[Movie Review] Lucy (2014)

Kersus's picture
Submitted by Kersus on Wed, 06/07/2017 - 02:36

Lucy (2014)

Lucy doesn't start off with a bang but does get moving with increasing rapidity. It has a mixed feel between Indie and high budget, flipping from 'creative' scenes to solid effects.

Is it a philosophy lesson or a science lesson? Since all three, philosophy, science and theology must work together to find truth, it doesn't matter, or does it?

We only use 10% of our brains (although it uses 15% later) yet dolphins use 20% while other animals 5% or less. This, from the movie. Douglas Adams told us that white lab mice should be up there too.

The movie whole heartedly takes in Darwin's theory of evolution and the long Earth theory and asks what happens when we use 100% of our brain with subtle implications that either we reproduce (die) or become immortal.

From a science (as opposed to scientific) point of view, there are glaring errors with all the base concepts in dealing with the brain as they are presented. It's true that we don't really know nearly as much about how the brain works than we are often led to believe but firing too many synapses at once is what leads to mental disorders. They need to fire just the right amount for the sake of sanity.

Math as a universal language is thrown out the window but anyone who's dealt with old and new math already knows this (along with anyone who has delved deeply into calculus).

Then we tackle existence and that time is the only constant. Time gives us meaning and then what does it mean to exist outside of time?

Oh wait... This isn't about philosophy, science, or theology. Truth? No, not that either. The whole movie is to mask someone's idea of creation leaving us with a false statement that “now we know what to do.”

Lucy is a bait and switch movie that most people wouldn't have even heard of if not for Scarlett Johansson starring in it. She lends credibility to a poor project that lacks depth or understanding of the universe. Her acting along with her support cast is excellent. They have the joy of presenting this alongside some solid effects and well designed action sequences however the movie seen as a whole is lacking.

An intriguing childish concept drawn out weakly adding credible acting, a big name, decent choreography and effects leaves us with an immature scribbling given mass effect.

2 Catkins

image_blog: 
tweetbutton: 

Comments

Oedipussy Rex's picture

Oedipussy Rex

Fri, 06/09/2017 - 03:02

I was perfectly willing to let the whole "only 10% of our brain" thing slide because there is precedent for those stories. (See the '70s) But as they say, if you want me to ignore the big thing, you need to get the little things right. This movie was such a hot mess that not only did they get the small things wrong, they couldn't get them wrong in a consistent manner.

Sorcerer Character Has Warrior Adventure

Disappointing Mom since 2010.

Kersus's picture

Kersus

Thu, 10/11/2018 - 22:59

I personally don't get it when people write a book, make a movie, etc without checking on some of the facts they present. Like a WhiteWolf adventure where the writer thought Winnipeg Manitoba was right beside Toronto Ontario.

Some people look at me like I'm too picky and throw around terms like "suspension of disbelief."

I was even a little perturbed when in Doctor Who a veteran nurse touched the Doctor's wrist for a few seconds and knew they had two pulses. Really? If you check your pulse in different spots, the timing is different anyway. Was it just really fast? Why would a nurse from this time period check the wrist over the neck? That's not even the first step officially anymore in CPR. See, maybe I'm just too picky.

As you say, there is precedent for the 10% thing so it felt like the movie was worth a look anyway. I just hoped they'd get little easily researchable facts correct and maybe give us a new spin that works.