Lucy (I) (2014) User Reviews

Luc Besson's 'Lucy'.

[swordsnare · 7/10 · 22 March 2020]

I enjoyed this for the most-part. The momentum in combination with the 90 minute runtime, kept myself entertained for the entirety. It's far from perfect, but it's entertaining. Then again I didn't labour over the science to over complicate the overall enjoyment. The climax is probably the most contentious and unfavourable issue, but I appreciate the intent of Luc Besson's vision.

Note: It's probably best to ignore the super low-scoring trolls, who create accounts to downvote and spread negativity. If you don't have some constructive criticism, don't say anything at all. Any 'Not helpful' downvotes on this review are probably by the aforementioned.

Spectacular superheroine movie packed with suspense , frantic action , and state-of-art FX

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 12 August 2022]

This impressive comic-book style tale brought to big screen contains thought-provoking science-fiction , fantasy , noisy action , battles , thrills , violent fights and results to be pretty entertaining . Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is a smart , feisty college student who suddenly finds herself involved into a horrific drug and human trafficking situation . Later on , her brain is permanently altered when the fantastic drug CPH4 is released in her body . Lucy being re-animated due to the incredible synthetic drug , getting superpowers , breathtaking force , fast healing and undergoing unimaginable changes. When she gets a kick to her abdomen, the drug starts to leak into her body , and she begins using more than 10% of her brain and finds that she has less than 24-48 hours to live . With her new abilities , as soon as Lucy comes to learn that not everything he learns can be trusted , subsequently executing a merciless revenge . She's a slain woman and when his memories flood back and recalls the man that killed him , she gets away of the facility hellbent on vengeance , only to discover that there's more to the conspiracy than she originally thought . Along the way , Lucy finds the one neuro-scientist and professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) who can help capture her super brain phenomenon for the world , before the nasty villain , Mr. Jang (Choi Min-sik) , kill her in the process. She has the Power ! . The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity. Imagine what she could do with 100%. Open your mind, expand your potential, evolve !.

Nail-biting superheroine flick with thrills , chills , plot twists , struggles , high body-count , moving scenes , dazzling production design and latest generation special effects . Based on the character created by Luc Besson himself and heavily influenced by Superheroes Comic Books . This is a dynamic , fast- paced , entertaining and fun movie . It packs a brief message about the extreme dangers of the drugs and science, as our starring gets a tremendous strength thanks to a peculiar drug , she becomes a superhuman , a killing machine , resulting in fateful consequences . But it was really made to appeal to wide range of audiences , so the plot wasn't so complex , but Scarlett Johansson as the prominently featured super-power heroine was absolutely believable , and there was no other actress at the time who could have played the role asides from her . Nohing more fun to watch than to see her running here and there while seeks vengeance going after the man who previously killed her , or at least, who he believes killed . It also helps that it usually has a relatively good storyline to go along with it . This show has one really good thing going for it and that was a perfectly cast . Scarlett Johansson is nice , playing in her usual style as the two-fisted , serious girl brought back to life by an advanced technology that gives him the ability of super human strength , it would spin to transform into a relentless superheroine , armed with a invincible force that can stop any bullet , while regenerating his vital organs. Being well accompanied by other fine actors , such as : Morgan Freeman as Professor Norman , Choi Min-sik of Old Boy , Choi Min-sik , Amr Waked , Julian Rhind-Tutt , Pilou Asbæk , among others.

It displays a stinging and rousing musical score by composer Eric Serra . As well as colorful and brilliant cinematography by cameraman Thierry Arbogast . The motion picture was professionally directed by Luc Besson , though it has some flaws , gaps and shortfalls . Lavishly produced by Eurocorps (Besson Production Company) and nicely made by Luc Besson with his ordinary visual pyrotechnics . Luc often casts Jean Reno (though here doesn't appear) and music always by Eric Serra . Besson is the greatest producer and director from France with hits as ¨Leon¨ , ¨Joan of Arc¨ , ¨The fifth element¨ , the ¨Taxi¨ series , ¨Big blue¨ , ¨Arthur and the Minimois¨ , ¨Nikita¨ and many others . Rating : Acceptable and passable, 6 . This is a highly amusing and frequently fun action-adventure romp with a witty script, sensational special effects and accceptable performances from main and support cast .

What Is The Limit Of Your Imagination?

[TheAnimalMother · 7/10 · 27 September 2014]

In my view this is the best film Besson has directed since 1997's The Fifth Element. The film in certain ways is a lot like Limitless, but at the same time it takes a very different overall approach and look on the subject of human evolution. I'm sure that many people will not care much for this film since it is filled with a lot of mystical/spiritual references and ideas and even some false science, however those with an open mind and an active imagination will likely be very glad they saw the film. This is clearly a work of fiction people, but there is no one saying you can't relate fiction to reality either, and actually learn something from it once in a while too. Our limitless imaginations are part of what makes human beings so extraordinary, we are best off using this gift and appreciating it. Fictional films can still be very thought provoking, and this one definitely fits that category. 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't scientifically accurate in many ways to our current knowledge, but it's still a monster landmark of a film nonetheless. Lucy is certainly not 2001, however they both ride that same imagination rules line that can spark the internal fires of unique creative thinking. In my view Lucy is a sci-fi trip worth taking. 7.5/10

An original take on the superhero movie; silly perhaps – but great fun

[gogoschka-1 · 4 August 2014]

After the many scathing reviews, I went to this film with very mixed feelings. I certainly didn't expect serious Sci-Fi – after all, I had seen the trailers – but I actually wasn't quite sure what to expect (and I'm not sure I would have gone to see it at all, If it hadn't been directed by Luc Besson). Well, maybe it's just because I expected to be disappointed, but I was pleasantly surprised. 'Lucy' delivers a fast paced, crazy ride from start to finish, and I'm frankly a bit shocked so many people seem to hate this film with so much passion. Hadn't they seen the trailers? I thought it was clear from the get-go that this film was first and foremost meant as entertainment (and it certainly doesn't pretend to be the new '2001').

If 'Lucy' were based on a comic book, I highly doubt people would be criticising it as harshly as they are. Let's be honest: from a scientific point of view, the stories of Captain America, Superman, Thor, the Hulk, Iron Man, Spider Man and the X-Men are all enthusiastically silly. None of these stories are even remotely realistic - and they were never meant to be: that's why they call them "SUPER-heroes". So how come so many film fans take the "10% of the brain" premise so very, very seriously? I mean, this is Luc Besson: 'The Fifth Element' was just as over-the-top and most people seemed to have really enjoyed it (at least at the time; maybe now it would also get shredded to pieces for "lack of realism"). The way I see it, 'Lucy' is simply Besson's take on the superhero movie (towards the end of the film, the title character actually comes across like a fun, female version of Dr Manhattan).

Granted, many aspects of 'Lucy' ARE very silly, but visually the film is absolutely stunning and it at least tries to tell an original story and throws in some very interesting philosophical (and yes: even scientific) concepts and questions. So not unlike the films based on Marvel or DC comics, this is a wild mix of Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Action elements – and what's so wrong with that all of a sudden? If you watch it for what it is – a fun, fast summer movie with inventive visuals – I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy it. Quality-wise, this certainly isn't 'The Matrix' or 'Blade Runner', for sure (but hey: what is?), but 'Lucy' is still packed with enough creative ideas and great action scenes to get your money's worth. Plus it features Morgan Freeman and an absolutely gorgeous Scarlett Johansson.

So my verdict: It's rare enough these days to get an original Fantasy/Sci-Fi tale with a decent budget in the first place – let alone one for grown-ups with an R-rating. It may not be as good as it could have been (and it does feel a bit rushed), but it is very far from the catastrophic mess many critics make it out to be. As far as I'm concerned, 'Lucy' is a fun, crazy ride from start to finish. 7 stars out of 10.

Favorite Films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

In an ideal world, movies would be made without the aim for a certain rating. This article sums up why this is so important:

www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/the-importance-of-the-r-rating.html

Fun action thriller turns into mumbo jumbo

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 21 April 2015]

Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is studying in Taiwan. Her new friend Richard tricks her into delivering a suitcase. It's filled with a new synthetic drug CPH4. She is kidnapped by kingpin Mr. Jang and forced to be a drug mule surgically inserted into her abdomen. She is kicked by her abductor and the drug seeps into her system. Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) has a theory about the human mind. Most use only 10%. The drug opens up Lucy's mind turning her into a superhuman as she uses more and more of her brain. With the help of Paris police detective Pierre Del Rio, she tracks down the drug from the other mules and contact Norman to transcend her humanity.

This starts off as a fun action thriller filled with inventive Luc Besson touches. Johansson is good transitioning from victim to machine-like superbeing. I like going to a lesser used exotic location like Taiwan. However Besson tries to be profound. It descends into a lot of mumbo jumbo. At which point, I realize the whole movie is a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo. It wouldn't matter so much but Besson seems to really want to say something. He ends up saying nothing.

Interesting flick

[TJFrisbee · 7/10 · 12 April 2021]

Scarlett Johansson in a Asian country should be a genre on its own.

Great Imagination is this film

[akc-03850 · 7/10 · 19 January 2022]

Just like a human has been given priority to itself, this film do so, after have watched it feels human is infinite and can do anything and no any other species would be able to do so, this film start with a myth humans use very little part of its brain, and finely depicts what if a human will be able to use 100 percent of his brain, well no doubt this film is a metaphor but really funny and amusing, Great imagination, I salute directors thought, Everything is in a great sequence and should watch by everyone it's a great film.

One more thing none can imagine it's climax until it happens itself, great climax.

Thank you.

Starts well, finishes poorly

[bobbymcgonigle13 · 4/10 · 30 September 2014]

Disappointing movie towards the end. Starts off well, everything makes sense, everything is clever, logical and interesting. After a certain point in the movie everything becomes ridiculous, unrealistic and not enjoyable to watch. The idea behind the movie was good, execution was not. The characters were also a little bit boring in my opinion. The situation the main character found herself in had an array of extraordinary things to do and take advantage of but didn't. Not a lot out of the ordinary happened, main character worrying throughout and not taking advantage/playing around with the situation she was in. If you're a fan of logical "what ifs" like myself I would not recommend it.

Better than they say!!

[dilloncamp · 8/10 · 29 May 2021]

This film was a wild ride. And yes it's not scientifically accurate, but so what?

It was an awesome idea that I found well executed.

I will say I wanted to see ScarJo kick more ass but I still didn't mind. This isn't as much an action movie as it is a scifi thriller.

It really makes you question your perception of science and reality.

If your looking for a good scifi thriller that keeps you interested all the way through I highly suggest this film.

Absolutely Brilliant

[sapphire_rain30 · 6/10 · 18 August 2014]

It was a moment of utter spontaneity when I decided to purchase a ticket to see 'Lucy', and wow - I am certainly glad I did. This is one of the best films I have seen in a long time. At the beginning, I thought that perhaps it wasn't going to be my cup of tea. However, as it progressed the storyline became more and more fascinating. In my opinion this film had the perfect balance of realism and sci-fi. Some of the effects were of course slightly questionable... but I cannot really complain because the overall brilliance of this film outshone any negatives I could detect.

Scarlett Johansson was incredible as Lucy and it was astonishing to observe how her character changed so dramatically within just a few moments. Johansson definitely nailed the smart-girl/genius/superhero role, although I do think this role may have suited an actress like Rooney Mara absolutely perfectly. Johansson is just so womanly, attractive and feminine that I found it difficult to completely accept her as Lucy. Perhaps that's just me bring too picky - I just feel that Lucy could have been better portrayed by someone slightly more masculine and cold.

This film is one that will genuinely inspire you to think deeply about evolution, human nature, and life. I left the cinema feeling like I had been given a new kick of energy and a punch of enthusiasm for personal growth and exploration. This film will also encourage you to consider the endless possibilities of technology and science. It will leave your heart pound if and your brain buzzing. Overall, this is a definite must-see for all action/sci-fi lovers as well as those who have an interest in humanity, history and the incredible gift that is life. You will not at all regret purchasing a ticket to see this, and as long as you keep an open mind, you will find this film to be extremely thought-provoking and clever.

I F*ng love science

[andre-madsen1 · 3/10 · 18 September 2014]

Scarlett Johansson proves beyond a doubt that she is able to carry the lead actress role in this sci-fi action flick. The camera work and narrative ambiance starts off marvelously. But around twenty minutes into the movie everything starts falling apart as relentless and repetitive force-feeding of pseudo-scientific and underdeveloped philosophical gibberish is applied in a sad attempt to legitimize the developing story line. If you manage to swallow the entirety these factual misnomers you may suffer from having no education or sense of rational thought and may also be eligible to blissfully enjoy the ensuing turn of events.

Have you ever felt at risk of becoming dumber by the process of watching a movie? I regularly enjoy movies that violate laws of physics. However, it is imperative that the movie's setting allows for that to happen. Lucy doesn't. The parallel story line employs Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) as the scientific genius alibi. If you pay attention to his "lectures" you may notice this is not science class but rather something at the crossroads of a pseudoscience, scientology and self-motivational course. At this point I should probably disclaim that I am a molecular biologist by profession and proceed to tell you that I was genuinely outraged by the audacious amounts of ignorance displayed throughout this movie.

Sitting at the theater this evening, my brain leapt in and out of sync with the movie due to the constant realism glitches occurring under false pretenses. For some reason I kept thinking of "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley in which he subjectively describes the immediate psychological effects upon ingesting mescaline and LSD. Such psychoactive and hallucinogenic drugs actually work by switching on cerebral neuronal pathways that by default (and apparently by good rights) are switched off. This goes to prove the point that cerebral activity in no way correlates with attainment of super-human powers.

The pharmacological effects that the fictional drug in the movie exerts on Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is irreconcilable with everything in medicine and the story line is shamelessly based on these discrepancies set in action as visualized by unlimited CGI artistic freedom: Wouldn't the sensation of pain be expected to be augmented to excruciating levels following a proposed 1000% increase of cerebral activity? Care to elaborate on the accompanying moral deprivation that makes it OK to kill or help people entirely on random, but first and foremost makes her really narcissistic and sadistic? If Einstein dropped his pen, wouldn't it still fall to the ground; Why shouldn't laws of physics apply to someone who is allegedly more intelligent or aware? How can increased intelligence allow Lucy – possessing no prior concepts of cell biology or drug metabolism– to figure out what is happening to her in such detail? Why were the internment mafia thugs specifically instructed not to kick Lucy in the lower abdomen, considering the surgical procedure that had just been performed for the sole purpose of drug trafficking? How can Lucy possibly benchmark her cerebral capacity as a percentage? How can the final scenes of the movie where Lucy ad libitum creates matter and baffles the professorial board with some senselessly uttered line of thought be justified in any conceivable way? Omnipotence, dinosaurs and a black hole USB flash drive to top it off: are you serious?

The movie clearly begs the question: what is human and which aspects and ideals of human nature are worth cultivating. But how can you honestly care at this point as you contemplate whether to risk a cerebral meltdown or run for the closest theater exit?

This is a complete myth! The fun part is: What if it was true?

[facorread · 10/10 · 24 November 2014]

This film has greatly polarized critics for its use of controversial concepts. I am a scientist and of course this movie gives me mixed feelings about its science. But I'm sure about one thing, that this is fiction. I am able to watch a fiction movie, am I not?

Some people review this film negatively for its scientific value, ignoring the fact that this isn't a documentary. What are these guys comparing this film against? There is no comparison against real-world science here. If somebody makes a film about black holes, I expect it to be faithful to the latest research about black holes. If somebody makes a film about the Sun, I expect it to be faithful to what we know about the Sun. In contrast, a film about aliens can stretch our suspension of disbelief a lot more, because we know no real aliens to compare it about. And my my, how wide a range of alien species has been spawned by the film industry in all its years! The main concept in this film is equally flexible because it has been proved a myth years ago. Everybody knows that, director/writer Besson knows that. These negative reviewers miss the entertainment value of this film because of something they were expecting (harmony to actual science) that was never there since the film's inception.

So yes, some other people review this film for its entertainment value, because we want to enjoy this "What if this myth was true" scenario. And we are truly entertained. I loved how Scarlett Johansson developed her character very well even when there was inherently not much to begin with: an innocent girl with not further background than dating some guy for a week and living in a shared apartment. Scarlett's charisma, weakness, strength, and acting spill all over the place, even during the most flat scenes of the film, even during the most VFX-packed scenes of the film. Morgan Freeman is... well, Morgan Freeman. Fantastic actor except for the fact that he's been typecast into the wise guy role for like, 20 years. I like the ethnic diversity in such a small cast. Not that they are trying to showcase it anyway, but it's a nice touch.

The action pack is very good, the mafia pack is entertaining, and the renditions of Inception, Léon: The Professional, and 2001: A Space Odyssey are all cherished. Once again, the central myth is developed in a very fun way. I believe this film has risked a lot in its development, but for us who want to be entertained and have our imaginations opened, this film delivers very vividly.

Intresting and unique..mostly

[juneebuggy · 7/10 · 11 October 2019]

I liked this one especially the first 3/4 of it, the end goes a bit silly. Its a cool movie, very Luc Besson identifiable, his style. Great action sequences, interesting locations China, France- I always like to see movies not specifically in America.

Very interesting and unique story idea -that humans only use 10% of their brains and Lucy can break this barrier and reach a whole new level in human evolution. Scarlett Johansson is amazing here, impressive, when she first gets kidnapped so scared then as the drug leaks into her system so badass.

Morgan freeman -much as I adore him often does these sort of cameos in movies these days and not much acting. He is good here as the sympathetic scientist... Just thinking he was also in that movie with Johnny Depp, Transcendence very similar story, he does more here.

Luc Besson.. Why?!! I expected this from others but not from you!

[onlineairsoft · 1/10 · 22 September 2014]

Luc Besson, you really let me down!

I've been a huge fan of his past films. Leon, Fifth Element, Nikita, Unleashed, Taken, etc etc etc

The trailer to the film made it look like standard epic Luc Besson film. However it seems he clearly failed his basic science education at school.

There so so much wrong with the science in the film, and I'm no scientist! I enjoy reading about science and have retained much of my science education from school and right from the start when it was mentioned "what if you could use more than 10% of your brain?" .. I assumed that would get corrected a few moments later... not be the premise and explanation for all of Lucy's abilities.

Luc Besson seems to think having higher brain functionality allow you to time travel?

To be clear. The whole "10% of your brain" argument has been refuted many times and is decades old. 12 years ago when I was at school we were taught how this statement was total BS. Seems Luc Besson didn't get the memo and no one thought to tell him before he started the film.

None of the characters have any depth either. Morgan Freeman is... Morgan Freeman, standard 'I speak slowly and deeply which means anything I say appears profound'. Scarlet Johansons does nothing to make anyone connect with her character.

The drug they are transporting at it's current state would be legal... So why did they went to the effort of kidnapping I have no idea. Fedex would of been much cheaper.

This film is NOT for: People with basic science education People with common sense

More Than Human

[boblipton · 6/10 · 11 September 2021]

Scarlett Johannson, a partying student in Hong Kong, gets roped into delivering a briefcase to drug lord Choi Min-sik. She's made into a drug mule, with the stuff in plastic bags within her, but it gets broken and what looks like a kilogram enters her body. The new designer drug turns out to have the effect of opening up the connections between cells, so that she gains greater use of her mind. As she heads to Europe, seeking the other mules for what they carry, while trying to fend off Choi and his gang, she seeks out exposition machine Morgan Freeman, and cop Amr Waked for physical connection.

It's not the first time that science fiction has tackled new steps in evolution, from Olaf Stapledon's ODD JOHN, to A. E. Van Vogt's SLAN, to Theodore Sturgeon's MORE THAN HUMAN. Writer-director Luc Besson brings his METAL HURLANT sensibilities to the effort, and Miss Johannson gives a great performance as she goes from a hung-over airhead to an omniscient goddess in a a little black dress and Balenciagas.

It's the visuals, more than the bafflegab explanations, that makes this movie so compelling, with its weird CGI, time-traveling backwards from modern New York to T. Rex time, and big, black, self-building computers against a white background while Freeman and associates stand around slack-jawed, and Freeman explains exactly what's going on. It's all nonsense, but seeing is believing, and we see everything, inside, outside, and from today back to the fiery beginnings of the Earth.

Good movie with some missed opportunities

[opinionated-alchemist · 7/10 · 11 August 2014]

As soon as I have seen the trailer, I wanted to see the movie. Unfortunately the trailer gives a completely different perception and direction... it is a bit misleading - that could annoy some people - as the movie is hitting my personal right buttons, I didn't mind.

For an action movie, Lucy goes quite a slow pace. I have seen reviews, which are describing it slow and fast and slow again - I would rather say, slow and slower and then medium slow. But then the whole movie is carried by the talent of Luc Besson to showcase impressive visual treats - and while it is sometimes a bit "head scratching" (e.g. the repetitive reference to Lucy the "cave-human")- it makes just an artsy and beautiful movie. What I didn't liked at all was the basic erroneous assumption, that the human is using XX% of his/her cerebral potential. 10 years ago, Luc Besson could have got away with this - but nowadays common knowledge is flagging this just as nonsense... He could have easily adjusted the story. But he didn't and this "nonsense" goes on and on like that. Basically it is naive to believe, that using more potential of your brain, would give you control over more than your very own body. This fact is excusable in fast and rather blunt action-movies with mutants and people with super powers. However a movie like Lucy, which gives enough time to reflect and to think about, just deserves a better built "game plan". And these type of problems are going on and on until the very end. Lucy is still a very enjoyable movie, which even could give some philosophical impulses. However it just didn't reached "perfection" because of mentioned reasons. After all - I felt, that I didn't wasted my time, by watching this movie - however it also felt that it was always a step below its true potential.

No it is not a thriller...

[A_Different_Drummer · 6/10 · 6 October 2014]

... it is a love story. About a director so in love with himself, and so powerful in his profession, that he can take any half-baked idea, an idea no ordinary director/producer could ever hope to finance in their lifetime, and not only turn it into a major international feature but land one of the hottest actresses of the era to star.

As a sci-fi thriller, this film succeeds .... not so much.

As a love story .. it is pretty unique. You would have to go back to ALTERED STATES (1980) to watch Ken Russell fall in love with himself (just the way Besson does in this film) to find an analogue.

Once you get past the first 45 minutes (a sad comment, given the film only runs 90 minutes), past the pompous and overblown backstory and still montage, the film more or less holds together as B level entertainment.

Not exactly high praise. But there is always Scarlett Johansson...

it fails in every dimension

[gijsb-980-128492 · 1/10 · 7 September 2014]

This movie is terrible, plain and simple. It starts out as a fun action movie set in Taiwan. Scarjo is in some really cool scenes and is acting amazingly. This is cut with shots of Morgan Freeman having a stroke and blabbering one-liners about life that wouldn't impress Jaden Smith.

Morgan Freeman was completely useless in this movie. Lucy knows everything anyway and his explanation to the viewer will hurt your soul. It doesn't matter that the whole premise is impossible but STOP RUBBING IT IN MY FACE. The fact that hes presenting his ideas to a room full of students and professors only ads insult to injury. No one asks a simple why. Why does he think humans get psychic powers at 30%. Telekinesis? Why is he even doing "research" on some weird hypothetical. This movie is literally better if you cut out every Morgan scene.

This movie is way too pretentious for the few good action scenes it has. If you insist on watching just watch the first 40 minutes or something. Its not worth it.

That one guy who told everyone to **** themselves

[thuffman-219-557602 · 10/10 · 22 January 2015]

F*** this IMDb rating. I haven't been this entertained in 90 minutes since Pan's Labyrinth. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes gets 8 stars, and everyone is attacking the science of this film... f*** off. This movie is fantastically cool.

Remember, critics and joes thought Boondock Saints, Donnie Darko, and Star Wars blew... yeah. Watch it for yourself. If you're a Luc Besson fan, you won't be disappointed.

Bad-*** car chase, science-fiction, sex appeal my goodness, Morgan "the man" Freeman, Chow Yun-Fat worthy shootout, visuals that will blow your-effing-mind, and it didn't even take 2 sequels and a prequel to do it.

What happened to people that used to enjoy movies?

What if .... ?

[igl-55560 · 7/10 · 20 December 2020]

What if we could get complete control over our cells ? It was a nice take on the matter but it came with some limitations too. What if you got two lucys fighting ? ... mindblowing, I guess.

Hard to swallow, even for the spiritually open-minded

[stroggos · 5/10 · 8 March 2017]

People say we use only 10% of our brains. The scientific community is 100% sure this is false. Call me a killjoy, but I find it hard to accept movies that are based on an utterly anti-scientific premise. In fact, I find promoting blatant falsehoods that promote anti-evolutionary thinking a bit irresponsible, even for the sake of art and entertainment!

Science education set aside, how does LUCY work as a movie? Well, Scarlett Johansson is convincingly awkward and beautiful. Luc Besson's obsession with strong mysterious female leads clearly shines through and Johansson as an actor delivers. The movie is hyper-stylish, with gleaming colors and convincing CGI (lots of). The action is as entertaining as the visuals. And thankfully they decided to keep things short, focus on the core idea and stop right before it became trite.

That said, I think LIMITLESS dealt with the 10% myth better as it stayed (somewhat) more within the realm of scientific credibility. And as far as movies go in which people develop godlike powers, LUCY doesn't beat the likes of THE MATRIX or SYMBOL (shimboru,2009).

All in all an interesting but ultimately mediocre movie based on an utterly ridiculous (and intellectually dangerous) idea.

A spectacular film- visually stunning - very through provoking

[latinfineart · 9/10 · 4 February 2018]

Unless you are nearly brain dead, you will find this film stimulating. If you are a sci-fi buff like me, even more so. A film like this reminds me of how starved some of us are for films of this sort. This film was brilliantly directed by the French Maestro. Beautifully acted, by Scarlotte Johansson.

While the transformation is happening, we see Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) giving a lecture on the capacity of the human brain. He says people generally use only about 10 percent of their brain's capacity. (Yes, it's an urban legend, but you'll enjoy the movie a whole lot more if you ignore that fact and just go with it.) Norman, an authority in this field, has no idea his path will soon cross with Lucy's.

Lucy accidentally ingests the drug and her neurons begin firing. Her brain begins to grow ever-more powerful - so powerful that she's able to easily disarm any captor and figure a way out of any situation she's in. She needs someone who understands brain function to help her while a team is hot on the trail to dispense with her. The film moves at such a frantic pace and provides such mind-boggling visuals and fascinating concepts about time and existence that it's impossible not to be entertained. Besson also throws in some brief but exhilarating nature scenes to emphasize Lucy's vulnerability (at first) and then to expound upon what she is learning.

Somewhat improbably, it's also an ideal culmination of a sci-fi trilogy Johansson may not have even realized she was making. In Her, Under the Skin and now Lucy, the 29-year-old veteran has not only delivered some of the finest work of her career, she's found a trio of characters in conversation about what it means to be human through the eyes of an outsider, be it artificial intelligence, alien or an accidental superhuman. In fact, it's near impossible to imagine Lucy without Johansson and her perfectly calibrated performance, a crucial component to investing in the story's inherent silliness.

The action was a little over the top at times. The Chinese gangsters were perhaps a metaphor for the Chinese Politburo. Perhaps the world's ultimate criminal organization, that will stop at nothing to achieve it's ends.

What you'll find here, is a well-crafted science fiction yarn that might make you think more than you bargained for while you enjoy the shoot-ups and vehicle crashes.

Addressing the 'Sci-Fi' and Third Act questions

[nfinitemonkeys · 7/10 · 7 December 2014]

(Spoiler Alert)

This is not going to be a comprehensive review, but a response on two subjects. Whether the movie is sci-fi and whether it goes off the rails and has a 'meh' ending after a satisfying beginning.

Science Fiction has many facets, one being a love of actual science and seeing it taken to extremes, projected into the future, etc... Another aspect, which it shares with Fantasy, is that it allows a storyteller to get at questions that couldn't be realized in ordinary situations. The outrageous science element allows a human/ethical/moral dilemma to exist and keeps that from seeming outrageous.

From about 30 minutes in, Lucy knows she is dying and, despite the (spoiler) extreme transformation at the conclusion, she doesn't try to find a way to continue normally, or even super-normally.

I think the answer to both of these complaints exists in the nature of the conclusion. (Spoiler) This does not end in a 'human-centric' way. It does not end with boy/girl gets girl/boy or good guy beats/reforms bad guy, etc... Transcending even human desire for living is the solution Lucy considers superior. I mean if she can transform herself into a computer and see/travel through time, then she could probably repair or clone herself or come up with some other similar feels- better ending.

Some of the most classic science fiction explores the horrible situation where something essential is removed from a person's being. Frankenstein (yes it was science fiction. Biology is science, people) was conceived during the birth of electricity and discovery that man- controlled currents could move and affect human tissue/muscle. Dracula (a bit more of a stretch) was conceived during the discovery period of blood-borne diseases, disease transmission, blood transfusion factors, etc... Robocop, the Matrix, Total Recall, and many others examine the loss of self or some essential facet of humanity. Lucy chooses that loss of self and in that way makes itself stand out from other such films in a way that at least presents some interesting science fiction.

Was it the greatest science fiction movie of the year? Nope. Would it have had less appeal if not for ScarJo starring? Yes. Does Luc Besson have a hit/miss record with nothing in between? Yes, and this one is a soft hit. In the end, I know I'll watch it again at some future date because I know I'll re-watch a movie with an interesting theme more often than one that just flashes explosions on the screen.

Oh. My. God. Awful.

[gasmando123 · 1/10 · 3 October 2014]

Stupid. The antithesis of what the movie purports. The final line "Life was given to us . . . now you know what to do with it." Yeah. Don't waste your time on this spew. Remember Altered States and all the philosophical claptrap they put forth as plot and dialog? This is worse. First the premise that we only 10% of our brains is BS. We use it all. The 10% is nonsense that you can debunk on Snopes. Understand that the writers didn't even go there for their information and didn't even bother to read Wikipedia on this concept and you now know how weak this is. Steer clear, folks. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING to see here. Even the special effects are bad, low grade CG. Morgan, you've fallen a looong way since Shawshank.

If you're prepared to suspend disbelief (a lot of it) this is a great action/sci-fi movie

[d18991 · 3 October 2014]

I went into watching this thinking "6.6; average but good enough for a night in" considering 22 jump street (which I stopped after the _painful_ first half hour) gets a 7.6 it makes me wonder about what the people rating movies on this site prefer.

This film is quick, intelligent and has a number of good actors in it; if you watch it to the end you'll appreciate it, because (in my mind) it does everything right. After this paragraph we'll probably be moving into (mild) spoiler territory, so if you've not watched it yet, or just don't give a flying uh.... seagull? (good job on your censorship IMDb, words are just words and they have their place); stop reading.

The whole 10% premise is false, I'll give it that along with the 'fact' that you somehow develop supernatural powers at higher than 10%; it's almost like someone saw the matrix, a supernatural film, an action film and thought "why not compress all of this into one film" as I've said in the title, if you're prepared to suspend disbelief, it works. If you want pure scifi with no (major) suspension of disbelief; it's best to look elsewhere. Though as I've said, the movie has all the things I like. Unwitting protagonist, pressure of time put on said protagonist, some scifi in between and the mind control powers of Morgan Freeman's voice (seriously, they should get some real scientists on that; it would accelerate brainwashing research tenfold).

From reading other reviews this film seems to be movie Marmite; you'll either love it or hate it.