA "Nessuno". Even down to the outfit (which has nothing in common with the iconic Lucky Luke outfit), the character had every physical trademark of Nobody but none of Lucky Luke.

The comic-book Luke is a sombre character, who only talks when needed, forever having a rolled cigarette between his lips, virtually unimpressionable but always ready to help those in need of a fast-drawing gunman. But this here is Nobody: somewhere between goofy, super-cool who will occasionally play the simpleton in order to mask his superior wit and imagination.

Trying to find something good to say about "Lucky Luke": the film is good, wholesome, family-friendly fun that can be enjoyed by both young and old – unless you're a hardcore "Lucky Luke"-fan, that is. And it's good to see Terence Hill again even though it's like seeing a relative whom one lost connection with over the decades: one is happy to see them again, reminded of the 'good old days' and still very fond off – but in the back of your head you're thinking that time hasn't been kind to them and that the youthful vigour is forever gone.

I hate to recommend any film featuring Til Schweiger but if you need to feel a real life film about "Lucky Luke", rather go for the 2003 version – at least Lucky is wearing blue jeans, a yellow shirt and a black coat, though I still can't see Lucky Luke without the iconic cigarette.

As a later-Terence Hill vehicle I'd give it six points; as a Lucky Luke film it get's merely four so I'll settle for the middle-ground.

Lucky Luke - a great family film!

I really enjoy this film. It is zany and fun for the whole family! I am proud to have this film in my video collection - the humor is just perfect! It is hard to find a comedy that is free from explicit violence, foul language and sex - but Lucky Luke is just that - pure wholesome fun.

I am not familiar with any prior Lucky Luke cartoons or comics, so I don't know what sacred ground is being tread on, but without that knowledge, Lucky Luke can be enjoyed again and again for what it is!

Terence plays the role just right and Jolly Jumper is a hoot! Sit back and enjoy a prize film!

Created in 1946, Lucky Luke, the "cowboy-who-shoots-faster-than-his-shadow", is the product of a generation raised by the most iconic ambassadors of American cinema: westerns. "Luke's father" Morris knew his classics and every adventure was the opportunity for a fun exploration of one of the many pop-culture aspects of the genre: desperadoes, pioneers, stagecoaches, Indian wars etc. Like I said in my "How the West Was Won" review, you could learn as much about the Old West with Lucky Luke as with John Ford. Yup!

So here we are in 1991, when it's the Belgian cowboy who inspires an American movie. Now, should we say "finally"? It's impossible not to get some "full-circle coming" vibes and "loop closing" delight in the fact that Morris finally made his poor lonesome cowboy get back to his roots... but let's face it, "Lucky Luke" is as American as hot chocolate. As one of the most successful alumni of the French-Belgian school of comic-books (like rivals Asterix or Tintin) its satirical humor can only mock foreign archetypes in a way that would appeal to a European audience. Maybe Terence Hill was too "European" for Lucky Luke.

Indeed, Hill is a popular actor who's made a name for himself thanks to his streak of buddy movies during the 70s-80s with Bud Spencer, together they've made millions of people laugh over the world and it's precisely for the relative 'innocence' and 'childishness' of their action-packed "Laurel-and-Hardy" style that a parody of Lucky Luke could have worked for the European public. It could work with Americans on one condition, wherever to go, you've got to fully get into that area. If you go for plain parody, you adopt the "no-holds-barred" Mel Brooks style, if you want to have your Western Spaghetti with a comedic al dente, you make a lighthearted 'Leone'.

But if you go the "Spencer-Hill" way, at least make sure your Hill is good. And Hill isn't quite good. He's like playing the straight man in a movie without any clowns until the second half starts and by the time the Daltons make their memorable entrance, we've endured a gallery of bland supporting characters supposed to be foils for a Lucky Luke who didn't look any more fun. There's a serious problem when you're more entertained by the voice-over or the stereotypical Chinese laundryman than the film's own hero. Hill played Lucky Luke like a man caught in the middle of strangers, afraid to ask where the bathroom is, while holding a "big one".

And not only Hill didn't look happy but I'm not even sure he enjoyed doing the film. I wouldn't blame his acting rather than the fact that he was 52, not quite the epitome of his youthful good looks and he used to be quite good-looking. The clothes didn't help either, it's even the first thing that struck us in the theater (yes, I have a pretty vivid memory of this film as one of the first I saw on the big screen). As a kid, I was thinking "but this isn't Lucky Luke, why is he blonde? Old? Where is the black vest, yellow shirt?" but even without these superficial elements that bothered my Dad too (he also grew up reading the comics), the film could have worked. But it didn't. Gene Siskel said "with a great casting, 80% of the movie is there", with this film, you have a good counter-argument.

Lucky Luke is more fun to watch during the entire opening credits song than the whole movie. I liked his training with the shadow and his faces with the gopher (and when the shadow outruns him) and I reckon the song is quite catchy, if the film was as good as the credits, it could have afforded to be a cult-classic à la "Johnny Dangerously". But there's nothing funny, intimidating or even badass about Luke, he's just standing, posing, making shots so badly edited they wouldn't have made the cutting room of a 30s second feature, not to mention his dubbing voice slightly above Kung Fu movies' level. When he doesn't act, he rides, he sleeps and rides again, the narration of Jolly Jumper is less a fun device than a yawning antidote.

There are a few good things about the film, I liked Nancy Morgan as Lottie Legs, the Dalton are rather fun with Ron Carey who plays a Pesci version of Tuco, which gets close enough to Joe Dalton and Fretz Seberg was quite a satisfying Averell. When the Daltons pop up, the film's energy is enhanced... for a little while. Joe Dalton finds the town boring and it sounds like a self-referential comment, the Daisy Town in the film doesn't leave much to be interested in... until the Natives' part. But even I, with my mind as open as Fort Alamo, as someone who enjoys the caricatures in Goofy cartoon's "Californyer's Buster" or "Blazing Saddles", I was cringing many times. It's less for the caricatures than the fact the actors weren't even good... as I said, if you want to go for the caricature, do it frankly and responsibly, not shyly, doesn't work with Americans... doesn't work with any audience actually.

The 1990s wasn't exactly a great decade for Lucky Luke. In 1991, the new animated series came out and despite a relative faithfulness to the albums' spirit plot-wise, it lacked the zany energy of the 80s Hanna-Barbera version. Then after what I consider his last great album "The Daltons' Amnesia", the trait of Morris, worsened by age, was going more and more uncertain until he indulged to a practice which I believe is the antithesis of creation: reproducing frames in the same page. I don't think I bought any album made after "The Dalton at the Party" in 1993.

In that unfortunate lackluster context, the movie didn't improve things; and it's quite fitting that its funniest running gag is an interrogation mark over someone's head.