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.
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.