Lucy (2014)

J Riff

The Ants are my friends..
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
5,034
Location
Sleeping in Lab
Well, will be interesting to see what people think of this rather hopeful SF film.
Lucy could be anyone, and she gets drawn into the world of big-time drug dealers, and from there the accidental experiment begins. She becomes more than human. There is a lot of imagery, nature shots, time-lapse etc.
Was enjoyable while on, and has a happy ending, technically.... with Lucy as the new supreme being. Or something like that.
 
I saw the trailer and it looked pretty interesting. I'm a bit of a Luc Besson fan so I do want to go and see it.
 
Watched Lucy last night, and enjoyed it. The original post is a bit of a spoiler but I don't think there was any other way to "end" this film!
I'd give it a 7/10 overall..
 
It's fun and an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours but a bit like the Taken films you don't really want to think about it too much.
 
Good point.. I kinda thought there were 2 movies going on at once, the "action" film and the high-concept sci-fi - especially in the final act.
 
In talking with some friends, I found there was no in between. Peopled either reported having loved it, or hated it. Being a father of three, and making it to the theater vary rarely, I think this will be a 4.99 rental for me when it comes out.
 
I agree with all previous comments: It was a high concept sci-fi idea, with an unmistakeable Luc Besson feel. I rather liked it, probably also a 7/10, but my son absolutely hates it and told me not to bother.

My problem was that if she had such a very short time to live, why did she spend all that time chasing the drug couriers and antagonising the drug dealers? With her new found super-powers she could surely have analysed the drug and produced more of the same. If it was a drug produced by pregnant women then it would be even easier. Of course, the shoot-outs and racing cars make it all more urgent, and add action and suspense to a film that would otherwise be a little boring and too high concept for most people.

One other thing, at 89 minutes long it is quite a bit shorter than most recent films. I find that a welcome change; I can't stand these films over 3 hours. For me the time flashed by and I was kept interested all the way.
 
Last edited:
If you've seen the trailer than you've seen probably 80% of the action in this film.

Started out strong - a bit weak on the character development. The gangstas seem to have free rein with no cops until the action moves to Paris and even then they're unloading a car boot load of assault rifles unmolested as a bunch of police officers just stroll by a few feet away.

In one scene (it's in the trailer so not a spoiler) she waves a finger and everyone falls asleep, bullets fall out of guns. They're all cops out to arrest her.

In an extremely similar scene, except gangstas not cops, she decides rather than knock them out or, even better, just kill them - she would just levitate them instead, leaving them free to come back and have another go later on - pffft.

Also: Extreme intellegence = sociopathic personality, except she's perfectly capble of being sentimental when the plot requires it.

The ending wanted to be 2001 A Space Odyssey. It failed. Left me wishing I could take back the previous 90-minutes of my life.
 
Lucy feels a bit short and under explained. Never the less, Scarlett Johansson is iconic and stars in one of the coolest, smartest action movies of the summer.
 
Lucy feels a bit ...under explained.
You seriously think that? You watched that huge info-dump of a lecture by Morgan Freeman that took up a large part of the first 30 minutes, and then had keynotes repeated through the rest of the film? It was like watching a science documentary.
 
An extract from my SFF blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.co.uk/

The plot of this film initially seems like a standard "accidental superhero" story: heroine Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) receives a massive overdose of a new drug and acquires superpowers which enable her to gain revenge on those who have mistreated her. In reality, however, that is only the starting point of a highly ambitious tale which heads off in an unusual direction. The problem is that the basic premise of the story is flawed but, if you can swallow that, the film is well worth watching. If you'd rather find out for yourself then you had better stop reading as the rest of this review contains spoilers.

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

Let's get the basic flaw out of the way first: that is the claim that humans only use a small percentage of our brains and that anything would be possible if we could substantially increase this. We see a scientist (Morgan Freeman) giving a lecture on this subject in a parallel plot thread which converges with the main thread when Lucy tracks him down to ask for his help. The problem is that this widely-popular notion is not true; neuroscientists, who have ever more sophisticated tools for studying how our brains work, state that we do in fact have a use for every part of them. This should come as no surprise, given the evolutionary imperative of "use it or lose it"; our huge brains absorb huge resources to make and maintain, and if we failed to use 90% of them, we wouldn't keep them for long.

This rather undermines the whole basis of the plot, and the dramatic way in which a number flashes up on screen from time to time to show the steady percentage increase in Lucy's use of her brain as the drug increases the neural connections. Also unconvincing are the consequences of this in terms of instant superpowers, fully developed and under control. Ultimately she attains near god-like powers, but she realises that this rapid evolution of her cells will have an inevitable conclusion within a matter of hours: her own death. There are echoes here of Flowers for Algernon, although Lucy is much more complicated, messy, fast-moving and violent than Keyes' classic tale.

Despite the flaws there is much to enjoy. First and foremost is Johansson's performance; I am not a fan of hers but I have to admit that she carries this film, giving an excellent performance while appearing in almost every scene. Then there are the playful moments that Luc Besson inserts: initially, as the helpless innocent Lucy has gang members closing in on her, the action is interspersed with clips of predators menacingly closing in on their prey. The impressive CGI takes centre stage in the finale, and the whole film is packed with such interesting detail that I would happily sit down and watch it again – not something I could say about many films.
 
Just watched this last night because it had drifted down the release window path to cable. I found it enjoyable, despite the false premise of unused human mental capacity.
The ending wanted to be 2001 A Space Odyssey. It failed. Left me wishing I could take back the previous 90-minutes of my life.
I saw the similarity to 2001: A Space Odyssey in the opening as well as the ending. I wholeheartedly agree: In no way does this film rise to the level of that Clarke/Kubrick masterpiece.
I kinda thought there were 2 movies going on at once, the "action" film and the high-concept sci-fi - especially in the final act.
I thought that the duality of this movie weighed in much more heavily on the action than the high-concept side.
The impressive CGI takes centre stage in the finale, and the whole film is packed with such interesting detail that I would happily sit down and watch it again – not something I could say about many films.
In the past, I've had a tendency to rush out and buy the latest movie of interest as soon as it was released on video. That has resulted in quite a few "watch once" discs taking up space on my home theater shelves. I'm happy that I waited until Lucy became "free"' on cable because I don't think I would watch it again.
 
I finally saw the film. and thought overall , it was quite good . I liked the transcendence concept. (y)
 

Similar threads


Back
Top