Best thing you'll see all month: Lucy

Title Best thing you'll see all month: Lucy
Author Tom Chick
Posted in Movie reviews
When July 27, 2014

Luc Besson loves stories about powerful women. A Luc Besson heroine starts deceptively vulnerable and becomes almost transcendently powerful. Le Femme Leeloo. Lucy is in that same tradition, with all the hallmarks of a Luc Besson movie on display..

Read the full article

Agreed and enjoyed.

Soooo glad this is good. Can't wait!

No Jean Reno ?!

I want to see this movie, but any time somebody starts talking about using more of your brain, I feel a little sick. There is a name for when large percentages of your brain light up at the same time. It's called a seizure.

I'll admit to being annoyed with this movie from the title alone. I think there is only one movie that should be allowed to have a one word title that is a female name and it sure isn't freaking LUCY. LUCY. Ugh. I'll see it anyway because I like these types of movies. The trailer made me think of Akira. Hey! Another one word name movie!

You're the first person I've heard speak so highly of the movie Tammy.

When I attended this movie today the marquee read:


[It was false advertisement though; all I got was a Fifty Shades of Grey trailer.]

luc besson makes terrible movies.

I had to double check on imdb and see if the guy who made 5th element had actually made something great at one point that has carried his rep all these years like ridley scott.

Its all vastly over-rated junk.

But I'll watch vastly over-rated junk with Scarlett Johansson in it.

Maybe you're defective.

Glad to hear this is good, but the trailers along with this photo are doing nothing for me. I mean come on, if this movie is so awesome and bad ass, why am I looking at a photo of Scarlet sitting in a chair looking like she shit herself?

DDDAAAAMN I expected to love this film and I expected Tom to hate it since our tastes do not align very well. This makes me even more hyped. I consider Leon and Fifth Element among the best films ever made.

I could tell you, but that would be a spoiler.

Seriously, what you see above is one of the reasons this is such a good performance overall.

I completed discounted this movie from the trailer. As soon as they started talking about using 10% of the brain I immediately assumed that the writers were idiots who didn't know science and if they couldn't even get such a simple thing right, the rest of the plot must also suffer from bad writing. I may have to reevaluate that and just fast forward through that part when I watch it on netflix.

I'm surprised by your review because I don't think the movie does any of the things you claim. It doesn't take a mature look at mortality - it's the kind of puerile philosophy (mankind's knowledge is false, time is omnipotent, information is goodness) that I'd expect from a young indie director. Lucy is indeed a superhero, but she's a terrible character because she offers no insight into anything since her experience is a nonsensical transformation and isn't earned in any way. She just takes a drug, becomes superhuman, and spouts childish philosophy. The science makes no sense, either, but I'd be willing to forgive that in a science fiction movie if it did so with a purpose. But it only makes silly claims and there is no payoff in the end except [SPOILER!!] a thumb drive with stars in it. I think the only thing you can say this movie makes an argument for is net neutrality.

Did you miss the part where the magic brain altering super drug was a blue crystallized concentrated pregnancy hormone? This is a stupid, insulting, derivative, nonsensical, pointless, boring film that says nothing and does nothing. It has a neat car chase, which makes it about as 1/5 as good as a Fast & Furious film. It doesn't belong in the same sentence as Her or Under the Skin. This film is dumb and if you like it, you're dumb too.

Thanks for the review Tom. Your Stanley Kubrick mention is spot in. I really enjoyed your review of this movie and Enemy. Well written stuff.

What is up with the intercut footage in the beginning of the movie? I'd enjoy people's takes on that.

I did like how quickly the movie got up and running, which this review references in the last paragraph.

Fun, goofy stuff, overall, and although I can't really argue against anything this review says, I'd inform people that are curious about it to think of the movie in terms of The Transporter or Unleased rather than 2001 or Under the Skin, in case anyone thought it would actually be some serious-minded "profound" statement. Not that Tom's review is inaccurate.

Uh. Willy. It has some scenes intercut with scenes of predators eating prey. This is highly symbolic. It's the sort of artistry which one could only expect from the true masters of the art. Kubrick. Bergman. Snyder.

An 8 year old could catch symbolism that obvious. It was so on the nose it flew right off. That isn't artistry, it's wankery. You insult Kubrick by this comparison.

Also please don't tell me you mean Zack Snyder, otherwise I will have to disregard this as a joke post, because really.

I think you done got trolled.