Substitues Sci-fi for Phi-fi.

Rating: 9/10 (26 August 2014)

Honestly? I hadn't really given Lucy much thought. I had seen the trailer a long time ago and completely forgot about it, to the point where when it came out in America and topping the box office I was left thinking "What film is this? I've never even heard of 'Lucy'." I had, I just hadn't remembered the name. The trailer instantly piqued my interest with it's whole 10%-100% of the brain dealio. I don't care if it's scientifically accurate or not, if I wanted that I'd watch a documentary. Anyway the point is it's a theory that's always fascinated me. If we did only use 10% of our brains, the possibilities we could unlock at 100% are simply unimaginable. Limitless attempted the same theory, but was decidedly bland and inconsequential. Within the first few minutes, Lucy had surpassed Limitless, and maintained it's quality throughout.
Lucy, more than anything, is a philosophical sci-fi movie. It's not about the science, it's about the unimaginable. So yeah, it can get a bit unbelievable when she starts throwing people across the room with telekinesis, but it's the natural path to her destination, which is philosophical in nature and certain to spark debate. The movie, especially early on, is peppered with seemingly out-of-place shots of the order of nature. The scene of various animals getting jiggy with it even made the immature teenagers behind me annoyingly burst into fits of giggles. For me though? It added an extra dimension and weight to the overall themes of the movie. What is life? What's it's goal? Where are we, as a species, heading? The opening lines "We've been evolving on this planet for a billion years, and what have we done with it?" speaks volumes.
Another key theme of Lucy is that of humanity and how it relates to the natural order of things. We are the only animals with self-awareness, and by extension a sense of morals. Most movies take the human side by appealing to our humanity and highlighting that it's what makes us unique. Lucy doesn't quash that approach. Instead it suggests an alternate viewpoint; that our humanity is what's holding us back and disrupting the natural order of things. The more knowledge and clarity Lucy gains, the more she becomes disconnected from her humanity; from her emotions. She doesn't feel sad or afraid, she doesn't even feel pain. They're all things that get in her way of reaching 100% brain capacity.
However, this is still a Luc Besson movie, and Luc Besson likes his action scenes. Amidst all the philosophical ideas batting around, we get a lot of what feels like superfluous scenes that don't really add much. And it's true. They don't add much to the themes and ideas at all. They're pretty much put there to quicken up the pace a bit, provide some light entertainment, and to further the plot along, because the movie does still have a plot believe it or not, but I'll get to that in a minute. The more superficial scenes are very well done, as Besson is known for. Who knew a chase through Paris involving only one car could be so hugely entertaining (if a bit over-the-top; cars flipping and smashing into each other all over the place, in the middle of a busy city)? There's also quite a bit of tension early on. The introduction of Mr Jang near the beginning is surprisingly scary, as you can't help but imagine yourself in Lucy's shoes.
The plot is reasonably simplistic. Lucy unwittingly becomes a smuggler of a new drug being put into the market, but a bit of mistreatment along the way results in her suffering a massive overdose of the drug giving her an explosion of cell development (thus the whole brain capacity theory). She escapes and goes on a rampage to recover the other packets of this new drug to keep her mental growth sustained. Feeling lost and confused, she also contacts a scientist who's been researching the theory for decades. Naturally everything comes colliding together in an epic climax worthy of comparison to 2001's Starchild.
Scarlett Johansson isn't going to win any Oscars for her emotionless performance, but it deserves commendation nonetheless. Now, I've never been a particularly big Johansson fan. I've always found her to be just a pretty, slutty face adding little to no weight to her roles. Lucy is only the second time I've been genuinely impressed by her work (the first time being Black Widow's manipulation of Loki in Avengers). She starts the film as a bit of a bimbo. Not in a cartoony kind of way as is often portrayed, but she definitely makes a point to make this more human Lucy stand-out from her more cold and efficient Lucy later on. Also, while her performance is fittingly emotionless (as is the point), she does manage to bring a lot of weight to the character. The stand-out example here is with her phonecall to her mother, as she relives memories and experiences she shouldn't remember, like a cat she had when she was barely a year old, or suckling on her mother's teet (yeah, that got the teenagers behind me giggling as well). I wouldn't go so far as to call it a heart-wrenching scene, but it added to Lucy's character development almost purely thanks to the emotion Johansson managed to get across. Again, you couldn't help but empathise.
Lucy has been getting a lot of hate, and honestly I can't understand why. It's got a good balance of action and plot, and themes and philosophy. It's 2014's intelligent blockbuster. It's got a little bit for everyone, from a car chase through the busy streets of Paris to the mind-boggling finale, from the tense introduction of the antagonist to the emotional phone-call. Maybe people are just taking the pseudoscience too literally? I didn't and instead I saw the deeper meaning quite unsubtly placed beneath the surface.