I've wanted to see this since the first time I saw the trailer and the scene in the corridor where everyone is pointing their guns at her and she just wiggles her hand and they all drop dead except the guy in the middle who loses all the bullets in his gun
That's good to see. Using the old adage, if it triples it's budget, which seems to be a formality now, it'll then enter in to pure profit so it makes a sequel all the more likely I imagine.
Well I saw Lucy today and its a decent watch but nothing special. I found it a bit predictable but still enjoyable anyway. The trailers for this film are a bit misleading as I think most of the action from the film is in the trailers!
Well I saw Lucy today and its a decent watch but nothing special. I found it a bit predictable but still enjoyable anyway. The trailers for this film are a bit misleading as I think most of the action from the film is in the trailers!
Thank the lord for that...that means hopefully there is some dialogue and semblance of a plot.
That tired old phrase ' non-stop action' is not only a complete misnomer, but conversely movies that have long stretches with mind-numbing action scenes are seriously boring.
And whilst it's true that films with little action but boring and uninvolving dialogue can be equally as interminable, films that are based on dialogue alone can be tense and captivating if the dialogue is well written. Glengarry Glen Ross would be a good example for me, as well as Sling Blade. Even The Godfather.
I can enjoy a silly, summer blockbuster piece of nonsense as much as anyone, but I really don't understand why some people think that the more action the better the movie, and also that lots of talking in movies is boring. Unless you are 5 years old, of course.
A good recent example of this would be the recent Planet of the Apes movie. I found it captivating, but many people bemoaned the lack of set pieces in the first half, completely ignoring the plot, acting, tension, incident, murders, character interaction and dialogue. And why on earth some people expect lots of action sequences from those movies I really don't know, because right back to the original one that's never been what these movies are about.
I had no real interest in it until I heard a feature about it on Radio 4 (!) where they discussed the reasons that films are exploring the power of the brain. The presenter described the film as "cracking fun". Now I'm intrigued...
Saw this movie today. Awful movie!! Trailer was misleading. Was so short didn't get to finish my popcorn.....of all the things to end up as, Lucy decides she wants to leave the world as a USB flash drive. Just weird...
Seen it yesterday. Was pretty decent up until the last 15 minutes, then it all decided to go a bit too weird. Surprised to hear it's doing so well in the US considering its budget and storyline.
Saw this movie today. Awful movie!! Trailer was misleading. Was so short didn't get to finish my popcorn.....of all the things to end up as, Lucy decides she wants to leave the world as a USB flash drive. Just weird...
I'd like to say a big thanks for ruining the ending. Rollseyes. Use spoiler tags grrrr.
Absolutely terrible! I'm very able and willing to suspend normal belief but this was just codswallop! Watch the trailer and you've seen most of the decent bits of the film.
2/10
Absolutely terrible! I'm very able and willing to suspend normal belief but this was just codswallop! Watch the trailer and you've seen most of the decent bits of the film.
2/10
Totally agree. The last 30 mins was a bit rediculous because she basically becomes
...omnipotent, cannot be killed and promptly controls everything around her. I totally switched off, couldn't wait for it to end.
it's okay , its not a kick-ass action romp , there's only one major action scene really .
basically she develops more and more powers , and rather quickly too , I mean some of the stuff she does is so out there , there's not much sense of her getting used to it , then it kinda goes off on a 2001 last leg .
its a strange mash-up of genres , at first it seems like a typical Luc Besson crime-action thriller , then morgan freeman intercuts with a sort of 'documentary' lecture on brain power (!)
its kinda reminiscent of various movies where someone's powers grow and grow beyond their control , Limitless , Lawnmower Man , etc.
A good recent example of this would be the recent Planet of the Apes movie. I found it captivating, but many people bemoaned the lack of set pieces in the first half, completely ignoring the plot, acting, tension, incident, murders, character interaction and dialogue. And why on earth some people expect lots of action sequences from those movies I really don't know, because right back to the original one that's never been what these movies are about.
To be fair Ted, most post I read weren't bemoaning the lack of action sequences, they simply said that they found the first half of the movie boring (as did I). It's a bit presumptuous to just assume that boredom equals wanting more fire fights. They might be just as interested in things like character development, narrative, story building etc as you, however have a different perspective on how this is done in the film. This is an important concept to try and understand as otherwise you risk becoming a cliched critic snob who looks down on anyone that doesn't appreciate the same types of filming making as you.
Getting back to Lucy, I saw it last week and thought that it was a well made, relatively entertaining but ultimately unsatisfying experience. The plot just has absolutely no where to go after the first 45 minutes and everything afterwards seems incidental. The '2001' type high concept ending was, I suppose, the natural conclusion but I really could have done with a more substantial build up. The film was actually far too short, it' seemed to completely lack a second act.
The premise about 10% was rubbish, but the film was actually quite interesting with various inserted bits of documentary footage to punctuate the action. I liked it, as long as one is able to suspend one's disbelief about the science.
Comments
"Special delivery huh... Let me guess... Chinese? Thai, maybe? Ahh, I've got it. Italian food."
Despite this, it sounds interesting and will probably watch it at some point.
"What's your name angel..."
One of my favourite films and judging by your user name, it's also one of your favourites.
Anyhow, the film. Though modestly budgeted ($40m) and R-rated, this Scar-Jo actioner has proved a summer hit in the US.
$110m - a figure Expendables 3 probaly won't see. Take that, boys.
Lol. Have you actually seen it? Martin isn't in it.
Thank the lord for that...that means hopefully there is some dialogue and semblance of a plot.
That tired old phrase ' non-stop action' is not only a complete misnomer, but conversely movies that have long stretches with mind-numbing action scenes are seriously boring.
And whilst it's true that films with little action but boring and uninvolving dialogue can be equally as interminable, films that are based on dialogue alone can be tense and captivating if the dialogue is well written. Glengarry Glen Ross would be a good example for me, as well as Sling Blade. Even The Godfather.
I can enjoy a silly, summer blockbuster piece of nonsense as much as anyone, but I really don't understand why some people think that the more action the better the movie, and also that lots of talking in movies is boring. Unless you are 5 years old, of course.
A good recent example of this would be the recent Planet of the Apes movie. I found it captivating, but many people bemoaned the lack of set pieces in the first half, completely ignoring the plot, acting, tension, incident, murders, character interaction and dialogue. And why on earth some people expect lots of action sequences from those movies I really don't know, because right back to the original one that's never been what these movies are about.
It has some really interesting ideas but the film just came off as a bit weird.
I'd give it a 6 out of 10.
I'd like to say a big thanks for ruining the ending. Rollseyes. Use spoiler tags grrrr.
2/10
Totally agree. The last 30 mins was a bit rediculous because she basically becomes
Ah well. I hope Sin City 2 is a bit more fun.
basically she develops more and more powers , and rather quickly too , I mean some of the stuff she does is so out there , there's not much sense of her getting used to it , then it kinda goes off on a 2001 last leg .
its a strange mash-up of genres , at first it seems like a typical Luc Besson crime-action thriller , then morgan freeman intercuts with a sort of 'documentary' lecture on brain power (!)
its kinda reminiscent of various movies where someone's powers grow and grow beyond their control , Limitless , Lawnmower Man , etc.
not sure how much I enjoyed it tho .
.
To be fair Ted, most post I read weren't bemoaning the lack of action sequences, they simply said that they found the first half of the movie boring (as did I). It's a bit presumptuous to just assume that boredom equals wanting more fire fights. They might be just as interested in things like character development, narrative, story building etc as you, however have a different perspective on how this is done in the film. This is an important concept to try and understand as otherwise you risk becoming a cliched critic snob who looks down on anyone that doesn't appreciate the same types of filming making as you.
Getting back to Lucy, I saw it last week and thought that it was a well made, relatively entertaining but ultimately unsatisfying experience. The plot just has absolutely no where to go after the first 45 minutes and everything afterwards seems incidental. The '2001' type high concept ending was, I suppose, the natural conclusion but I really could have done with a more substantial build up. The film was actually far too short, it' seemed to completely lack a second act.
But I do think sometimes movies need to surprise or shock, or at least make you think as you leave the cinema and I do believe people are.
Scarlett Johannson was great!!