Don't you just hate spoilers? I do, too. That's why I always try to include warnings. However, I sometimes ramble a bit too much here or there and maybe a few (or many) key plot points slip without me giving proper notice. So I'd like to include a blanket spoiler warning for the weary internet travelers of the world: Here There Be Spoilers. You've been warned.


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Lucy (Review: Part 2)

Part one of my review can be found here.

Lucy is not a film you want to watch if you like things like scientifically correct facts or historically accurate flashbacks. Basically, this is another "leave your brain" at home kind of movie. It's not terrible, though. A lot of people seem to want to eviscerate this movie because of the 10% thing involving how much of your brain you actually use. I'd say that they are probably using less than 10% of their brains if they really get offended by this film that much. 

All in all, I'd describe this film as being a smart dumb movie or a dumb smart movie. Although at times it seems like one part Brian De Palma and one part Stanley Kubrick, Lucy seems to channel Roland Emmerich's spirit, too. I don't know about you, but I think Roland Emmerich gets a bit of a bad reputation because of his gleeful "simplification" of things like science and history. Despite making movies that make millions of dollars (a paycheck I'd certainly like) that seem much more put together than anything made by Michael Bay, Emmerich's primary flaw is that once you get beyond the action there isn't anything that makes much sense. Michael Bay is like that, too. 

Lucy, to an extent, shares the same flaw. Humans using 10% of their brain power? Maybe you'd believe if you didn't have an internet connection and the ability to Google the question "Do humans only use 10% of their brain power?" Another flaw Lucy is notable for is that Morgan Freeman basically doesn't do anything in the movie other than explain Luc Besson's pseudo-science to the audience whilst being the normal everyman the audience is supposed to understand. He's the sympathetic eye through which we are supposed to see Scarlett Johansson's transformation. Sure, it's nice to have a character like that around, but this is Morgan Freeman we are talking about. The man should have been given something to do. 

I don't think any of this sounds like a "thumbs up" review, but I'm just giving you the facts. 

Another fact is that despite the insane amount of illogical bullshit that gets thrown our way, I enjoyed the shit out of this movie. Yeah, that's right. I enjoyed this movie. Even to the 2001: A Space Odyssey-like ending where everything went totally balls-to-the-wall trippy. Hell, I think the ending helped made the movie more than anything else. 

Scarlett Johansson and Choi Min-sik (whose contributions to the film I think I've already lauded) made this film have more depth than it probably should have had. This popcorn thriller's tenuous stranglehold on my attention span as far as actual acting was concerned was strengthened and cemented into place by Johansson and Min-sik. (I'd still say Min-sik's talents were still a bit underused, though. A bigger role would have been awesome.) Johansson approached her role in the perfect way and it is thanks to her that you really give a shit about Lucy or this movie at all. It's been a while since I've seen a strong woman in a lead role so that's a nice change of pace, too. 

Lucy was fun. It could have been a lot better, though. This movie could have been awesome. As it is, it's a decent movie with quite a bit of surreality about it and some nice action. No boobies, either. That was disappointing. 

It was still worth seeing in the theaters. Probably the only movie worth seeing in theaters at the time with it's competition being a Dwayne Johnson movie and Transformers 4






No comments:

Post a Comment