Has Anyone Seen Lucy Yet?

[Palanan]

I'm wondering if anyone's seen "Lucy," and whether it's worth a look.

I've been really on the fence about this one. I'm assuming that the title is a cute allusion to the famous Australopithecus, with the title character as the next step in human evolution, yadda yadda. With that premise, it could be interesting and intelligent, or it could be truly awful.

So, if anyone's seen it yet: worthwhile?



(No spoilers, please--just looking for a general sense of quality, or lack thereof.)

[Fragenstein]

I'd like to know why they used the old '... 10% of the brain...' schtick. I thought that went the way of Saturday morning cartoons?

[JadedDM]

I haven't seen it yet. Reviews are pretty mixed.

I'd like to know why they used the old '... 10% of the brain...' schtick. I thought that went the way of Saturday morning cartoons?

The director addresses that here.

Spoiler: Relevant Part of the Article

Show

Some people are complaining about the fact that the science behind your film — the whole idea that humans only use 10 percent of their brains — is not true. What’s your response to that?

It’s totally not true. Do they think that I don’t know this? I work on this thing for nine years and they think that I don’t know it’s not true? Of course I know it’s not true! But, you know, there are lots of facts in the film that are totally right. The CPH4, even if it’s not the real name — because I want to hide the real name — this molecule exists and is carried by the woman at six weeks of pregnancy. Yes, it’s true that every cell in our body is sending 1,000 messages per second, per cell. And in fact, the theory of the 10 percent is an old theory from the ’60s. It’s never been proven. Some people worked on it, and it sounds like it’s not the truth. What is true is that we’re using only 15 percent of our neurons at one time. We never use 100 [percent]. We use 15 percent on [the] left, and then after, we use 15 percent on the right. But we never use more than 15 percent at one time.

The 10 percent is a metaphor in a way. So that’s why I was not bothered by that. I’m always amazed by these people who become scientists at the last minute and go, “This is wrong!” Of course; it’s a film. [Laughs.] What’s more interesting — more than the 10 percent or the 15 percent — is that if we get the capacity of full intelligence, in the film, we say that the first step is the control of the cell, the second step is the control of others, the third is the control of matter, and the fourth is the control of time. And I talked to a lot of scientists, and they believe that at least the first three are possible. They don’t say it’s true, but it’s at least logical. The good thing is when you take a lot of things that are totally right and mix them very well with a few things that are wrong, at the end of the film, you think everything is real. And that’s the magic of film.

So, long story short, he just didn't care.

[Fragenstein]

So, long story short, he just didn't care.

Well why didn't he just use reel-to-reel computers while he was at it? It would be about as corny. If that turns out to be a minor aspect of the film or metaphorical, then they probably shouldn't open every single commercial with Mr. Through the Wormhole stating it. It'd sound right coming from Elroy Jetson, but not much else.

I'd like to know which 'scientists' he talked to that believe controlling other people or matter itself is even theoretically possible. What lobe, exactly, is to be used in broadcasting magic through our skulls?

Regardless. I liked Akira and so I might like Lucy as well. I just wish he'd modernized his script a bit. That cliché has been tired for more than the nine years he was working on his script.

[Cristo Meyers]

As little spoilers as I can:

It was...interesting. That's for sure. And suffering from a real disconnect between the commercials and what was actually in the movie. You'd be forgiven for going into this thinking you're going to watch Black Widow take some drugs and kick the ever-loving crap out of the dealers. Instead it was more low-key than the commercials led us to believe.

The 10% thing is stupid, always was, though it's really just a framing device for the movie's timeline and an excuse to do general action movie theatrics. On the whole, "mixed" is about the best way to put it. Johansen is a great actress, but it takes more than that to drag a script that's kind of a mess up to par (hell, The Rock took three). I did like it, though. I just also walked out of it going "This movie is going to get savaged."

Minor spoilers:

Spoiler

Show

Like I said before, this isn't a revenge story. That's almost a background arc. The real arc is Lucy herself post-transformation. This isn't "Hey, superpowers! AWESOME! Let's get those bastards!" She goes full on Dr. Manhattan with everything that entails: loss of empathy, humanity, and you see it almost immediately. This folds into the main arc which is more about accumulating knowledge and passing it on to the next generation: "Knowledge doesn't breed chaos, only ignorance."

[cobaltstarfire]

It's ok...the trailers made it look much more intriguing than it actually turned out to be.

I got bored a lot of the time personally, and the constantly going back to the whole 10% thing irritated me somewhat. Just taking that out and leaving the movie as is would have made it better I think.

My guy put it perfectly "It was interesting, but not very entertaining."


If I had been watching it on tv I probably would have wandered off to do something else before the movie even finished setting up it's premise.

[Metahuman1]

En, it feels like it was trying to be a Kubrik movie and a general summer movie at the same time, and then dash a bit of watchmen on top.

I didn't hate it or anything but I doubt I'd watch it again. Scarlet Johanson and Morgan Freeman were good in it though.

[Morbis Meh]

My wife loved it but I found it quite odd to be honest... I probably wouldn't watch it again but I did enjoy Morgan Freeman and Scarlett Jo in it.

[warty goblin]

I saw it last night. Of the movies I've watched in theaters this year, I'd rank it a very strong second, behind Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It's weird, the way the film is cut together is sort of sarcastically metaphorical in a lot of places, so what came up on screen next was often a complete surprise that made total sense. If nothing else, it was nice to see a movie use special effects for something besides lots of 'cool' explosions.

[jesley]

I have seen this movie and according to me this movie is the summer’s best, coolest, juiciest, smartest action movie.

[Metahuman1]

So, just remembered something. During the scene where shes doing the crazy driving, theres an older guy show reading a news paper. The news paper has a picture of a robot on the cover.

Its one of the robots from pacific rim.

[Fralex]

Haven't seen it, although this person's thoughts on it have me intrigued, albeit slightly spoiled.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by warty goblin
Of the movies I've watched in theaters this year, I'd rank it a very strong second, behind Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It's weird, the way the film is cut together is sort of sarcastically metaphorical in a lot of places, so what came up on screen next was often a complete surprise that made total sense.

So, is it self-consciously arty and pretentious, or is it just intelligently edited?

And is there anything about it that demands, nay exhorts that it be seen on the big screen? Or should I save this one for Netflix night?



(If there are cosmic panoramas, galactic vistas, etc., that's a good enough reason to see it on the big screen.)

[warty goblin]

[QUOTE=Palanan;17893745]So, is it self-consciously arty and pretentious, or is it just intelligently edited?
[\QUOTE]
I certainly found it intelligently edited. It didn't set of my personal arty pretentious BS alarms, but I can easily see it doing so for somebody who didn't find it quite so immediately engaging as I did. Whether or not you will be similarly engaged is unfortunately difficult for me to help you guess at. I mean the science in Lucy is terrible, but at least it's terrible science being used for a story about the human animal in ways that are optimistic without descending to self-aggrandizement, the movie moves along at a hellova pace, and I at least found it consistently fun without being entirely and pointlessly stupid.

And is there anything about it that demands, nay exhorts that it be seen on the big screen? Or should I save this one for Netflix night?

(If there are cosmic panoramas, galactic vistas, etc., that's a good enough reason to see it on the big screen.)

I would certainly recommend seeing it on the big screen. I found it far more engaging visually than anything else I've seen this year, even the more traditionally minded big special effects movies.

[Cristo Meyers]

I certainly found it intelligently edited. It didn't set of my personal arty pretentious BS alarms, but I can easily see it doing so for somebody who didn't find it quite so immediately engaging as I did. Whether or not you will be similarly engaged is unfortunately difficult for me to help you guess at. I mean the science in Lucy is terrible, but at least it's terrible science being used for a story about the human animal in ways that are optimistic without descending to self-aggrandizement, the movie moves along at a hellova pace, and I at least found it consistently fun without being entirely and pointlessly stupid.

I dunno, there were a few points where I thought it got a little pretentious. Not much, but enough to make an inward eye-roll.

I would certainly recommend seeing it on the big screen. I found it far more engaging visually than anything else I've seen this year, even the more traditionally minded big special effects movies.

Same. Visually this was one of the most interesting films so far.

[Psyren]

I'm inclined to agree with Movie Bob on this - the 10% thing, while lamentable for its ubiquity, is not some cardinal sin of science fiction that should be used to bludgeon this movie, any more than the dinosaur DNA preserved in amber thing was for Jurassic Park.

His write-up is pretty glowing, mostly because the movie appears to take a very strong "science is awesome" stance - and I am all for that. So yes, I'll be seeing this too, as a Red Box/Play rental if not in theaters.

[Kyberwulf]

Spoiler: undefined

Show

Okay, did anyone else who has seen this movie. Think of the Movie Phenomenon. Well, Phenomenon with explosions, gunfights and a hot chick. With a bit of 2001 thrown in? for good measure?