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.

Lucky Luke is a great character. The comics are fun and funny and usually send up Westerns in amusing ways. This film is rather confusing in its tone. It is still a bit bizarre and cartoonish, with talking horses, people hiding in barrels, and Luke's ability to never miss. But then some of the thematic elements are insanely dark. It starts with the murder of Luke's parents, and at one point he considers suicide after making his first kill, something he swore he would never do. The humour can also be peculiar, such as Luke slapping a woman in the face as it's part of his tradition. That was actually the biggest laugh because it took me completely off guard. The film also has poor pacing, as there isn't one strong plot, but about 5 weak ones. It seems like a TV show edited down into a feature length film, with each segment having a clear beginning and end. Dujardin is great in the role, and gives us a likable cartoon hero that also has depth. The film looks amazing, with sweeping landscapes, brilliant costumes, and some inventive transitions and editing. I didn't laugh as much as I should, but I still enjoyed it, even if just because it had a unique tone.

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.

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.