Synopsis: James Huth helms this live-action adaptation of the long-running Belgian comic book series — first published in the 1940s — that is equal parts homage to and a parody of the American Wild West. French comedian Jean Dujardin stars as the titular gunslinger, a rootin’ tootin’ cowboy who brings law and order to Daisy Town with the help of his loyal talking horse, Jolly Jumper. Along the way, Lucky Luke encounters various historical figures, each portrayed by a virtual who’s who of contemporary French actors: Jesse James (Melvil Poupaud), Calamity Jane (Sylvie Testud), Belle Starr (Alexandra Lamy), and Billy the Kid (Michael Youn).

***********************************************************************

Lucky Luke (2009) 6.0

I want to like Lucky Luke. I really do. And by “Lucky Luke”, I mean everything that is related to the series of books by Morris and Goscinny.

Lucky Luke books were pretty much omnipresent during my childhood. It was in the top 5 of comic strips, after Tintin, Astérix, Les schtroumpfs, and perhaps even Gaston Lagaffe. But I never got into it for some unfathomable reason.

There were a few feature-length cartoons that played on TV yearly at Christmas time, along with the Astérix films, and I found those relatively enjoyable. They became staples. But the books? Never. And the TV series that eventually came around? Not at all.

And yet, despite my general disinterest, I always felt that I was missing out, that there was something everyone else got that I didn’t. So I keep giving it a shot, fuelled partly by those cartoon films and, more recently, a live-action film based on Lucky Luke’s arch enemies, The Daltons.

When I found out that this new Lucky Luke film featured Jean Dujardin (‘OSS 117’, ‘L’artiste’) in the lead, I couldn’t help but hope for the best. I mean, I like the comedian quite a bit, and my first glance at the film was a pleasant surprise: Lucky Luke actually looked like a credible version of the comic book character – unlike the one played by Terence Hill in 1991.

Unfortunately, while Dujardin looks and sounds the part, he didn’t emanate Lucky Luke’s cool quite like he should have. For reasons unknown, he tried to make him more three-dimentional than I recall Luke being (I know that three-dimensional characterizations should be lauded, but if it changes the character, then it’s an ungood thing in my book). Seeing as Lucky Luke expresses himself minimally, even smiling should be limited – whereas Dujardin’s trademark is a toothy grin.

They also decided to give the character an origin. Lord knows why they did this seeing as, out of over 70 books, Lucky Luke’s back-story was never explained. In ‘Lucky Luke’, however, we are told that his actual name is John Luke and he was nick-named “Lucky” Luke because of his good fortune. Silly, really, but if you MUST explain it then it’s okay. Still, it annoyed me to have people call him John half of the time; it seemed incongruous, much like it would be if someone called Wolverine “Johnny” (oh, wait… scratch that! )

The whole origin story is cliché-ridden, as is the rest of the film. What’s amazing is that Lucky Luke comics were a caricature of Westerns, but this film, instead of being a caricature, borrows heavily from over-used and over-heated elements, such a betrayal, a romantic entanglement, and this afore-mentioned corny backstory that made Lucky Luke into an orphan. And a half-indian. No joke. I can’t quite put my finger on specific references, but I know I’ve seen that a gajillion times before.

Another annoying convention that ‘Lucky Luke’ falls for like a thirsty drifter does for a saloon is that, whenever a new character is introduced in a pre-conceived universe, he or she is usually a throw-away – after all, the filmmakers wouldn’t dare mess with staples of the source material, so they introduce new ones that they can toss at will. They are “red shirts”, so to speak.

Of course, the audience, if even remotely alert, will know what is going on and will immediately know that this person will be killed or will be the bad guy. Or both. And this kind of ruins the fun – as much as it does when they mess with the characters like they did in the first ‘Mission Impossible’ film. How dare they? So it’s always just best to leave it alone and actually use your imagination to come up with an original adventure for the characters – or simply adapt the source material right out.

Beyond this, ‘Lucky Luke’ isn’t a bad film. Not at all. But I found it dreadfully boring, unenjoyable. I wanted to like it, but maybe I missed allusions that were too clever for me or too rooted in a genre that I tend to avoid. Or maybe there were references to the books that I didn’t get because I’m not really a fan; perhaps people more familiar with the books got something out of it that I didn’t, but I was left cold.

Even the final set piece failed to inspire enthusiasm from me. It should have, since it’s the final showdown with our bad guy, and there are a few “surprises” or great reveals before and during that sequence, but I was strangely disinterested, detached. Which could easily be due to a lack of humour from the get-go, quite frankly: I found most of the film to be drab drama and dull action – it wasn’t funny or amusing enough for me.

So I found ‘Lucky Luke’ terribly disappointing. It’s not a terrible film, per se, and I’m sure it has its fans, but I found that I was left quite unstirred by any of it. The highlight, by far, was Jean Dujardin – and even he wasn’t picture-perfect.

“I’m a poor lonesome cow-boy and a long long way from home.”

And so continues my lonely journey on that side of the pop landscape, undeterred, but uninspired by even a glimmer of hope. Perhaps someday I will finally understand what Lucky Luke is all about. Perhaps.