User Reviews (14)

Add a Review

  • Don't expect a huge budget or flashy camera work.. This is a mild take on "Lucky Luke" the famous Comic/Cartoon. Luke is played by Terence Hill, that Trinity guy. This is good for the entire family since Hill keeps up his tradition of films without violence, sex, & language. Try finding that these days.. It is great to see Neil Summers as Lukes Deputy Sheriff. Summers played Squirrel in My Name Is Nobody (Remember the scene in the bar where the fella is shooting glasses before they hit the ground.. always grinding his teeth..). Good stuff, Good music too.. The late Roger Miller provides the opening theme, the narration, & the voice of Jolly Jumper while the ending credits has a Arlo Guthrie song. I know a lot of people will not like Lucky Luke, but it's not for everyone, but if you are looking for something for the whole family to enjoy or if you are a big Terence Hill fan it is worth watching.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • yooper-123 August 2004
    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!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Lucky Luke is one of the comedy westerns that Terence Hill made after his earlier pairings with Bud Spencer. It's a standard enough comedy, gently spoofing western conventions and a good family feature given that there's no sex, violence, or bad language in sight. The film itself sees Hill as a gunslinger who arrives in town and becomes sheriff, setting him on a collision course with some conventional bad guys.

    The movie was shot in Las Vegas with a handful of American stars among the Italian players. The story is apparently based on a popular comic strip and the script was written by a couple of comedians. It's far from the funniest thing that Hill ever made but it is about average for the genre. Hill's talking horse was my favourite character. The delightful climax openly spoofs the ending duel in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY to good effect, any fans of the star will enjoy it all the way through.
  • In the 60s, Clint Eastwood rose to fame starring in a series of Spaghetti Westerns as the "Man With No Name" Observing their success, a young Italian actor changed his name to Terence Hill and started cranking out his own version of the wild west. They called him "Trinity" and over time, the Trinity series acquired a cult following. Trinity was an affable, absolutely filthy (although clean shaven) drifter who wandered the Wild West with a smile on his face, fearing nothing. He WAS the fastest gun in the West. If they didn't back down after seeing his dazzling gun play, he set them up for somebody else. Trinity didn't say much, never swore, and never killed anybody. With dubbed English and hoakey fist fights, these films were absolutely stupid! Henry Fonda co-starred in one of the films. Looking a bit older, Terence has ditched the filthy clothes and changed his characters name. Even so, except for the talking horse, it's still a "Trinity" classic. This film strays from the original series in that it was filmed in the US (New Mexico) and utilizes a mostly American cast. Also, they actually spent some money on the soundtrack. Roger Miller wrote and performed the "Ballad of Lucky Luke".

    A lot of fun and laughs. This film demonstrates that it IS possible to have humor without sexual innuendoes, foul language, or off color jokes. Disney could learn something here...
  • 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.
  • This film WAS obviously filmed in the United States. In fact it was filmed in my own home state of New Mexico and in the neighboring state of Arizona. I recognize much of the landscape and could tell that most of this film was made in Northern Arizona surrounding Monument Valley on the Navajo Reservation.

    As for the rest of the movie, it is a wonderful Terrence Hill comedy and I loved every minute of it. Roger Miller adding the Voice of Jolly Jumper was great. This is a great fun family film and I'm happy to share this movie with my young nephews and friends who have young children.
  • cgprogrammer28 April 2008
    This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen!

    For a start "Lucky Luke" didn't look remotely like Luke from the comics, Luke has dark hair, the clothing was all incorrect! How hard could it have been for them to have at least used the correct colours for Lukes clothes? What about his cigarette? Lucky Luke doesn't even stop smoking when he talks!

    Then we have the Dalton brothers, only Avril was any good, Joe was terrible, he ought to have been throwing continuous tantrums, the actor also has a completely "un-Joe" like build.

    I nearly keeled over when I saw the Indian's sending smoke signals, never mind the Indians themselves who didn't sound remotely like Indians.

    Overall this movie was terribly produced.
  • 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 remember what happened. Terrence Hill fell in love with the superb Lucky Luke cartoon and comic book series. He was a movie star, not a big one though, he made only two flicks since this one. He succeed in contacting Lucky Luke's creator, Morris. The cowboy father agreed to let the italian actor do his movie version and a subsequent tv series based on the most popular adventures of Lucky Luke.

    What a mistake it was !

    I love Lucky Luke but god do I hate this stupid movie. It is obvious this wasnt even filmed in the united states even though its supposed to take place in a western universe, with cowboys and indians. Everything is bad, Luke's love interest, the famous Daltons and overall Terrence Hill, he is NOT Lucky Luke, he dont even have the same and famous outfit. Not worth the curiosity, avoid this piece of crap. Dont go near it... Beware !
  • This movie is very bad. The only reason I rented it was because I know someone in it. And by the way, it WAS filmed in the United States (it was filmed here in New Mexico). I think this is supposed to be a comedy, but it was only stupid. Since Terrance Hill directed it too, he has himself in almost every shot. Long, long shots of him just riding a horse or walking or a long look into the camera. This is just a waste of time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Here we have a film called "Lucky Luke" and this one is from 1991, so it will have its 30th anniversary next year. I can still say "next year" because here in my country it is still the old year for approximately four hours, but this is most likely the final review of the year 2020 for me. What a year it has been with the corona mess, but let's not talk about that now and instead take a look at this film we have here. It says 91 minutes here on imdb, but the version that was on German television last night barely ran over 80 minutes, so there are several versions out there, but the one of over 1.5 hours is probably the very longest. I am currently watching everything starring Bud Spencer that I can get my hand on and I know he is not in this movie, but while looking for Spencer's stuff, I came across this one here that stars his longtime co-actor Terence Hill and the two simply belong together, even if they have both made many films too without the other. Just like this one here. I am generally not going for those that only star Hill (or "only" because he is cool enough on his own too), but I thought I'd make an exception here because the comic book character Lucky Luke is of course really famous and fits in nicely with Hill's western background. That was where it all started and where he also had a big of an breakthrough in America before he focused on Europe where his films with Spencer were a huge hit and made really a lot of money too. Maybe not for today's standards, but all these Golden Screen wins in my country for example are fairly self-explanatory. Okay, now really about this one here. It is all about Hill. This was one of his really rare directorial efforts too, the second of his career although he was over 50 already. And the first was from over five years earlier. He did not contribute to the screenplay, but his wife Lori did. Pretty telling that she is also caleld Hill and not Girotti. Hardly anybody recognizes the name Mario Girotti, but everybody (at least here) knows who Terence Hill is. He is in his 80s now. I hope he will still live for a few years. Anyway, this one here is also based on the comics by Goscinny and that I did not know. I immediately make the connection with Asteric the Gaul of course that Goscinny and Uderzo will always be known for, but even if I kinda remembered Lucky Luke was French despite the American name and western background, I did not remember that Goscinny was also a part of this to be honest. I may really wanna check out some of his stuff. Okay, so much for the basics.

    Now a few very specific words on this film. As you can see from the title of my review, I do nit think this was a truly great or creative achievement, but it is watchable enough. Hill isn't a terrible director. As a reference to the comic books, we do not only have the most memorable antagonists in here, namely the Dalton Brothers (all four of them), but they also include small pieces of animation throughout the film. One example would be the clouds from the Indians that they use to talk to other Indians. Or of course the fly that annoys every Dalton during one scene. That was also animated. It also shows that this is more about the comedy altogether. In the real classic westerns, there were actual flies in the faces of the characters. I am of course referring to the opening sequence from the Bronson movie. I am sure everybody knows what I am talking about. But Hill got away with it here. I just mentioned the Daltons already. There were not many really funny moments (about those), but the tallest Dalton got his share, like how the money you get for catching him was so considerably smaller than the money for all the others because he is really incompetent. And also how he eats the fly like a frog. He is really an anti-antagonist and without his brothers, he would not be a bad guy at all probably, but maybe playing piano professionally at some saloon. Yep, there is creative talent to him. As for Hill's Lucky Luke, I remember also the introduction basically when we see him with his trademark shooting technique from the books too. Behind the back and still faster and more precise than anyone. Nothing lucky about his talent there. But even if I like Terence Hill, I am not sure if it was the best choice to play the main character himself. But he did so in the first film he directed, so he did the same here too of course. Still, especially the hair was not perfect and maybe he was also a bit too old at that point already. I mean he sure always played a bit of heartthrob characters during his long career, especially early on, but the bright hair and blue eyes (unusual for Italians) felt so different compared to the Lucky Luke in the books. Maybe he at least should have changed his hair color. Okay, what else is there to say. Story-wise, we got a surprisingly long introduction away from Hill about the founding of Daisytown where this film is set and we see the couple responsible for this special act. And then we are in the now when the place is still thriving, but crime has turned into a problem too, especially when we find out what happened to the last sheriff. Not a thankful job apparently when it is enough for Hill's character to be appointed by a female saying he is the one who should do it and he says okay and that is it. By the way, of course they did not get in the faster than his shadow reference here that is the easies thing to remember about LL from the books. Even I still know that, but technically not possible to put into effect. At least not in the early 1990s. By the way, I wonder if we will soon get a new Lucky Luke film. High time. It's been a long time since this one here and not too many know about it at all because, even if the language is English, this was mostly an Italian production. Okay, what else is there to say? I already mentioned the lady appointing Luke for sheriff and this shows you that there is also again an implied love story here, no surprise with Hill's heartthrob status, but again nothing specific or explicit. Basically just the way it is also in Hill's collaborations with Spencer. As for the Dalton, they try to cause a lot of trouble here and as they know they maybe cannot kill the new sheriff on their own, they try to turn the townsfolk and the Indians too against him, but Lucky Luke is of course to skilled, too competent, too much of a people person and also on too good terms with an Indian chief for this despicable plan to ever come into effect. Finally, one mention of the horse: Jolly Jumper. He is the one narrating the story and that is a nice twist when we find out. Really early on though. But good enough. Also I guess the "lucky" in the title character's name also comes from Jumper's perception here because he deems his owner quite a fool. If he really is and just gets lucky, we will never know. But at least he is a good shooter. That much is safe. Okay, that shall be enough now I suppose. I liked this film overall, but I am not really too enthusiastic about it. It could have done with a better story and also somehow I would have preferred the Daltons to be depicted differently. It seems they were never really sure if they should depict them as fools or as actually dangerous criminals and the middle way was not necessarily a success here with the outcome. Also a bit sad that, although this film is still not even 30 years old, most of the actors are dead already, also the one who provided Jolly with a voice here. His talking almost felt like the banter we usually get from Spencer (i.e. Spencer's character) next to Hill. Only that Hill has no chance to stand up to what his horse is saying this time obviously because only we hear. But there was some solid animal training in here too I would say because Jumper had many scenes really and the horse definitely deserves to be credited too. For example, he had to act (almost) dead on one occasion. This is it then. If you like Hill and/or western movies, then you can check this one out. Being a Lucky Luke fan only is probably not enough and you won't like it too much. Now actually I wonder if Jumper also talked to the readers in the books. I genuinely don't remember if he did or if this was just a creative inclusion for this rather short film here. One more reason for me to check out the base material. Until then, I give the 1991 version of Lucky Luke a thumbs-up. Positively recommended. Also more animals in here. Snakes, cows... And how Luke in the end rode into the sunset was a pretty nice shot too. A bit of a pity Hill did not direct more. For a filmmaker with only one movie he was really decent. I assume he did learn a lot from all the directors of those movies that he starred in over the years. Okay, that is really it now. Bye and have a good 2021.
  • I rate 7+ The scenes between Luke and horse are funny .

    Maybe Terence a bit old compare to the books, I wished he colored is hair dark and have a cig in is mouth.also the 4 Daltons should have more similar faces. music sometime extracted from other Western spag.

    Still, a very commendable version of Lucky Luke and recommended.