A mythological western tale gone awry with no purpose or sense of direction this follow-up to the breakthrough "Dobermann" is a misdirected waste of talent.Very loosely based on a comic book (to the extent that one has to ask why Jan Kounen actually felt like he needed to call it Blueberry) of the same name it gives an awkward feeling of a movie trying to fulfil the commercial expectations of the financial backers, but at the same time displays a no-holds-barred approach to experimental cinema. The end effect is unfortunately a smelly pile of garbage.The young Mike Blueberry ventures into the wild west as a young lad with hormones a bustlin'. On his first day he hooks up with a pretty and easily wooed hooker and naturally falls in love after hours of sexual intercourse. In comes Wallace Sebastian Blount (Michael Madsen), who has some unsatisfied needs that need satisfying and naturally he chooses Mike's girl. This ends tragically with the 'escort' dead, Wallace half-burnt alive and Mike escaping the scene on horse only to fall into the hands of some wacko-mystical injuns, who save his life, but block out his painful memories. Years later Blueberry is the sheriff in the same small town that initiated the events of the movie. And surely as American films end happily-ever-after Wallace reappears in town... and he is seeking some old injun treasures...Now the above might sound like a breakdown of the script, but unfortunately save for a few stuff I left out IT IS THE WHOLE SCRIPT. This is a massively overblown movie, where the runtime really should have been cut by half. That said it offers scintillating cinematography to fill the script void, but the style is just way overboard and just punctuates the total lack of substance. You get the feeling that the movie is based on two premises: 1) let's get as many slow beautiful shots as possible, so it seems cerebral, 2) and so that the producers don't kill us lets add some cool useless characters with a couple of wacky fight scenes + some needless gore.Actors generally seem not to know what they actually want to convey, whilst random characters are thrown in and wasted in plot less plots (i.e. Djimon Hounsou introduces a strong presence in the character of Woodhead only to be killed off within 30 minutes of the movie). Additionally the acting seems often totally out of place since its reminds you of a Sergio Leone type flick and this is immensely at odds with the supernatural sombre and overly visual mood that is being force fed to the unsuspecting viewers.The movie ends with a five minute screen saver instead of a finale. The only reason anyone may want to reach the end of this is the knowledge that the movie ends with an underwater nude scene with Juliette Lewis. And whilst some people will try to convince you that the movie is just too smart for you... don't believe them. Problems with this massive failure of a movie are twofold: Its too pretentious and phony to get any critics on-board, but at the same time too slow and plot less for people expecting a western. If anyone wants a deep western with great visuals I suggest "The Proposal".

I understand there are some annoyances with this movie that made many people feel it was a letdown or didn't comprehend the story.First of all many fans of the original comics have been offended by this movie. First of all, i have never seen or read the comics which might be a blessing in this case because i find this movie fascinating and simply beautiful to watch. After all this movie never promised to be a true-to-the-original kind of movie, 'loosely based' like people describes it here in IMDb. Therefore i understand why many rejected it.What many people fail to understand when watching this movie is the rather complex way of telling the story. I think many people would expect a more linear way of telling a story when it comes to 'western movies'. But the most important thing you have to understand in order to understand the movie as a whole, is that Mike is reliving, or retelling, his memory through a state of changed consciousness (from the effects of ayahuasca.) Therefore the story is decorated with eyecandy, visual effects that enhances feelings and thoughts and leaves out less important stuff, like how he becomes a man of the law, hence some brutal cuts made in this movie. Some questions are left unanswered, but in my opinion it shows how this movie respects the intelligence of it's viewer. Anyone who's willing to spend time thinking about this movie afterwards will appreaciate it. Anyone who knows that words isn't the only medium that can tell a story will appreaciate this. And if you are willing to open your senses about other cultures it certainly is something for you. Perhaps this movie tells some about the clash of what we can perceive as 'riches', materialistic and spiritualistic.It's a damn fine movie if you consider this when watching it.

It all boils down to Jan Kounen's personality. He likes to play with images, or more precisely to toy with his camera and visuals. Not a bad thing per se provided the guy knows how to tell a story. Now the problem is Jan Kounen went to Mexico and lost any kind of professional outlook he might have. In exchange he discovered Other Worlds, i.e. Worlds inside his soul or whatever you may experience thanks to shamanism.As an audience you don't care about the director's personal journey unless it makes for a good story. It's not that I only stick with down-to-earth narratives: a story should be told mostly visually. Kubrick's 2001 entranced audiences of pot-smoking hippies, but you needn't pot to enjoy the psychedelic ending. As a matter of fact Kubrick never got lost in a project, and that's why some may find his movies too cerebrally cold, but he never indulged in a pseudo personal therapy.Enough with Kounen who never grew up with his camera (it's amazing he never seems to understand a camera may stand still at times), the producers who trusted him even after he lost his professional mind while preparing Blueberry are to be blame before. Too bad for them, the comic book Blueberry is an homage to westerns and the stunning locations of the Wild West (right, Moebius is credited and some shots are a nice tip of the hat to his drawings), with wonderfully scripted adventure (hey guys you lost J-M Charlier in the process, no wonder the story sucked). The original story was a quest for gold, we all end up with a quest for a meaning. Next time please, make the quest for meaning an inside story of the adventure synopsis, thanks.

I must admit that while Jan Kounen made a movie like this, made it base on Blueberry comics, and names the movie 'Blueberry', he surely was asking for trouble. I do understand why many, or dare I say most of the Blueberry fans were riled when they saw the film. That is a shame, since Blueberry truly was and is a very beautiful film, not only visually but story-wise, too: to me, this is a haunting depiction of loosing and finding yourself, facing your inner demons and getting over it by becoming a better person.This movie might also offend and/or shake you, if your view of the world is very rational and materialistic. (This quick-analysis is based on the reactions of my friends after seeing the film, and on the image I have of them as persons. Not very scientific, but seems true. :) The film is very heavy on symbolism, and the narration of the plot is on the spiritual side, quite loaded with shamanistic views, but it is not just a fancy gimmick to mess with your head. Most of all, it's not a weakness in this film, but it's strength. There really is a big truth to be found underneath all the visual candy and mysterious notations. Just be patient and SEE it. ;)Apart from visuals and story, I loved Michael Madsen and his character in it. Blount was riddled with contradictions and filled with both mystique and madness, and the way he materialized it all on the screen with very minimalistic but intense gestures, mostly with his raspy voice. (Of course, you've seen him on screen doing mad things for dozens of times, but you have to admit, he's very good at what he's doing, right?)This could have been a full 10 out of 10 film to me, but I must drop few points from the score, for the film being a bit too long and confusing at times, both in a bad way. A little tightening up of the story here and there wouldn't have hurt the whole package. You might also like to criticize the film for being based _very_ loosely (from what I've heard) on the Blueberry comic books, but that's not my field of speciality, since it's been years since I've read even one Blueberry album, so I leave it for you to decide, whether the liberties taken are a good or bad thing.All in all, a must see for the fans of cinema. With open mind, it might give you a lot. If you like it, I'm sure you'll come back second time. I know I did, and will return again.This is my truth. What is yours?