Friday, 23 January 2015

Lucy: Hmmm … 


23rd January, 2015

You know, that’s rather nice.

Really.

Seeing something you’ve added to Google’s G+ social networking service, showing up in a quick Google search.


I think so, anyway.

I think it’s nice enough to mention, anyway.

OK, OK, it’s possibly completely irrelevant … !

It’s just nice to see one’s name in lights … !

~≈®≈~

Hmm … 

I’m starting to wonder, here, if that’s in any way a relevant opening.

Possibly not.

Whether it’s relevant or not, it’s an opening.

And an opening to what I wanted to tell you about.

You’ve possibly been reading Nik Nak’s Old Peculiar for a while, now, haven’t you?

I hope so.

You’ve possibly also worked out — over the years — I like watching a film or two: on my own, or in company.

You’ve probably also worked out I’d managed to rent a movie, tonight: the posters are a bit of a blue, aren’t they … ?

And finally … ?   Well, finally, you’ve possibly ALSO worked out I’d managed to catch the 2014, Luc Besson directed film that is … 


To be frank with you … ?

Yes.

I think ‘Hmmm’ is a good word to use.

~≈®≈~

Starting in modern day Taiwan, Lucy sees Scarlett Johansson as the eponymous central character, Lucy: a young American woman who’s talked into dropping a briefcase into a hotel.

And, as a result … ?

As a result, she’s conned into having a large bag of a new, and untried, designer drug into her abdomen.

And, when one of the gangsters who’s done this, kicks her in the stomach, the bag splits open.

Splits open … 

And starts having effects initial only hypothesised by Dr Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman): increasing the capacity of Lucy’s brain all the way up to one hundred percent … 

With … complicated … results … 

~≈®≈~

It’s at this stage of a write up, I’ll turn around ask you a rhetorical question.

Something along the lines of “Did I think this film was any good?”

You can imagine the sort of thing, can’t you … ?

So … did I think Lucy was any good?

I have to say yes … 

Ish … !

I think we can safely say Lucy’s director, Luc Besson is one hell of a talent.

Freeman, Johansson and the rest of the cast do the best they can: and put in an ensemble performance that’s fairly well done.

However … ?

At this point, I have to say that while Lucy is an enjoyable piece, I don’t think it’s Luc Besson’s best piece: I think that still goes to either Leon or Nikita.

And, while The Fifth Element is — arguably — very silly or incredibly camp, it’s a better movie than Lucy.

Far more fun, certainly.

I’m also thinking the central premise of the film — that humanity only uses a certain amount of brain capacity, and that this can be artificially improved — isn’t necessary one that has any scientific evidence to support it.

I couldn’t tell you that, for sure: I’m no neurologist.

But I felt that Johnny Depp’s Transcendence possibly had a lot more going for it.   Certainly in terms of scientific plausibility.

Again, I couldn’t swear to that for sure: but the latter of the two felt more plausible.

One thing I did note, though, fairly early on … ?

In one of the earlier sequences in the film, Lucy is given a lecture by one of the gangsters: played by Julian Rhine-Tutt.

Her and the other three mules are given a lecture about how they’re going to sent off, with a bag of the drug in their stomachs.   Get a bag put over their heads so their can be taken to airports, without knowing where they’re going.

Only Lucy … ?

Is taken to a cell and beaten up, so that the gangsters can get — seemingly — the drugs out of her.

Why … ?

After all, they — apparently — want her to take the stuff to Europe.

Logical?

Not from where I’m sitting.

~≈®≈~

With all that said … ?

There’s possibly more to say!

That the characters indulged in philosophy goes without saying: I think any SF film since The Matrix wants to shove in some philosophy.

But the makers of The Matrix made sure any references to philosophy worked well with the story they were telling, but could be safely ignored by those of us who just wanted an SF film, Lucy’s “Time is our Friend, let’s all reproduce” philosophising … ?

Seems both forced, and irrelevant: especially when Far Eastern gangsters are shooting the door down.

And … ?

And … ?

Well, I have to say, the end seemed a touch … you know … 

Rushed … !

~≈®≈~

The other rhetorical question I usually ask myself … ?

Is “Did I enjoy this … ?”

Frankly … ?

I have to say “Yes.”

Yes, I did.

But I’m ALSO aware Lucy isn’t perfect.

Quite a long way from perfect.

Yes, Lucy is watchable.

But also flawed.

Please bear this in mind, if you’re planning on renting Lucy.
Lucy★☆☆☆

5 comments:

Nik Nak said...


You know, I think I’ve finally worked out what bothers me, about Lucy.

It’s PART of the basic premise.

In the early stages of the film, the bad guys stitch the synthetic drug into Lucy’s stomach: so she can smuggle it into where-ever she’s being sent, without that country’s border checks realising she’s a smuggler.

Did I ever tell you — many years ago — that I worked for Britain’s Customs and Excise organisation? Not for very long, and at a very junior level?

In Stratford’s Local VAT Office, I should add. The three days of basic training covered quite a bit of territory.

Including some of the murkier bits of drug smuggling practise, encountered at Britain’s sea and air ports.

One of those is what, at the time, was called ‘stuffing and swallowing’: the then equivalent of what’s done to Scarlett Johansen, in Lucy.

Get a lot of condoms, and a willing person. Wash off the spermicide. Fill the condoms with heroin, cocaine, what-have-you.

If your drug mule is to swallow them, tie off the open ends, cover the condoms in honey, and make the mule swallow the condoms.

‘Stuffing’ is similar. Except the condoms are tied off, covered in a lubricant and inserted either vaginally or rectally.

Then, like the hapless Scarlett, they’re sent on their way.

The BIG difference is what happens if the condoms split.

In Lucy … ?

In Lucy, Lucy turns into a superhero, as a result of the drug making her brain expand.

In the real world?

Brains don’t expand.

The mule suffers from an overdose. Sometimes a fatal one.

That … ? Well, that is another flaw in Lucy.

carly burns said...

I agree, I found the storyline great, yet the film seemed a bit rushed at the start then quite 'choppy'.
Almost a matrix-transference-kill bill type rip off-etc etc but Scarlett Johansson has really saved this film being rubbish because of the limited storyline her acting skills make me give this a 2.5 not a 1

carly burns said...

I agree, I found the storyline great, yet the film seemed a bit rushed at the start then quite 'choppy'.
Almost a matrix-transference-kill bill type rip off-etc etc but Scarlett Johansson has really saved this film being rubbish because of the limited storyline her acting skills make me give this a 2.5 not a 1

Nik Nak said...

Don’t know if I’d go quite that far, Carly! Yes, Scarlett DID help, but even so … ?

Oh, SO you know … ?

SO you know, Carly, SO you know, my stars go from 0* to 4†.

Hope that helps!

*        ☆☆☆☆ (Forget it!)
†        ★★★★ (Duy a copy, and sleep with the director/leading man/leading lady!)

Nik Nak said...

BUY a copy … !