LUCY. Watching this science fiction is a disheartening experience
Luc Besson used to be a really good director. Unfortunately, the key word here is “used to be.” When remembering his greatest work, “The Big Blue,” watching “Lucy” becomes an even more disheartening experience.
The story is as simple as the construction of a cudgel. Lucy is persuaded by her boyfriend, whom she has been dating for a week, to deliver a suitcase to Mr. Jang. As it turns out, the suitcase contains a new kind of drug, and Lucy is “hired” (read: forced) to transport part of the substance to the USA. However, the substance sewn into her stomach enters her bloodstream, causing the protagonist to increasingly tap into the potential of her brain.
Besson attempts to explore what would happen if such a scenario were possible. And it doesn’t matter to him that recent research clearly indicates that the theory claiming humans only use 10% of their brainpower is false. Well, for the purposes of the movie, one can accept such an assumption.
Through Professor Norman’s statements, the director presents a condensed history of human development on screen. However, as the narrative progresses, it increasingly resembles the verbose techniques known from Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life.” It’s not enough for the scholar to talk about an organism living in a dangerous environment. During his speech, the viewer is treated to images of volcanic eruptions, floods, and other natural disasters. Essentially, it’s unclear why this serves a purpose, as in the end, it’s evident that it’s about mere embellishments (more on that later). Unfortunately, “Lucy” is full of philosophical nonsense and pretentious observations, and the overall conclusion that our humanity is defined by limitations is only moderately convincing. Besson attempts to criticize humanity for its constant pursuit of unlimited knowledge, to some extent, even immortality, but he does so in a manner that is more amusing than thought-provoking.
Especially considering that the hallmark of the majority of films he has worked on in recent years is the lack of any logic. “Lucy” is no exception. In essence, no one here is surprised by anything, with the main character leading the way. Without batting an eye and without hesitation, she exploits her new abilities, often without considering the consequences. There are numerous plot holes and idiotic plot solutions. For example, it’s not clear why Lucy doesn’t kill her main opponent when she can do so without any problem (she previously eliminated his entire entourage). When the police officer driving with her suggests that he can call off the pursuing patrol cars, the heroine refuses. Mainly to allow for the inclusion of a spectacular crash scene in the film – the fact that law enforcement officers die as a result is of no consequence. Sometimes Lucy also forgets that she has no limitations. The entire final shootout could have been avoided if she had just taken two minutes to disarm her opponents. I assure you that such quirks are just the tip of the iceberg.
So the best way to watch “Lucy” without significant pain is to simply turn off your thinking during the screening. In that case, Besson’s film can provide some entertainment. The action scenes are appropriately spectacular, and the plot races forward at breakneck speed. Therefore, it would be hard to say that anyone would be bored at the cinema. It’s just unfortunate to see Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman pretending to give their best performances. It seems that the actors were aware they were in an incredibly silly film and were just waiting for the end of the shooting period. At one point, Lucy asks her interlocutor if anything she is saying makes sense. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.