Any respect director Luc Besson earned from his breakthrough film Leon: The Professional (1994) and to which he’s been clinging for the last 20 years has been completely obliterated with his latest work of nonsensical garbage, Lucy. The biggest problem is not that Lucy is a bad movie – which it is – it’s that Lucy is utterly and indefensibly stupid. The entire premise of the film is based on flawed, pop pseudo-science that has been debunked time and time again and it gets worse from there. Most of the film’s “science” operates under a level of understanding below that of a fifth grader and Besson is either ignorant of his continual flawed logic or thinks so little of his audience’s intelligence that he expects they won’t notice.
The plot of Lucy is predicated on the misconception that, as humans, we only use ten percent of our brain’s cognitive abilities. This fallacy has been definitively debunked and, in 2014, is akin to believing the Sun rotates around the Earth. The film’s dubious scientific basis is spoon fed to us by Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) as he pontificates to a large audience about the potential biological and psychic (yes, psychic; not psychological) effects of enhancing the human brain’s cognitive powers.
Professor Norman’s theories are proven to be mostly correct (in the ludicrous functioning of the universe of the film) when Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) receives a massive exposure to a new synthetic drug that steadily increases her brain’s functioning. With each incremental increase (which Besson is sure to insert on screen for those keeping track), her superpowers grow. Yep, superpowers. Lucy is immediately a martial arts master and expert marksman, able to take down a handful of criminal types during an escape from the imprisonment in which she inexplicably finds herself.
First, Lucy needs to get the remainder of the drug out of her body – the bag she was carrying in her abdomen ruptured, releasing the chemicals – and then she track down Mr. Jang (Min-sik Choi), the crime lord who forced her to be a drug mule in the first place. Even though Lucy has killed at least ten people by this point in the movie, she lets Mr. Jang live (because Besson needed more story for later). Lucy is soon able to telepathically manipulate electronic signals of every type and she uses this ability to connect with a Paris police captain, Pierre Del Rio (Amr Waked), to intercept the remaining drug mules who are going to introduce the new product all over Europe.
Lucy is just dumb. There is no other way to describe it. Written and directed by Besson, it creates a world that has no rules or laws of nature and so his heroine has unlimited powers and potential for infinite growth. This does not make for an engaging film because anyone could come up with fantastical things for a character to do. Even a garbage heap like Transcendence set limitations and barriers for the nearly omnipotent central character. I thought it would be years before we saw a film worse than Transcendence, but Besson has delivered within months. The idea that a synthetic chemical could affect a person’s biology is grounded in reality and a concept that could be pushed to fun and intriguing limits. But, a person’s biology, no matter how artificially altered, does not outweigh the physical laws of the universe. This is a distinction Besson is unwilling to consider.
Whether Johansson received any sort of direction or suggestions from is questionable. As Lucy’s intelligence grows she becomes less human and more robotic. However, her motivations become rather hazy as she takes a needlessly circuitous path to end up face-to-face with Norman. Her primary goal is also never explained even during the film’s laughable finale. There’s not much Johansson could plausibly do with the role, so she just channels Sheldon Cooper and hopes for the best.
Without a single redeemable quality, Lucy has secured its place as the worst film of 2014 so far and quite possibly the stupidest film ever made.
Grade: F
oh wow! That was unexpected :'(
ReplyDeleteSounds like your problem stems from the fact they are using a slightly outdated premise. I for one, don't give a damn. This movie looks freakin' awesome and I can't wait to see it.
ReplyDeleteSomebody's exaggerating. Even if the film is as awful as stated (I'll take your word for that), it surely does have redeemable qualities in a very strong cast and stunning visuals (going by what the tv adverts have seen), so I take that as enough entertainment to say it's much better than a lot of the crap this year has been putting out... Sex Tape, Tammy, The Purge: Anarchy, Transformers: Age of Extinction, A Haunted House 2, The Other Woman, etc.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of exaggeration on your end, I am disappointed to hear the negativity towards the film from all reviewers. What a shame. The trailer and tv promos make Lucy look like one of the best of the year. Ah, well... :(
Some people just can't see the value in a well made popcorn flick. Not all movies can be and definitely should NOT BE prententious philosophical efforts or have a statement to make. And as long as it follows its own rules and makes sense within itself, it doesn't matter how unrealistic the plot devices are for our own reality.
ReplyDeleteNot that I know this is going to be a well made popcorn flick but I've seen no firsthand evidence to suggest otherwise.
What happened to the days when people just enjoyed action movies and didn't pick it apart and try to find a deeper meaning to it, then trash it when there isn't one.
ReplyDelete"The idea that a synthetic chemical could affect a person’s biology is grounded in reality..." hmrmr it's called medecine! "no matter how artificially altered, does not outweigh the physical laws of the universe.' i hope you say the same for almost every super heroe movies out there... from spiderman to wolverines
ReplyDeleteThanks for this review, definitely nit watching now. I thought it was going to be a female version of Bradley cooper's "Limitless" (already pretty poor, in my humble opinion), but this sounds much worse.
ReplyDeleteI was so disappointed that the entire plot was based on the 10% of the brain being used crap. I loved your comparison that it's akin to the sun revolving around the Earth.
ReplyDeleteThis is based on a novel, so Luc Besson isn't really the one to attack with logic flaws here.
ReplyDeletejust got back from a screener of this. It really is truly bad.
ReplyDelete"Besson is either ignorant of his continual flawed logic or thinks so
ReplyDeletelittle of his audience’s intelligence that he expects they won’t notice"
Or he simply accepts the truth: They won't care.
I never understood why certain things are such sticking points for people. Would you go back to all the truly great action films and give them an 'F' because they don't accurately depict a shootout("Those car doors wouldn't stop bullets!") or because the protagonist should be brain dead from repeated concussive blows("That's not how getting knocked out works at all!")?
I'm sure this movie has other problems(like the plotting issues you described), and probably won't be very good, but getting so hung up on the premise makes you seem like nothing more than an angry pedant.
Ouch, pretty harsh review there buy enjoy reading them none the less! DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES is easily the best film of 2014 that isn't a Marvel or DC film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you regarding the need for a "deeper meaning." However, bad science -- or rather, inconsistent science -- can be a deal breaker for me. To be more precise: I hate it when a story doesn't adhere to the premises it itself set up when creating the universe in which ít is based. I.e., I don't mind if the premise of the story and the laws governing the universe in which it is set are far-fetched or even ludicrous, but please stick to them...i.e., create a consistent universe and then try to write a riveting story within the boundaries that you have set for that universe.
ReplyDeleteOur newspaper's movie critic didn't like it either.
ReplyDeleteI very much love the 'artsy-fartsy' type so long as it stays out of pretentious zones. I tend to have difficulty watching a film or a show that doesn't try to say anything at all, and is instead just events occurring for the sake of comedy or action.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I also do love a good 'popcorn flick.' Not everything has to have a level of deep meaning behind it, or artistic cinematography. I'll be quit happy with something that sets its own rules and abides by them for the sake of a good romp.
My issue here, is that the ads for Lucy don't paint it as a good one-off romp, it looks like it's going to be an exciting and thrilling warning of hubris. It looks like it's set to be beautiful, well performed and steadily directed. Is it what I had been believing it to be? In which case, just how high was the bet set that critics alike are panning the film? It's become clear that Lucy isn't going to be the film that I've been hoping for, but is it still going to be enjoyable for me on any level? It does indeed sound like it's a well-produced popcorn flick, which as you noted, seems to be a suddenly hated art. I guess time will tell when I rent Lucy some months from now.
This is the worst film I have seen, start to finish. I love action movies, sci-fi, and fantasy. Some of my favorites are Wanted, Inception, Shoot Em Up, Crank, The Matrix, The Fifth Element, Total Recall, District B13 etc. which some folks say are terrible (at least some of them, and I do really love some of the movies Besson has been involved in). Hell, I can even enjoy any of the Transformers movies. This was simply atrocious. I thought it would be bad, but it vastly excited my expectations, and really raised the bar for what I would consider a terrible movie. There is a three minute scene of animals and humans giving birth...and the afterbirth. There is another hilarious scene where the bad guys in the hall are "floated" up the ceiling. It is done so poorly. The six guys are hanging from a cable, flailing and air-punching around. It just looks hilarious. B-movie, but not in an awesome, kitschy way. I don't want to spoil the ending, but the last 20 minutes or so are just so mind-blowingly terrible and non-sensical, and the CGI looks like something a college freshman would do as a class project. My theory is that they realized that the movie was so god awful, that the only way to make any money was spend every leftover dollar on advertising and pumping up the big name stars. After reading the reviews, my mind was even more blown. A 64% on Rotten Tomatoes?!?! Definitely did a "I don't want to live on this planet anymore." They dumped The Matrix (heavy on the scene w/ The Architect) + 2001 A Space Odyssey + Transcendence + Limitless + Jumper + X-Men + Crank + Wanted + Inception + The Fifth Element + Shoot Em Up (which aside from the terrible Transcendence, Limitless and Jumper, I freaking loved the rest of these!!) into one of those Ninja Will It Blend?? blenders, liquified it into something with no structure, logic, or coherency, skimmed the frothy scum off the top, and turned it into a movie.
ReplyDeleteHad no idea. Think I will have to read it. I can't find any info on it though - what is the book it is based on?
ReplyDeletePlease do, and come back and post. Genuinely interested in getting the take of others on this.
ReplyDeleteI saw it last night. I wouldn't call it stupid so much as illogical. There is no good reason for her not to kill the head mobster or whatever when she killed probably ten people to get to him to prove she was still alive and rub his face in it. Now let's say she had a real reason to not kill him the first time. Considering her new "superpowers", which she constantly uses, she could've easily killed him with just her mind at ANY point in the remainder of the movie which completely eliminates the purpose of the last 20-30mis of the film. Also if the drug was killing her when it was in the stomach because of the dose, her injecting it into her veins at roughly 4x the dose should've killed her instantly in lieu of her transcendence into matter or energy or whatever the hell it was. If she could travel through time at 99% why didn't she just travel to the damn hallway and kill the mob guy??! You know what? Maybe it was stupid. I was just so disappointed. I didn't have a problem with the pseudo science they had going on, but if you are going to do that at least be firm about it and follow a sensible storyline.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was so bad! Several people leaving the theaters could be heard stating the same. The reviewer is spot on. The National Geographic style clips thrown in all over the place got so old. A very poor fim with elements of Lawnmower Man, Matrix and Planet of the Apes -all of which are exponentially better than this turd. If she is so smart, why would she not kill the kingpin? And her powers have no limits. Really? Don't waste your money.
ReplyDeleteI've read several reviews (by movie viewers, not official critics) on Lucy, and they were almost all like this. So glad I did not waste my money to go see it.
ReplyDelete