User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 437 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 25, 2014
    2
    Really bad movie. Scarlets worst movie. It's like a Matrix wannabe but is tiresome and predicable. Yes there is action but it is all the same and you are just thinking ok I get it get on with it already.
  2. Jul 25, 2014
    1
    Pushing aside the laughable "science", the film fails to entertain. Scarlett Johansson is so bad in this, that it's no longer surprising when her performance contains no emotion or actual acting. The character is beyond unconnectable, and sometimes unlike able. The story is lame, the action is kind of lame, and overall the project is just boring.
  3. Jul 26, 2014
    0
    Probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Cheesy and childish effects, pointless fights and a ridiculous plot. Completely incorrect scientific basis of the brain function did not do any good either.
  4. Jul 25, 2014
    7
    Okay, first of all, you're going to have to suspend all reality when you see this movie. Once you get by that, it's kind of slick. Scarlett Johansson's character morphs from a kind of "party girl" to a benign and eminently watchable "Terminator". Morgan Freeman adds to the movie as professor aligned with "Lucy". Choi Min-sik (as the villain) and Amr Waked (as a supportive, ifOkay, first of all, you're going to have to suspend all reality when you see this movie. Once you get by that, it's kind of slick. Scarlett Johansson's character morphs from a kind of "party girl" to a benign and eminently watchable "Terminator". Morgan Freeman adds to the movie as professor aligned with "Lucy". Choi Min-sik (as the villain) and Amr Waked (as a supportive, if befuddled police officer) add to the international cast. A fun ride. Expand
  5. Aug 3, 2014
    10
    I thought the movie was great. It had a spiritual message that provoked one to thought. I love action movies and this film does give lots of action; however, typically action movies don't offer any depth to the storyline. "Lucy," does provide depth and need for thought and I left contemplating its message. It reminded me a bit of the Matrix. The message was a labyrinth of possibilities.
  6. Jul 27, 2014
    2
    Horrible horrible horrible movie. Way too much humor. Was a different twist of a story to tell. Just boring. Action wasn't great, jokes were not funny. Didn't like the connection of the footage of the animals they added. Just didn't mix well.
  7. Jul 31, 2014
    7
    The best thing about futuristic, sci-fi is when it shows us truly mind-blowing concepts and visuals. In this case, that's literally what happens. Scarlett Johansson plays a woman who accidentally ingests a substance that enables her to use increasingly large portions of her brain's ability. This gives her powers that allow her to control the world around her. The film is full of cool ideasThe best thing about futuristic, sci-fi is when it shows us truly mind-blowing concepts and visuals. In this case, that's literally what happens. Scarlett Johansson plays a woman who accidentally ingests a substance that enables her to use increasingly large portions of her brain's ability. This gives her powers that allow her to control the world around her. The film is full of cool ideas that are illuminated with strong special effects. Johansson is up to the challenges of super skills, both mentally and physically. Writer/director Luc Besson has added his signature action (that crazy car chase) to give the visuals even more of an impact. A fun trip! Expand
  8. Jul 27, 2014
    3
    I should have known, going into a movie that's based on a fallacious urban legend (that humans only use ten to fifteen percent of their brains), that I would be disappointed by what the film would attempt to do with a very ambitious plot: the unleashing of all the brains power. Unfortunately the filmmakers were talented enough in their craft to splice together intriguing enough of aI should have known, going into a movie that's based on a fallacious urban legend (that humans only use ten to fifteen percent of their brains), that I would be disappointed by what the film would attempt to do with a very ambitious plot: the unleashing of all the brains power. Unfortunately the filmmakers were talented enough in their craft to splice together intriguing enough of a trailer to lure the matinee ticket price out of my pocket, but that's where the mastery ended. You've seen this movie before, bits and pieces, some larger than others, but there's nothing original here, they can't get past the idea that a more highly evolved person would behave like a robot, that they would be alleviated of their emotions almost entirely, which saves them from having to do something like, oh, continue to make our emotional makeup more sophisticated and charming; we can't have that because that would require true writing talent. If every character with a glimpse into this elevated existence speaks slowly enough, with enough awe in their whispers, the audience will buy into it, but just to be sure let's get Morgan Freeman on the cast as a scientist, who could make the print on a box of Froot Loops sound profound. Then of course to keep the tension going, Lucy has to have some lapses in her superhuman intelligence and leaves some loose ends along the way, something that you see in many movies, but not one with a cerebral, hyper-intuitive demigod. Expand
  9. Jul 28, 2014
    7
    Kinda dumb premise, but entertaining nonetheless. Lots of humor to offset the ridiculousness of the concept(s). If you like Sci-Fi and Scarlett, go see it just for fun. If you liked the movie "Limitless" (clear pills that made a person access all of their brain capacity), you will probably like this, although Limitless was a much better movie.
  10. Aug 15, 2014
    7
    This is female revenge fantasy with a sci-fi gloss, and it works. Scarlett Johannson is the best killing-machine hottie since Darryl Hannah scissored Harrison Ford in Blade Runner. The character she plays has been heavily dosed with a drug that makes her supersmart. Although the script ultimately fails to describe convincingly how a vengeful woman with an off-the-charts IQ would deal withThis is female revenge fantasy with a sci-fi gloss, and it works. Scarlett Johannson is the best killing-machine hottie since Darryl Hannah scissored Harrison Ford in Blade Runner. The character she plays has been heavily dosed with a drug that makes her supersmart. Although the script ultimately fails to describe convincingly how a vengeful woman with an off-the-charts IQ would deal with a gang of murderous, very well-armed Chinese thugs, it makes up for this shortcoming with rapid-fire pacing and a good sense of humor about blood. The Chinese gangleader is one bad-ass, but not entirely believable as a worthy foe for Scarlett. Even so, seeing him get done in (twice) was satisfying in a way that only a good revenge fantasy can be. Expand
  11. Aug 2, 2014
    7
    Entertaining film. Although the 10% myth is flawed, the movie is decent. I would have liked to see more blood and action scenes in the movie. I could see why people didn't like the movie as much because it tends to get more philosophical toward the end which makes it a bit confusing. I did like however, the idea of increasing your mental capacity. Not a horrible film. Decent movie to see,Entertaining film. Although the 10% myth is flawed, the movie is decent. I would have liked to see more blood and action scenes in the movie. I could see why people didn't like the movie as much because it tends to get more philosophical toward the end which makes it a bit confusing. I did like however, the idea of increasing your mental capacity. Not a horrible film. Decent movie to see, if you have nothing else to do on a Saturday. Not a movie to be taken too seriously. The silver lining is sarjo proves she has the skill to lead an action film and it also opens the door for more action films with leading women in it in the future Expand
  12. Aug 21, 2014
    7
    - a somewhat sci-fi thriller that depicts the origin of life.
    You could say it starts off as a bit of a joke. Or just a really bad version of a 007 wanna-be-badass replica. Even Johannson’s acting starts off like a joke; literally, she seems to be laughing more than crying herself through the first ten minutes of the film.
    However, Lucy transcends with every passing minute – as if the
    - a somewhat sci-fi thriller that depicts the origin of life.
    You could say it starts off as a bit of a joke. Or just a really bad version of a 007 wanna-be-badass replica. Even Johannson’s acting starts off like a joke; literally, she seems to be laughing more than crying herself through the first ten minutes of the film.
    However, Lucy transcends with every passing minute – as if the quality of the film and it’s acting were corresponding to the percentage of brain capacity that the protagonist female-gone-super-human android is using.
    It is one of those films, whose idea clearly surpasses cinematographic capabilities - time, space, gravity, and the origin of cells that build life and our reality - it is one of those films, that you watch skeptically, but are patient and open to giving it a chance. You watch, learn and enjoy, but after that start are all the while still deciding whether this is total guff, whether you have been ripped off at the theatre counter, and served quantum-physics starters-pack drivel with some Scarlett glitter on top to cover it up?
    About midway through, I decided to give it a chance. A real chance. A chance at blowing me away and taking my mind to places unexplored, allowing my brain synapses to dance and go wild, tying together all my theories about life with what I was learning whilst fixing my eyes upon the screen. It worked.
    The key is, to see film as art. To take what you can get from it. Not to critizise (and believe me there was a lot of moaning and dis-missing going on in the seats around me) but to make the most of it. Yes you CAN.
    Once this happens (and there have been a lot of films where it just doesnt happen, let me just say ‘The Counsellor’) you are free to go and experience that wonderful world of time, intelligence and purpose of life that is Lucy. Maybe I am an optimist who was fed cyborg-bullcrap and went off on it – maybe I fell in love with the idea of being- and playing Scarlett’s part, but in any case, I am glad to have seen this film, as it let me exit that cinema with sharpened senses and let me glide into the night feeling alive, thursting for knowledge, finding life intelligent and beautiful. Each step was beautiful.
    Expand
  13. Jul 29, 2014
    7
    Part action, part esoteric extrapolation, the movie was bound to draw a line down the middle with people. For me I enjoyed the deeper, trippy concepts that made up the heart of the story. Scarlett Johanson was perfect in her role and I doubt it would've been nearly as enjoyable without her leading the way. I recommend it if you like action and also enjoy contemplating spiritual of higherPart action, part esoteric extrapolation, the movie was bound to draw a line down the middle with people. For me I enjoyed the deeper, trippy concepts that made up the heart of the story. Scarlett Johanson was perfect in her role and I doubt it would've been nearly as enjoyable without her leading the way. I recommend it if you like action and also enjoy contemplating spiritual of higher level consciousness type stuff. I think some of the folks that are having such a negative response to it are those that don't like when things aren't totally spelled out for them. Expand
  14. Jul 28, 2014
    3
    Very misleading, implies a real action movie but not really. Sure there is some but the last 30 minutes are boring. We are supposed to awed by her time travel, blah. What a waste of Morgan Freeman. You will not get involved in this movie.
  15. Jul 27, 2014
    3
    THEY BLEW ALL THEIR A MATERIAL ON THE TRAILER. I saw this movie hoping for more of the trailer. Except drawn out, like a whole move. The scenes you see in the trailer are in the movie. And longer. But the important part of each scene you saw in the trailer.
    The premise, though deeply flawed could have been a fun thought experiment at least. Instead of what they do with it.
    The good:
    THEY BLEW ALL THEIR A MATERIAL ON THE TRAILER. I saw this movie hoping for more of the trailer. Except drawn out, like a whole move. The scenes you see in the trailer are in the movie. And longer. But the important part of each scene you saw in the trailer.
    The premise, though deeply flawed could have been a fun thought experiment at least. Instead of what they do with it.
    The good: Scarlett Johansson, about 10 minutes worth of footage that will make a great screensaver. (beauty in nature, universe pretty, cg pretty etc.)
    The bad: Scarlett Johansson's acting. She acts for the first 25 minutes, then when she is playing an enlightened being she displays as much emotion as a computer. Which itself is a feat. So few actors can manage so deadpan they could be in a coma. Unfortunately its a detriment to this film. Then there is the french cop who isn't as stunned as he should be. And Morgan Freeman as the worlds dumbest smart person, complete with a stock audience so impressed by that tripe they must be on a day trip from the school for the mentally challenged.
    Morgan Freeman is basically phoning it in for this move, and he is the only remotely sympathetic character.
    Do not pay to see this one in theaters. Wait for it on netflix, it will be there soon.
    Expand
  16. Jul 27, 2014
    1
    Inconsistent and incoherent, lacking internal logic, charm, or emotion, it is directed by Luc Besson, who has proven himself to be the French Michael Bay.

    The first 15 minutes of set-up begin are intercut with stock footage, giving the film a "We wanted to make an art film but failed miserably" feel to it. This trope is abandoned, which is fine because the movie is filled with other
    Inconsistent and incoherent, lacking internal logic, charm, or emotion, it is directed by Luc Besson, who has proven himself to be the French Michael Bay.

    The first 15 minutes of set-up begin are intercut with stock footage, giving the film a "We wanted to make an art film but failed miserably" feel to it. This trope is abandoned, which is fine because the movie is filled with other hackneyed film cliches. While Lucy (the name of "the first human" - get it?!) is mutating, Professor Morgan Freeman is lecturing an audience of "smart people" (it might be a symposium or it might be a college class or it might just be Luc Besson's friends) on the 10% trope.

    Lucy at 20% is allegedly super-smart but she evidently keeps forgetting what she can do. At 40%, she can put people to sleep, which she doesn't do later when the movie rips of a key scene from The Matrix. She can manipulate matter but she evidently can't make more of the magic blue powder because she needs to get the rest of it. She needs "energy" but instead of tapping into an outlet, she tentacle eats a pair of color copiers. She can hear and understand all radio and cellular and electronic transmissions but she needs physical access to a supercomputer. In short, the movie sets up internal rules for itself and then ignores all of them.

    The acting is fairly terrible. Johannsen's character is devoid of any emotion throughout the entire movie (although at one point, she gets teary-eyed while delivering the same monologue given by every person who has ever used LSD). Morgan Freeman reads narration and looks old and pensive. There are Asian bad guys who shoot guns, get tattoos, and yell in Korean (Asians are the new Nazis, I guess).

    On top of it all, the film is riddled with the most absurdly wrong technobabble ever. The magic blue drug is called PCH4, which is a synthetic form of a substance secreted by the mother during the 6th week of pregnancy and it causes the bones to form and "is like an atomic bomb going off in the womb." This is hogwash.

    Other films blatantly stolen from include 2001, which has the blinking eyes and chimp-people stolen from it (along with a goodly amount of the plot), the aforementioned Matrix, and Akira.

    While the special effects are good, they cannot compare to the better effects in the other movies out. The chimp people look crude compared to the chimpanzees of Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes. The floating people are shoddily done. Lucy plucking at cell-phone signals (written in technowriting lifted AGAIN from The Matrix) comes across as ridiculous when the scene cuts to profile.

    Visually, the film is overblown and hamfisted. It is filled with overly structured shots, smash cuts, and extreme close-ups.

    In summation, this film is terrible. It is "the thinking person's scifi movie" for the moron crowd. The central conceit is flawed. No idea in the movie stands up to any scrutiny. The execution is clumsy and ham-fisted. As a whole, the film is a derivative pastiche of far superior science fiction movies. To say that it shamelessly stole would be a complement. At 88 minutes, it is mercifully short.

    If you must see it, see it in 3D and while very high. Otherwise, avoid this movie. It is terrible.
    Expand
  17. Jul 31, 2014
    3
    For anyone who knows anything about neuroscience this movie is such an insult to your intelligence that the movie is permanently ruined as soon as Morgan Freeman opens his mouth. I am sure Freeman also knows enough to know his lines were plonk too, because he is the least convincing I have seen him for a long time. The whole premise is ridiculous. Probably the most disappointing movie IFor anyone who knows anything about neuroscience this movie is such an insult to your intelligence that the movie is permanently ruined as soon as Morgan Freeman opens his mouth. I am sure Freeman also knows enough to know his lines were plonk too, because he is the least convincing I have seen him for a long time. The whole premise is ridiculous. Probably the most disappointing movie I have seen for some time. Save yourself the ticket price and buy something by Ramachandran, Sacks, or even Medina, from Amazon. The trailer contains the best parts of the movie from a visual sense. Connecting those up is just watching Besson's trainwreck in slow motion. Expand
  18. Jul 25, 2014
    9
    Lucy starts like a Keanu Reeves Sci-Fi adventure, feeling more like Johnny Mnemonic than The Matrix. Lucy is the innocent bystander in a designer drug deal on Taipei gone bad, which leads to a speculative fantasy of potential human evolution catalyzed by the drug. From there it feels more like 2001: A Space Odyssey as Lucy transforms to a über-human in a LBD. Good special effects with aLucy starts like a Keanu Reeves Sci-Fi adventure, feeling more like Johnny Mnemonic than The Matrix. Lucy is the innocent bystander in a designer drug deal on Taipei gone bad, which leads to a speculative fantasy of potential human evolution catalyzed by the drug. From there it feels more like 2001: A Space Odyssey as Lucy transforms to a über-human in a LBD. Good special effects with a nod to scientific philosophy. Have fun, but take it with a boulder of blue salt. Expand
  19. Jul 29, 2014
    7
    It's ambitious, strange, moronic, cerebral, and propulsive fun all at once. The effects can be cheesy at some points, but other times they can actually be really cool. At least they're all used creatively. It's almost impossible to really label this movie. It's so strange that I can see why a lot of the critics are polarized. There are a few thought provoking ideas here, even if theIt's ambitious, strange, moronic, cerebral, and propulsive fun all at once. The effects can be cheesy at some points, but other times they can actually be really cool. At least they're all used creatively. It's almost impossible to really label this movie. It's so strange that I can see why a lot of the critics are polarized. There are a few thought provoking ideas here, even if the movie lacks the impact and believable logic to truly reach its full potential. But to be honest, how often do summer movies have any ideas at all? It's definitely the most unique action movie of the summer, even if it's not the best. I'd say to go see it. Just don't expect something on the levels of The Matrix or Inception. Expand
  20. Jul 26, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A pretty face and some sweet special effects can't save this terribly laughable scifi movie. It's so damn retarded and randomly confusing, that people in the theaters were laughing at it the whole time.

    We start off the movie with nothing but a girl and a guy are talking. No backstory is need for this or no explanation of how they know each other. He basically handcuffs her to this briefcase and then sends her into the hotel. She just goes along with it of course, for what reason. I don't know, but seems smart. She gets caught of course and eventually gets this bag of drugs put into her. It rips and the story starts drag for no good reason. There's really no story to be told here. There's these bags of drugs, if Lucy doesn't get them then she will turned into a organism that lives forever? That's the conclusion anyways. It's an hour and a half movie of nothing but trying to find these bags and give knowledge to the world...what knowledge you say? Who the **** knows. The movie ends without any clue of the knowledge whatsoever. The ending together is so ****ing dumb that you have to be stoned out of your mind to think it makes sense or that's it's even close to good. She turns herself into a computer, you read that right. With the help of venom like powers, she molds herself into a ****ing computer and then creates some sort of flash drive with some sort of information...that again we don't know. It's supposedly the secrets to the universe, which makes no sense. The movie plays off as this smart and awesome scifi film, but is literally one of the funniest movies of all time. You have to watch for comedic value alone...actually watching everyone's reactions to the movie is worth the price. The only redeemable part of this movie is Scarlett Johansson. Without some pretty good acting, this movie would be the next happening. Overal WTF was this movie and how the hell was it able to be produced into film. .8/10
    Expand
  21. Jul 29, 2014
    0
    This has to be one of the worst movies i've ever seen. The script is terrible. "I can takes my mother's milk" < that's actually a line from the movie. I'm not making this up. There are scenes of animal sex, animals giving birth, and the story basically goes no where. Don't waste your money.
  22. Jul 25, 2014
    4
    Dull and Passionless

    Besson had some interesting narrative ideas (using the stock footage to show what was going on in Lucy's mind) but he abandoned those so early, they seemed like editing mistakes. A full third of the movie is a PowerPoint presentation and, while it's widely believed that people would pay to hear Morgan Freeman read the phone book, it comes off just as dull as your
    Dull and Passionless

    Besson had some interesting narrative ideas (using the stock footage to show what was going on in Lucy's mind) but he abandoned those so early, they seemed like editing mistakes.

    A full third of the movie is a PowerPoint presentation and, while it's widely believed that people would pay to hear Morgan Freeman read the phone book, it comes off just as dull as your last quarterly meeting.

    The film's true failing is that Lucy is no longer human within the first 40 minutes. She becomes completely unsympathetic. There is no hero here because we have no idea what she wants or why she is trying so hard to accomplish "the thing."

    It is, in the end, hollow and heartless.
    Expand
  23. Jul 28, 2014
    0
    Pretty bad movie, without charisma, the actors use basically the same expressions they use in any other movies, this is a movie builded on the phame of the cast. Jonahsson just stop, you're a beautiful girl and nothing more
  24. Jul 29, 2014
    0
    I actually created an account just so I could warn others away from this movie! I am truly baffled by the positive critic reviews. There were no redeeming qualities for this movie. I wasn't even able to say, "Well, the science was completely unsound, but at least I was entertained!" I was counting down the minutes for it to be over. My friend fell asleep. Only go if you want to pay forI actually created an account just so I could warn others away from this movie! I am truly baffled by the positive critic reviews. There were no redeeming qualities for this movie. I wasn't even able to say, "Well, the science was completely unsound, but at least I was entertained!" I was counting down the minutes for it to be over. My friend fell asleep. Only go if you want to pay for air-conditioning and a good nap. Expand
  25. Jul 31, 2014
    0
    This was really, really bad. It seemed throughout the entire film that it was confused about its own genre. It started out as an action film, with oddly placed comedic moments, and gratuitous pictures of animals evolving, and threw in a bunch of inane "cellular evolution" animation sequences and diatribes about the purpose of humanity. At some point it tried for a failed sci-fi plot.This was really, really bad. It seemed throughout the entire film that it was confused about its own genre. It started out as an action film, with oddly placed comedic moments, and gratuitous pictures of animals evolving, and threw in a bunch of inane "cellular evolution" animation sequences and diatribes about the purpose of humanity. At some point it tried for a failed sci-fi plot.

    The efforts were noble, truly, but I wish that the person who had created this movie -- or absolutely anyone who ever taken a biology class -- had tried to infuse some sort of grounding or reality (anything even somewhat believable) into this movie.

    I wish it could even be mindless entertainment or action, but for that you have to have a plot. Had there been any sort of real threat -- the entire conflict is that Lucy, the superhuman drug-created mutation decides to take down the drug lords who injected her...which makes no sense, because she's essentially God at this point -- then I would have been okay with it. Or, if you're going in the direction of Gene Rodenberry/The Next Generation, then throw in a little more focused philosophical dialogue. But this film had neither.

    Seriously, this was just bad. The trailer was better than the entire movie. I'm a straight woman, so I guess if you're a straight guy maybe you'd want to go see it for Scarlett Johanssen. Who knows.

    Just skip it.
    Expand
  26. Sep 8, 2014
    7
    Lucy is an unusual film. What starts out as routine superhero stuff diverts into something much stranger and unique. It's an acquired taste that feels least satisfying in the traditional areas (super-power battle sequences, for example) and most satisfying in it's delving into evolution, science and religion. Lucy is one of those films destined to become a cult classic in the future.
  27. Jul 31, 2014
    2
    Lucy is sexist and jaw-droppingly racist. And it's dumb. And very poorly made.
    Other the years, writer/director/supreme egoist Luc Besson seems to be doing the opposite of his lead character here — his brain power is decreasing with every script.

    (BTW, it's a myth that we only use 10% of our brains. We use all of it.)
  28. Jul 25, 2014
    7
    Lucy is a pretty cool action flick with a heavy dose of intelligent writing. Whether backed by real facts or, assuming, made up ones- it doesn't really matter as the ride is a consistently interesting one that feels like a really juicer primer for a (hoped for) sequel. Morgan Freeman is solid as the reassuring center to the spinning, frightening reality in which Lucy is thrust.
  29. Jul 27, 2014
    7
    "Lucy" is the first secular, sci-fantasy, international Western I've seen. The "black hats" are one dimensional, Asian villians; the "white hat," Scarlett Johansson, is a literal bombshell, who finds her moral compass in her expanding frontal lobe. This is Johannsson's movie to win or lose as she plays a steroidal game of "Beat the Clock." with criminal minds and a cocktail of mind-blowing"Lucy" is the first secular, sci-fantasy, international Western I've seen. The "black hats" are one dimensional, Asian villians; the "white hat," Scarlett Johansson, is a literal bombshell, who finds her moral compass in her expanding frontal lobe. This is Johannsson's movie to win or lose as she plays a steroidal game of "Beat the Clock." with criminal minds and a cocktail of mind-blowing chemicals. It's plot is like a blend of the "Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight" and "Contact," but Johannsson is convincing, the action fun and the outcome mysteriously begs a better sequel. Should get an Oscar nod for special effects and applause for it's simian anti-drug message. Expand
  30. Aug 17, 2014
    7
    Lucy aims to entertain cinema-goers with SFX. Don't take any of it seriously. It's a SCIENCE FICTION. There's an element of fiction at play here. You'll leave the cinema dumber for believing any of it. However, the visual experience makes up for all of it. Entertaining and worth viewing on a mammoth screen.
  31. Sep 20, 2014
    4
    Disappointed. Very disappointed. Very, very disappointed. Is this all accelerated evolution has to offer mankind? Here was a chance for Scarlett Johansson to kick some ass for 80 minutes and somehow there was no fun, no humor, no triumph of smartness over dumbness. "Limitless", a flawed movie, with Bradley Cooper better covered the expanding mental power in an ordinary human. BetterDisappointed. Very disappointed. Very, very disappointed. Is this all accelerated evolution has to offer mankind? Here was a chance for Scarlett Johansson to kick some ass for 80 minutes and somehow there was no fun, no humor, no triumph of smartness over dumbness. "Limitless", a flawed movie, with Bradley Cooper better covered the expanding mental power in an ordinary human. Better still, check out "The Sixth Finger" from the 40+ year Outer Limits show (season 1, episode 5). Expand
  32. Sep 12, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is probably the worst movie I've ever seen. I'll just put up in bullet points why:
    1) Unforgivable fallacies: The idea that humans only use 10% of their brain is a glaring myth, and the fact that they then try to say that because dolphins use 15% of their brain, they have been physically allowed to develop sonar. Additionally, the scenes where this "science" is explained, it is to a room of professors and students who regularly ask questions. And not one of them tries to call him out on it.
    2) Poor choice of words: After she "unlocks the unlimited potential of the cell's nucleus," she states a couple of times that she has achieved some great "knowledge." This stunned me. You don't just begin to know things as a result of being smarter, you must learn them. This movie has her learn everything by taking drugs. (She somehow knows random trivia about people and how to control various electronics, but still has to look into people's phone calls to see what they're planning to do.)
    3) Unneeded tension: There were far too many instances where Lucy could have ENDED any conflict in the movie and she simply chooses to ignore them. And as a result, the people she says she cares about are put at risk of dying. It wasn't just a matter of non-violence on her part, either, so there's no reason for more than half of the conflict.
    4) Non-relatable character: From the moment she becomes "all-knowing," she acts better than everyone and pretends to _know_ everything despite still needing to find information from others. And - to spoil the ending of the movie for you, too - just prior to going through a time-travelling experience, she still insists on being an all-knowing entity more akin to a god than a human... therefore completely invalidating anything that could have been achieved through that scene.
    5) Terrible acting: In the beginning, she plays a ditsy girl which was okay, but as soon as she's kidnapped, it all goes downhill. Every sound that comes out of her mouth while she's captured is painful to listen to (not out of sadness, but out of not wanting my ears to bleed). Then, as soon as she's using "more than 10% of her brain," she starts acting so arrogant and ignorant of how her behavior could affect others.
    6) Horrific cutaway scenes: Sometimes the movie will cut away to various shots from nature programs to equate something that's happening with a natural event. But the quality of the footage is subpar, and the objective simply isn't well executed at all.

    It was a sad waste of an hour and a half, and it seems pretty clear, too, that most of the budget went into buying positive reviews for this trashy film.
    Expand
  33. Sep 4, 2014
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Scarlett Johansson's acting ability is impressive. Morgan Freeman delivers exposition as beautifully as expected. The movie was at times fun to watch. And I'm happy the people writing screenplays are currently fascinated with transcending human limitations through science (although in this case the black market designer drug variety of science). I wish the people in charge of allocating government research funding in real life were half as fascinated. Unfortunately that bunch seems more interested in the type of research that makes things (and people) blow up. Not that this movie didn't have plenty of that. Not that I mind when it's a movie. Here ends my praise for Lucy, here begins the snark and spoilers. Don't say you weren't warned! The movie starts falling apart around the time drugs turn Lucy's eyes a CGI shade of blue. Then it manages to recapture my interest during a police standoff in which Lucy meets her ever-after-to-be-bewildered love interest. But only Robert Heinlein could have created a terser 'boy meets girl, well that's all settled then' sequence. Immediately after she kisses him so he'll keep following her around like a bewildered collie dog, a car chase ensues. It lacks all suspense because Lucy is behind the wheel and obviously isn't going to wreck (wreck herself, anyway, she manages to ruin the day and increase car insurance rates for plenty of innocent bystanders). Here the dialogue really rubs logic the wrong way when Lucy proclaims that no one ever really dies, even as she races with obvious urgency and aforementioned vehicular carnage to extend her own life, apparently in order to share what she has learned with the rest of humanity. But really, what's the rush, won't it all come around again or something mystically eternal like that? The movie then collects itself a final time for an ending I found superficially profound. Until I thought about what the message is in the context of the movie itself. The plot wraps up with Lucy's voiceover, “Life was given to us a billion years ago. Now you know what you can do with it.” Okay, who doesn't want to control time and everything else? (Shut up, yes you do. You just don't want anyone to think you're a control freak. You'd jump at the chance.) But what steps is this movie suggesting we take in order to attain such lofty post-human heights, exactly? Step 1: Have a shady boyfriend encourage you to drink lots of alcohol, distract you from your studies, and get you mixed up with ruthless drug dealers before he gets himself killed. Step 2: When circumstances permit, arrange to become an unwilling drug mule for the ruthless drug dealers, get groped by one, and make sure he slaps you around a bit so as to accidentally release a lot of designer drugs into your system. Now you should have some transcendent power flowing through your veins, so move on to Step 3: With those powers you can straighten everything out (except road safety in France) by first gaining control over yourself, then getting control over other people (shut up, you know you want to make your mother-in-law river-dance on the Thanksgiving Turkey this year), then getting control over pretty much everything, and finally take control over time itself. At which point you can go directly to Step 4: turn yourself into an organic super computer, then go back in time and have a chat with one of humanity's furry predecessors, or at least lock eyes and touch pointer fingers E.T.-style with one. But when you return to the present there's still violence, blood, gore, and ignorant humanity, so you pass along what you've learned while your new, cleaner-cut (at least as far as the standards of French police goes) boyfriend kills some guy who was about to shoot you in the back of the head while you were time-surfing. Proving that you sure didn't change anything with that whole time travel trip. Which step was that one again? Sorry, I lost track. But I guess maybe we can pretend that step made sense because maybe the time-line branched off when Lucy met anthropology Lucy (yes, that Lucy) and in some other branch of time humanity evolved into something much more decent? Whatever. On to the Final Step: Text message your new love interest to let him know you are everywhere. Very stalkerish. Don't worry, he won't mind. In fact, judging by his expression, it seemed to clear some things up for the poor befuddled fellow. Or at least cheer him up. Expand
  34. Jul 29, 2014
    7
    Just leave any and all expectations at the door and you will enjoy this one. Tries to create a new type in its world building but that comes with mixed reviews. Freeman gives a lecture staggered in bits through the movie to give us simple minded folks a few ideas on what Lucy was doing other than just hallucinating or thinking about National Geographic shorts. I think Scarlet gives aJust leave any and all expectations at the door and you will enjoy this one. Tries to create a new type in its world building but that comes with mixed reviews. Freeman gives a lecture staggered in bits through the movie to give us simple minded folks a few ideas on what Lucy was doing other than just hallucinating or thinking about National Geographic shorts. I think Scarlet gives a better performance in the movie "Her" which has a similar plot just not as much pseudo-fu as this flick. This movie just left me with one question in the end. Was that memory stick USB3.0 or USB2.0? If it was 2.0 then it would take a whole lot longer to copy his files. :) Expand
  35. Aug 8, 2014
    5
    It was honestly such a dumb movie. The logic totally collapses and as Lucy gets more and more intelligent the script gets more and more ridiculous. Interesting style, absolutely no substance.
  36. Jul 28, 2014
    0
    I find it pretty boring, also jonahsson is very overrated. Don't waste your time, all the same and you are just thinking ok I get it get on with it already.
  37. Aug 11, 2014
    4
    this movie is all over the place, I didn't like freeman as a professor I thought he overshadowed the star and yet had only a minor role, the mating animals and copy paste start was pathetic, I didn't like the boyfriend scene and the yakuza were over the top, there were shades of matrix gun battles, who seriously goes to that sort of trouble for four packets of drugs, honestly. the policethis movie is all over the place, I didn't like freeman as a professor I thought he overshadowed the star and yet had only a minor role, the mating animals and copy paste start was pathetic, I didn't like the boyfriend scene and the yakuza were over the top, there were shades of matrix gun battles, who seriously goes to that sort of trouble for four packets of drugs, honestly. the police car chase...what was the point of that? the cop.... was she going to pass on the genetic super gene or something, what was the point? she builds a supercomputer and leaves him with a USB stick, which about sums up this movie. Expand
  38. Jul 30, 2014
    0
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

    I'm not sure how I'm going to fill in the rest of this review when all it took to defeat the entire premise of this movie was three seconds on Google.
  39. Jul 29, 2014
    9
    A kickass sci-fi/metaphysical thriller that packs a punch, both in its visuals and its content. What a treat it is to watch a cinematic thrill ride that also delivers on its profound subject matter. If you want some depth from your action-adventures, go see this one -- you won't be disappointed.
  40. Sep 29, 2014
    0
    I want to say Lucy is the worst movie I've ever seen but I'm sure if I think hard enough there is something worse so I'm going to settle on "the worst movie in recent memory." Lucy can't seem to decide what kind of movie it's meant to be so it ends up not really being any kind of movie at all. At times boring, at times cheesy, always predictable and full of bad pseudo-science. TheI want to say Lucy is the worst movie I've ever seen but I'm sure if I think hard enough there is something worse so I'm going to settle on "the worst movie in recent memory." Lucy can't seem to decide what kind of movie it's meant to be so it ends up not really being any kind of movie at all. At times boring, at times cheesy, always predictable and full of bad pseudo-science. The ridiculous gang of Korean gangsters feel like they were lifted straight out of Kung Fu Hustle and dumped into the wrong movie. It's only an hour and a half long and frankly I couldn't wait for it to be over. Expand
  41. Aug 14, 2014
    8
    Lucy feels a bit short and under explained. Never the less, Scarlett Johansson is iconic and stars in one of the coolest, smartest action movies of the summer.
  42. Jul 30, 2014
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Don’t get me wrong, Lucy is a step in the right direction for action/sci-fi movies, especially on the visual effects side of it as they were incredible to look at. It was a great build up of a movie with each stake getting higher and higher as we watched. But unfortunately even with the amazing Scarlett Johansson (and she was amazing) in the lead kicking some ass, don’t expect a complete sci-fi revelation like Edge of Tomorrow. Expect a sci-fi action thriller that is smart enough to give you some fun summer entertainment, but at the same time will leave you a bit confused towards its closing credits. Expand
  43. Jul 30, 2014
    8
    This is ScarJo's first female lead Sci-Fi action thriller. Luc Besson (5th Element) did good picking an android emotionless feme fatale (see Under the Skin). But ScarJo really can't act. She does her lines and cries crocodile tears, and is the perfect Chess Piece for a controlling director like Luc (who both directs and shoots!) ScarJo certainly has the t*ts / waist / a** ratio,This is ScarJo's first female lead Sci-Fi action thriller. Luc Besson (5th Element) did good picking an android emotionless feme fatale (see Under the Skin). But ScarJo really can't act. She does her lines and cries crocodile tears, and is the perfect Chess Piece for a controlling director like Luc (who both directs and shoots!) ScarJo certainly has the t*ts / waist / a** ratio, (probably digitally altered - NOTHING is real in cinema) which is worth the price alone. I am very judgemental; I've only given 8 / 10 recently for Prometheus, Avatar, Edge of Tomorrow. Slick music, hip, druggie, fun. DocSavage recommended. Expand
  44. Jul 27, 2014
    9
    Lucy is a crazy, mind boggling mess of a film. A film that crosses over a variety of genres. Luckily, having Scarlett Johansson in the movie, Besson can do whatever he wants.

    Being set up by her boyfriend in Taipei Lucy (Johansson) is forced to be an unwilling drug mule for a dangerous Asian drug cartel, after being surgically inserted with a secret super-drug in her body. Life being
    Lucy is a crazy, mind boggling mess of a film. A film that crosses over a variety of genres. Luckily, having Scarlett Johansson in the movie, Besson can do whatever he wants.

    Being set up by her boyfriend in Taipei Lucy (Johansson) is forced to be an unwilling drug mule for a dangerous Asian drug cartel, after being surgically inserted with a secret super-drug in her body. Life being threatened, she is forced to go and transport her part of the stash. Being beaten by other captors, the packet of drugs bursts open in her body. Almost immediately the overwhelmed Lucy beings to evolve into the first person to use 100% of her brain.

    We were/are all set up for the whole picture early on for Johansson to be a "bad ass" and do whatever it took in the film. Scarlett doing the "zone outs" and focusing on people and matter is a great move on a futuristic scale. Besson could have made the film use more action and killing in the scenes after she got free, which would have made it even better. Also, the film makers could have done more on the development of the drug. All in all, the movie was good.
    Expand
  45. Jul 30, 2014
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. My analysis of Lucy is skewed somewhat due to how much I enjoyed Limitless. This should not be construed. Limitless saw Bradley Cooper use a drug called NZT. Lucy was handcuffed to a briefcase and taken away by an Asian mafia. The plot centers around a girl being given the opportunity to use her whole brain. Showing clips of how she acted at 20%,30%,40% and up lastly at 100%. I noticed there wasn't any withdrawal effect and her power gradually increased dynamically as she raised percentages. The movie was loopy. It had a great supporting performance by Morgan Freeman and I believe Ken Watanbe who starred in Inception. Lucy wasn't very likeable, she was more of a destructive superhero with revenge on her mind. It played out somewhat like a Quentin Tarrantino movie with screen captures of power percentage then showing her abilities afterwards. She was on a mission from the very start and carried the movie throughout. This isn't a must see, but I recommend to anyone who enjoyed Limitless. Expand
  46. Jul 28, 2014
    7
    A movie that truly opens your mind up to the realm of possibility. Although unrealistic, it is a movie that challenges you to push the limits of your thoughts and your mind. Scarlett Johansson does an amazing job as always, and Morgan Freeman is captivating just by speaking. Not incredible, but a good, fun Sci-Fi movie that is also pretty visually impressive.
  47. Jul 31, 2014
    3
    I went into this movie with pretty low expectations. Because of this, I was quite surprised by the first twenty minutes. The directing was great and the story was very intense and interesting. Unfortunately, once the movie got to the whole "brain expansion" thing it quickly become silly, cliched, and tiresome.
    The movie makes several bad attempts at humanizing the main character while
    I went into this movie with pretty low expectations. Because of this, I was quite surprised by the first twenty minutes. The directing was great and the story was very intense and interesting. Unfortunately, once the movie got to the whole "brain expansion" thing it quickly become silly, cliched, and tiresome.
    The movie makes several bad attempts at humanizing the main character while simultaneously showing her commit horrible acts of violence. Because of this, it is hard to ever feel any real emotions for the main character and the movie never really spends much time trying to make you feel for any other characters. Near the end, the movie turns into a CGI mess and ends with a predictable whimper. It's not the worst movie to come out this year, but it probably isn't worth your time.
    Expand
  48. Aug 5, 2014
    0
    I Love Scarlett Johansson in movies she has recently been in, which is why its a bit of a shock that she was in a movie like this, that obviously was directed and written by retarded chimps that were trying to be philosophical while trying to comprehend what the body of a humans would achieve if it's full capacity was attained.Because come on,a stronger body and an IQ of Albert Einstein II Love Scarlett Johansson in movies she has recently been in, which is why its a bit of a shock that she was in a movie like this, that obviously was directed and written by retarded chimps that were trying to be philosophical while trying to comprehend what the body of a humans would achieve if it's full capacity was attained.Because come on,a stronger body and an IQ of Albert Einstein I understand, but anything more than that is just stupid and all this movie does is insult the the intelligence of of the viewer. SKIP THIS MOVIE!!!!!!! Expand
  49. Aug 26, 2014
    8
    _the beautiful Scarlet once again embraces us with her action skills! Lucy brings me back to BBC's Earth and the formation of our Planet. The car chase scene was one of the best considering it was never seen before.
  50. Aug 27, 2014
    7
    I have watched the three stooges, it is fuuny. I love it. but my friends may not like it. my friend like " cast away" film, but I may not like it. . Don't think that if you like "avator", you friend will also like it. No. Different people have differnet likes
    nice movie. 7 stars.
  51. Sep 21, 2014
    0
    I lost my faith. Seriously. I have watched A LOT of movies, including some bad movies, but all of them were able to combine visuals, music and story into something (maybe barely) watchable. This one definitely has visuals and music. It's a poorly edited music video (with some great material!) ruined by a screenplay that is simply terrible. I don't mean unscientific (well, *all* SF moviesI lost my faith. Seriously. I have watched A LOT of movies, including some bad movies, but all of them were able to combine visuals, music and story into something (maybe barely) watchable. This one definitely has visuals and music. It's a poorly edited music video (with some great material!) ruined by a screenplay that is simply terrible. I don't mean unscientific (well, *all* SF movies are actually unscientific), I mean so stupid that is hurts almost physically. The Matrix DID have its own logic, this movie doesn't. If only the pseudoscience (or spirituality?) didn't pop up to the front in the middle of the action scenes, you could enjoy parts of this movie. But no, you're interrupted far too often by Morgan Freeman giving a "lecture" about the human brain to a room full of believing faces. Expand
  52. Jul 25, 2014
    6
    I tend to agree with much of Joe Morgenstern's WSJ review (especially the fact that the movie is concise!), but it becomes a little mechanical toward the end. The first 40 minutes are tremendous, but as Lucy uses more of her brain, her affect becomes flat - and Scarlet needs her charm to carry her acting. She's the modern day Lawnmower Man (for good), but I wanted more of the lightI tend to agree with much of Joe Morgenstern's WSJ review (especially the fact that the movie is concise!), but it becomes a little mechanical toward the end. The first 40 minutes are tremendous, but as Lucy uses more of her brain, her affect becomes flat - and Scarlet needs her charm to carry her acting. She's the modern day Lawnmower Man (for good), but I wanted more of the light comedy from the first half in the second half. No movie should ever remind you of Transcendence. Expand
  53. Sep 29, 2014
    5
    This was pretty bad. The acting was fine, and I'm okay with ignoring really stupid science if the movie is fun and the "explanations" just help to push that along, but this movie was just weird. It really felt like it was trying to pretend it had something really cool to say, but it was all just set dressing and big gestures that didn't come together to make anything worthwhile. See it ifThis was pretty bad. The acting was fine, and I'm okay with ignoring really stupid science if the movie is fun and the "explanations" just help to push that along, but this movie was just weird. It really felt like it was trying to pretend it had something really cool to say, but it was all just set dressing and big gestures that didn't come together to make anything worthwhile. See it if you're a die-hard Scarlet fan, because she was pretty good considering what she had to work with. Otherwise, it's not worth your time. Expand
  54. Sep 23, 2014
    2
    There's nothing that could go wrong in a movie that didn't in this one. Lucy is not only a silly stereotype blockbuster action sci-fi movie. It surprises you on different levels about how bad can a blockbuster be. The silliness of its science and the fact that the director tries to convince you that the bogus you're watching is actually based on science, while it obviously is not, can beThere's nothing that could go wrong in a movie that didn't in this one. Lucy is not only a silly stereotype blockbuster action sci-fi movie. It surprises you on different levels about how bad can a blockbuster be. The silliness of its science and the fact that the director tries to convince you that the bogus you're watching is actually based on science, while it obviously is not, can be really frustrating, while maybe if the film didn't pretend to be scientific, smart or philosophic, it could be at least a fun-to-watch straight-forward bit-em-up action film. The only good thing about the movie is Johansson's performance as the title role. But othe than that, the silliness of the science, the randomness of the events, the inhuman nature of the movie, the pretentious unoriginal nonsense philosophy in the film, and the poor structured underdeveloped script that limits Lucy's human relationship to the one with a cop that we don't even know, all these wrongs go wrong-er with every minute that passes until the end of the film. with the last surprise "K.O.ing" you in the end: "Written and directed by Luc Besson". So if you really are a sci-fi fan, or a fan of smart blockbusters, or even like simple kick-ass beat-em-up action films that don't pretend to be more, you'll come out of the cinema wondering why the heck did you have to watch this **** Expand
  55. Oct 11, 2014
    3
    One of the dumbest movies of the year with an ending that is as clumsy and far fetched as they get. The entire concept of Lucy makes zero sense and it seemed the director didn't know where to take the movie.
  56. Aug 23, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you want to watch this movie on the merits of the trailer, be warned that the trailer is deceptive. It makes it look like the movie is an action thriller, but its not. It tries to blend sci-fi with incomprehensible philosophy that is badly written in, and whatever "action" you see is monotonous, without conflict, emotion or even any semblance of a good, traditional action scene. Towards the end of the movie, we get to see Luc Besson's ravers dream, with gratuitous use of post-production CG (even though the CG is mediocre at best), that does not add any substance to whatever message he wants to convey in this film. What is he trying to say, that if we go 100% of our brain, we become God??? Even at 20% the film suddenly morphs into X-Men territory.

    S. Jo's performance in this is the only worthy thing out of this tripe. She really conveyed the transformation from an ordinary young lady, terrified for being forced into a drug smuggler, into inhuman woman who knows everything and has the power of God. The problem is that the transformation is too sudden. One minute you see her crying, the next she's gunning down anyone who stands in her way. In trailers I feared that the action would make her look like Black Widow from Avengers, but in the movie, with how easily and coldly she could dispatch her foes, she (tries) to look like Famke Janssen from X-Men 3. I say tries because there is no subtle hint of any effort, or conflict, behind the action. Its just there, like she's on God mode.

    Morgan Freeman is one of the Lord's of exposition, but when you ask him to do anything but that (especially if its based on dodgy sci-fi that is poorly written), you actually undervalue the actor. That's what happened here. Any scene involving him apart from the first three is crap, because there is no more plot that requires his narration to advance.

    Which leads to my point with Lucy; the film is genuinely about her, and any other character is superfluous. The problem is that she's an unemotional woman who is trying to fulfill the basic purpose of life. There is no balancing act, because other characters simply do not make their presence felt at all. There was even a scene, where the French police was asked to follow Lucy shortly after she used God mode on a dozen Korean mooks. He blatantly asked why he should be there, to which Lucy outright kissed him, implying that he's her "balancing act" of reminding her of humanity. WTF, it just came out of the blue?????

    Speaking of Koreans, why them?? Is Besson afraid of pissing off the Russians? Can't he use the French mafia, or even Western villains (hell, there was one supporting villain character who was English)?

    Finally, what was the point of this movie? S Jo's. intro and ending narration is painting a picture of what is the purpose of human life? In between I see images of chimps, predators, the act of animals humping each other and birth, and the ravers dream of how the Earth was made??? The worst part was that it was clear that these images were meant to pad out the film, with no unifying theme whatsoever. They were used as a sort of analogy; the predator scene was interspersed with scenes of S.Jo being captured by Koreans, the animal sex interspersed with Freeman's lecture.... Why do we need to see this, Besson? It's clear what the scenes are, so stop cutting in and out!!!
    Expand
  57. Aug 9, 2014
    8
    It's an entertaining movie and interesting idea. Nearing the end when i was expecting a bizarre scene, suddenly just 'poof'. A complete let down at the end, but a happy ending one i guess. It still a good movie to watch on the big screen.
  58. Aug 10, 2014
    8
    Lucy was a lot of fun and wildly entertaining. The hokum made sense in its way, but I think you need some knowledge of science and evolution to appreciate Besson’s riff on it. (Maybe that explains why it is getting as many negative user reviews as it is here, but then I was one of those people who liked The Family and thought it was very funny although I think you needed to haveLucy was a lot of fun and wildly entertaining. The hokum made sense in its way, but I think you need some knowledge of science and evolution to appreciate Besson’s riff on it. (Maybe that explains why it is getting as many negative user reviews as it is here, but then I was one of those people who liked The Family and thought it was very funny although I think you needed to have experienced France and know its stereotypes to really enjoy it.) And certainly this movie was better than Transcendance, which made more sense but was also more conservative and sadly was much less wild and fun. I also thought Scarlett Johansaan was very good, and now that she has been convincing as a neurotic flirt in Woody Allen films and an automaton in others, I hope we get to see if she can add yet a third character type to her repertoire. Expand
  59. Aug 13, 2014
    3
    Lucy tries to be a cool sci fi movie. And in some parts it's visually arresting and well shot. But it falls down to a bad climax, sloppy writing, mediocre acting and some scenes where Morgan Freeman is giving a science lesson to a bunch of 60 year olds. Scarlet Johnanson plays Lucy, a woman who gets caught up in a drug deal between Mr. Jang played by Oldboy's Min Sik Choi. Lucy wakes up inLucy tries to be a cool sci fi movie. And in some parts it's visually arresting and well shot. But it falls down to a bad climax, sloppy writing, mediocre acting and some scenes where Morgan Freeman is giving a science lesson to a bunch of 60 year olds. Scarlet Johnanson plays Lucy, a woman who gets caught up in a drug deal between Mr. Jang played by Oldboy's Min Sik Choi. Lucy wakes up in a cell knowing that Mr. Jang has cut up her stomach and shoved a synthetic drug into her abdomen and sewed it up. Her body eventually comes in content with the drug and her mind revves up to a 100% of usage. Now you gotta see Lucy to see what happens to Mr. Jang and her path to becoming a merciless warrior. Morgan Freeman gives her useless help in the movie, but it always feels like it's not nessecary. Lucy is a predictable mess of a movie. Some scenes impress and Scarjo has a nice fearless character and its nice to see that Director Luc Besson put a lot of time into making excellent characters (except Freeman). Audiences can wait for another sequel of The a Matrix that watch a copy of one. A BADLY done copy, to be precise. Expand
  60. Nov 23, 2014
    3
    If one overlooks the ridiculously unsupported premise of the entire film, and gets into the mindset that this is a particularly detached from reality sci-fi, and therefore ignores the impossibility of things narrated, Lucy still has major flaws, especially in the choices of storytelling and character development. As for the latter, you quite fail to understand the sudden transformationIf one overlooks the ridiculously unsupported premise of the entire film, and gets into the mindset that this is a particularly detached from reality sci-fi, and therefore ignores the impossibility of things narrated, Lucy still has major flaws, especially in the choices of storytelling and character development. As for the latter, you quite fail to understand the sudden transformation from normal girl to ruthless killer, and as for the former, the film speeds up too fast towards the end, leaving behind gaps and plotholes.

    Scarlett Johansson, an unconventional heroine, doesn't quite act as well as she's proven capable of doing before, while Freeman who gets second billing appears for about five minutes of screentime. The best acting, in my opinion, is strangely provided by the minor characters, such as the Taiwanese kingpin and his young "assistant".

    Luc Besson is a weird French filmmaker, one that doesn't comply with the tradition of his country's cinema of being subtle, convoluted and generally actionless, as it is shown in Lucy, which, despite the scientific setting and the whole "unlock your brain" dilemma, delivers a film that you can easily shut your brain to, and enjoy, if that's your style, shootouts and car crashes.

    It doesn't get a lower score for two reasons: the somewhat brilliant quasi-final CGI parade, providing some insight, and the fact that Scarlett Johansson is in it, which is always good.
    Expand
  61. Sep 14, 2014
    7
    Weird - that's the word describing a movie most. The idea of movie is intriguing, but its realization is ... strange. I don't want to say it is bad, it is actually quite good, just strange. Movie looked like to me very short and unfinished. I really thought there should be something after "I am everywhere." She is everywhere, right ... so what? I feel like movie didn't tell what its mainWeird - that's the word describing a movie most. The idea of movie is intriguing, but its realization is ... strange. I don't want to say it is bad, it is actually quite good, just strange. Movie looked like to me very short and unfinished. I really thought there should be something after "I am everywhere." She is everywhere, right ... so what? I feel like movie didn't tell what its main point - looks kinda unfinished. But I don't agree with those low ratings. 7-8 from my point of view, but not 5. Expand
  62. Sep 14, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie starts really good, but to the end it gets just laughable. They shot to long and transformed it into a holy awakening movie towards the end. The superpowers Lucy gets, get more and more ridicolous when she turns smarter and stronger. SPOILER : Why should a human be able to use telekinesis and travel in time because they got 10x smarter than before ? SPOILER END. They should have stopped in the middle of the film and just go on with the plot from there, but the movie transforms to a comedy from there... Expand
  63. Sep 3, 2014
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Okay, so this movie is far from flawless, and it probably would've worked much better if it was a TV shows with several seasons so people can actually get how the science works into the fiction. However, with all the limitation, this movie is actually tremendously entertaining and satisfying. Scarlett delivers a slick performance with Morgan Freeman being, okay, quite "under-used". For a science-fiction, this is probably the best since Edge of Tomorrow came out three months ago. The formula clicks in and the ending is super smart, with Lucy becoming "omnipotent"; nowhere but everywhere with her 100%-working cerebral function. Thumbs up! Expand
  64. Jul 26, 2014
    8
    I liked the story and I liked the subject matter. I though that Scarlett did a great job in a difficult situation making it seem like she "was" using all of her brain. I wish the movie wouldve been at least 30 mins longer to make it a 2 hour movie. Its like they cut it to make it more of a summer blockbuster movie. So i hope the video has an "uncut" version. The movie touches on someI liked the story and I liked the subject matter. I though that Scarlett did a great job in a difficult situation making it seem like she "was" using all of her brain. I wish the movie wouldve been at least 30 mins longer to make it a 2 hour movie. Its like they cut it to make it more of a summer blockbuster movie. So i hope the video has an "uncut" version. The movie touches on some Hawking time issues and even imaginary time issues. Expand
  65. Aug 7, 2014
    9
    Intelligent, witty. Synthesis of an updated 2001: A Space Odyssey with a decent action/adventure picture. Perhaps unnecessarily violent, but that was probably planned to pull in the younger crowd. Johansson is perfect in this.
  66. Jul 25, 2014
    5
    When I saw Lucy, I thought of it like the third Matrix movie. Great concept. Very good and interesting set up and then the last 15 - 20 just sucked. I am a big Besson fan, but this movie lacked charm and style he usually brings to his movies. Much less action than I was hoping for. Scarlet does a decent job, but she could have and should have done better. Maybe she did not want to doWhen I saw Lucy, I thought of it like the third Matrix movie. Great concept. Very good and interesting set up and then the last 15 - 20 just sucked. I am a big Besson fan, but this movie lacked charm and style he usually brings to his movies. Much less action than I was hoping for. Scarlet does a decent job, but she could have and should have done better. Maybe she did not want to do what she does on the Marvel movies too much and I am not talking action wise. The score was terrible. Usually Besson movies scores draw you into the movie much more.

    This movie is worth a watch, but I would wait a few months for redbox or netflicks. Not worth $11 in the theaters.

    Overall, a great concept, but fails very short in my opinion. One guy was telling his girl that he thought it would be better. I have to agree with him. Very let down.....again.
    Expand
  67. Ozy
    Oct 1, 2014
    8
    I cant argue anything about the science the movie talks about. Although it seemed excessive towards the end i was still very entertained. Its a very interesting movie.
  68. Jul 31, 2014
    10
    If you wanted to be Neo after the first two Matrix movies, you will want to be Lucy after seeing this movie.

    This is the latest spiritual movie alert! The pattern is movies taking on the topic of individual transformation and upliftment, in any authentic way, receive primarily negative and so-so reviews, by mainstream reviewers, across the board. This pattern continues here. I’m
    If you wanted to be Neo after the first two Matrix movies, you will want to be Lucy after seeing this movie.

    This is the latest spiritual movie alert! The pattern is movies taking on the topic of individual transformation and upliftment, in any authentic way, receive primarily negative and so-so reviews, by mainstream reviewers, across the board.

    This pattern continues here. I’m writing this review as this is the only spiritual movie I have given a ten to in about five years.

    For me Lucy stands with Besson's best work, which I consider to be Fifth Element and The Transporter, first one.

    I have read other reviews, before I saw Lucy. I was expecting to agree with the reviewer who said it was a mediocre Besson effort with all the familiar rhythms and disappointments. I very much expected a script without a third act.

    Surprise! I found Lucy quite coherent, fresh, entertaining and engaging thru to the end. There is no holding back. As far as I can tell, no expense has been spared in the special effects and chase sequences. They are both top-notch.

    The actor for the main villain deserves special mention for anchoring a formidable presence to balance the intensity of Scarlet Johansen's character and performance. The French police lieutenant who arrives mid-film is also a fresh face providing needed counterpoint.

    Today I read a film review mentioning the curse of the underwritten woman's role. Writers on this topic point to the heroine in the Matrix movies as the archetypal underwritten woman's role, fierce yet inconsequential to the plot, despite her great potential.

    Here in Lucy we get to see a woman both kick ass and develop her full potential--if you subscribe to any kind of personal-spiritual growth beliefs or aspirations.

    My view is: let’s support ‘spiritual movies’ when they arise so the system makes more of them.
    Expand
  69. Nov 22, 2014
    3
    This movie is so bad that i think this is the worst movie of this year and considering what garbage was released this year, that says something. Did one of the mobsters lose his shuriken ??
  70. Jul 25, 2014
    10
    Lucy has an interesting idea for a movie but the plot doesn't blend properly with the action. The movie is
    less than 2 hours and after the story is set up, the viewer is bombarded with action. Basically if you
    watch the movie solely for the action you'll have nothing to complain about.
  71. Jul 25, 2014
    5
    A spirited action film with a bit of lax in the display of its own comprehension. Scarlett Johansson clearly stepping into a careful role fresh off the brilliant and curiously engaging "Under the Skin". The cinematography and prop placement standout but a solid environment could not carry this film. Loosely plotted and just below thought provoking, this film is one that takes itself aA spirited action film with a bit of lax in the display of its own comprehension. Scarlett Johansson clearly stepping into a careful role fresh off the brilliant and curiously engaging "Under the Skin". The cinematography and prop placement standout but a solid environment could not carry this film. Loosely plotted and just below thought provoking, this film is one that takes itself a tad bit too seriously when it could have had much more fun with it's premise. Expand
  72. Jul 31, 2014
    10
    Luc Besson and Scarlet Johansson and teamed up to produce a powerhouse sci-fi/action thriller not seen since The Matrix. It offers everything you could want in regards to this genre. A 'must-see' in my opinion.
  73. Nov 10, 2014
    6
    Lucy feeds on its original premise with silly thrills overshadowing it's complex intentions. Scarlets Johansson does her finest but when there is no character the audiencte can relate to + a weird premise = it's those fun thrills that remain in the mind after leaving the cinema.
  74. Aug 6, 2014
    3
    I watch movies for the concept. I want to see if they are going to do something awesome with it or do a lazy script with a lot of special effects. Guess which one this was.
  75. Aug 9, 2014
    9
    If you are smart and open to the future, then, you will value the concept of this movie. It will caught your attention from the beginning. Scarlets is amazing as usual, so Morgan Freedman. On the contrary, if you are not too smart and you are waiting just to see action, sex and rock and roll, this movie it is not for you. A great concept of evolution and how we can evolve as a human andIf you are smart and open to the future, then, you will value the concept of this movie. It will caught your attention from the beginning. Scarlets is amazing as usual, so Morgan Freedman. On the contrary, if you are not too smart and you are waiting just to see action, sex and rock and roll, this movie it is not for you. A great concept of evolution and how we can evolve as a human and develop our brain capacity. Expand
  76. Aug 12, 2014
    10
    This movie was with no exaggeration mind blowing. I didn't move or blink in over 89 mins which seemed to go by in 20. In this movie, real scientific discoveries mixes well with various theories on the human potential to give a possible meaning to all life. Bravo.
  77. Aug 23, 2014
    10
    Admittedly I was very skeptical towards the movie as I walked into the theater. However, my perception of the movie got changed rather quickly.
    I was truly blown away. I agree that the theories used in Lucy seem doubtful. The movie was very thought provoking, regardless. The negative reviews seem unjustified to me.
    10/10, well deserved.
  78. Aug 26, 2014
    5
    Although it's enjoyable to watch, this movie is not good science fiction. The premise is based on the old saw that says "we only use 10% of our brains." So what would it be like if we someone could use all 100%? Of course the premise is nonsense. If we really used just 10% of our brains, then evolution would have given us brains that are 10% as large as they are now. The brain is anAlthough it's enjoyable to watch, this movie is not good science fiction. The premise is based on the old saw that says "we only use 10% of our brains." So what would it be like if we someone could use all 100%? Of course the premise is nonsense. If we really used just 10% of our brains, then evolution would have given us brains that are 10% as large as they are now. The brain is an energetically-expensive organ. It makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint that we would have brains 10 times larger than we need.

    A good science fiction film should have some basis in real science, or at least have a comprehensible and consistent explanation of whatever pseudo-scientific ideas it relies upon. This film is fantasy masquerading as science fiction. There have been a couple of films that develop this topic in a more satisfying way -- Charlie and Phenomenon come to mind. (Those films are good science fiction, check them out.)

    Still, the special effects are fun to watch, and the plot, while implausible, did hold my attention. Entertaining fantasy, but not science fiction.
    Expand
  79. Aug 31, 2014
    9
    awesome movie, luc besson at his best. the storyline was a bit predictable ( that's why it didn't get full 10), but I enjoyed from the beginning til the end.
  80. Sep 3, 2014
    8
    Since it is based on pseudo-scientific concept (humans use less than 10% of their brains), it qualifies as pseudo-science-fiction. However, overall, great entertainment ... as long as you try not to use more than 10% of your brain.
  81. Sep 13, 2014
    9
    This is the surprise hit of the summer for me! Went in with low to mediocre expectations and was along for the ride the entire movie. Certainly more fiction than science, once you suspend disbelief, it's an engrossing movie with plenty of action. Well worth the price of admission!
  82. Oct 3, 2014
    9
    More than just an action-adventure flick, this is a mind-bending story that reminds us of what we already know to be true about the transitory, illusionary, energetic nature of all things. Go with an open mind and leave with it opened even further.
  83. Oct 4, 2014
    3
    Despite knowing the premise of the movie was and is completely based on pseudoscience instead of any scientific facts, I went to see it in a theatre just because I just wanted to have fun and feel entertained by the action. It was a waste of money. The action is very poor by 2014 standards. There are some weird, National Geographic or Animal Planet films/cuts placed into the movie, whichDespite knowing the premise of the movie was and is completely based on pseudoscience instead of any scientific facts, I went to see it in a theatre just because I just wanted to have fun and feel entertained by the action. It was a waste of money. The action is very poor by 2014 standards. There are some weird, National Geographic or Animal Planet films/cuts placed into the movie, which probably meant something for the mind of the director. Okay, I get it, an approaching wild cat to its prey... but come on, what have you had to be that high, dude? It doesn't even look funny. Save your money if you haven't seen it in a cinema - it's only good for renting when you are hopeless and alone at home. Expand
  84. Oct 6, 2014
    3
    The concept behind the film is very interesting. However it is not developed so much during the film. There is definitely something missing. Scarlett it's not the best actress choice for this film.
  85. Oct 24, 2014
    4
    it's really dumb.

    for me I couldn’t suspend my disbelief enough. This is not how the brain works, this is not how humanity itself works and this is not how evolution works, and for a film that’s trying to report that it knows that! That’s a big sin.
  86. Oct 30, 2014
    0
    Is this a joke? If it is, a very bad one. No plot, no acting, no brains!!! God, I got 1,5 hours older because of this crap. Go on Hollywood, keep on giving us terrible movies like Lucy. Guess I'll go back to my 90's archieve.
  87. Oct 22, 2014
    5
    The main idea of the movie got off to a good start, but as often happens, the ending was completely disappointing for me. However, the interesting storyline and sexy Scarlett's voice made a deal.
  88. Nov 12, 2014
    0
    Please don't waste your time watching this. Watch Limitless instead. I know, I know... you'll say... but there's Scarlet Johannson! Trust me, you don't want to waste your brain cell on this piece of non-sense.
  89. Nov 15, 2014
    3
    Exaggerated and laughable, almost to the point of insulting the viewer's intelligence, and dizzying in the construction of the action scenes. If you want cheap thrills, better play a video game.
  90. Nov 16, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Some parts of the beginning had potential. Then, it just became implausible, absurd and pretty much just escalated too quickly. So in the end, 'Lucy' became a god? I thought it was trying to send a message that we don't use our brains enough but alrighty then. The last straw was when she injected herself with the 'drugs' and this black, tree-like thing started growing out of her. That part really hit me and realized I was not going to leave happy. When she started travelling through space and time made me laugh a bit. In the end, it seemed like the director collaborated with M. Night Shyamalan on acid. But yeah, I'll give it a 4 for effort and for the actors. Expand
  91. Nov 23, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The only thing that redeemed this movie was it's imagery. It wasn't outstanding or extraordinary but it was something that I concentrated on. I felt as though the movie was trying to break the mold of the typical Hollywood movie but managed to conform to all of those standards e.g having the Hollywood beauty (no offense to Scarlett Johansson). This felt like a pretentious movie that was trying to hard to be something that it wasn't but it didn't try hard enough to make me hate the movie. It was not memorable, predictable, it kinda sucked and I would have expected more from Luc Besson after I watched The Fifth Element, which is one of my favourite movies.
    As a side note: For some reason I was offended by one of the last scenes, when Lucy was skipping through different times. When she met the monkey and tried to connect with it. Thinking about it it may have been because of the racist undertones in the movie - which can be linked back to it being a typical Hollywood movie. The Koreans were the bad guys and the beautiful blonde American woman with the fantastic french forces and minds defeat the evil Koreans.
    Expand
  92. Dec 1, 2014
    0
    Please, please, even if you think the lush Ms Johannsen poops rainbows, if you are a thinking person with more than a passing interest in logic and coherent storytelling, think twice before spending time on this film. This film has a fascinating premise which is then totally subjugated into a chase'em/shoot 'em movie. All the action sequences are borderline ridiculous, the final gun fight,Please, please, even if you think the lush Ms Johannsen poops rainbows, if you are a thinking person with more than a passing interest in logic and coherent storytelling, think twice before spending time on this film. This film has a fascinating premise which is then totally subjugated into a chase'em/shoot 'em movie. All the action sequences are borderline ridiculous, the final gun fight, the manic drive across Paris... why? And those of us who bought in to the idea and (the first third, despite cliched stock shots is quite promising) are deprived of any meaningful, or even better than fantastical, discussion of the core theme. Rubbish. Just rubbish. Expand
  93. Oct 4, 2014
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Regardless on how accurate the movie is to anything, I found it entertaining... one minute Lucy is shooting matter out of her mouth, the next minute she completely dissipates and becomes a god. Anyone that likes interesting shots, and special effects should see Lucy, just don't expect the plot to make any sense. Expand
  94. Aug 29, 2014
    3
    LUCY is a film of Kubrickian ambitions, Godardian pretensions, and the kind of mindboggling, over-the-top silliness that could only be brought to the silver screen by the director of THE FIFTH ELEMENT. Scarlett Johansson looks great, and as she has proven in the AVENGERS films she can handle comic book action deftly. Morgan Freeman, however, is stuck in one of the most thankless actingLUCY is a film of Kubrickian ambitions, Godardian pretensions, and the kind of mindboggling, over-the-top silliness that could only be brought to the silver screen by the director of THE FIFTH ELEMENT. Scarlett Johansson looks great, and as she has proven in the AVENGERS films she can handle comic book action deftly. Morgan Freeman, however, is stuck in one of the most thankless acting jobs of the year, literally spending the film lecturing the audience, droning on endlessly about the same scientifically dubious premise that was handled in the somewhat more interesting 2011 film LIMITLESS. The film begins and ends with echoes of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but instead of inspiring awe and wonder, LUCY mostly inspires head-scratches and/or derisive titters. Luc Besson is a talented filmmaker - LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL and LA FEMME NIKITA are terrific - and even his misfires have moments of visually inspired madness. This, unfortunately, is one of his misfires. Expand
  95. Aug 4, 2014
    6
    I'm not going to jump on the Scarlett Johansson bad acting bandwagon, in fact I think she's very good in the role. As she uses more and more of her brain capacity she loses all her sense of feeling and humanity. Some people are confusing this as bad acting. The so called science behind a LOT of movies is silly, and this is yet another where you have to throw all your sense ofI'm not going to jump on the Scarlett Johansson bad acting bandwagon, in fact I think she's very good in the role. As she uses more and more of her brain capacity she loses all her sense of feeling and humanity. Some people are confusing this as bad acting. The so called science behind a LOT of movies is silly, and this is yet another where you have to throw all your sense of plausibility out the window. The movie never bored me. I would rate it higher if the last 15-20 minutes didn't push it to the outer limits of believability. It was actually laughable. Expand
  96. Sep 7, 2014
    1
    The problems with the movie began in the first minute, literally. The scenes are poorly linked together, badly scripted, product placement is truly laughable, dialogs are cheesy and irrational, special effects & CGI are 20 years late. All in all, if you want to see some pretty pictures, some reshoot of old Besson's movies, do not care about a sensible story, do not care about acting, haveThe problems with the movie began in the first minute, literally. The scenes are poorly linked together, badly scripted, product placement is truly laughable, dialogs are cheesy and irrational, special effects & CGI are 20 years late. All in all, if you want to see some pretty pictures, some reshoot of old Besson's movies, do not care about a sensible story, do not care about acting, have no sense of logic and are so desperate in your life that you need to find a "spiritual message" in this production, you may enjoy it. Expand
  97. Jul 26, 2014
    5
    Action movie with pseudo-science bubble.
    Clearly, creators of this movie were referring more to LSD than to the famous early human ancestor, even though we do meet the latter one. It's an attempt to make a nod to two different categories of movie-watchers:
    young people will un-mistakenly link colors and special effects to the popular drug while some philosophically inclined people will
    Action movie with pseudo-science bubble.
    Clearly, creators of this movie were referring more to LSD than to the famous early human ancestor, even though we do meet the latter one. It's an attempt to make a nod to two different categories of movie-watchers:
    young people will un-mistakenly link colors and special effects to the popular drug
    while some philosophically inclined people will see the parallel between the meeting of two Lucies and Danae and Zeus. Unfortunately, Sci-Fi part of the film falls short.
    Overall, quite entertaining but far from the best...
    Expand
  98. Nov 8, 2014
    5
    This movie is just another episode of "Through the Wormhole", though one that is somewhat outrageous and off the chart, with weaker than usual science. I did not care for most of the action. There are some cool scenes and special effects which I enjoyed. It's a movie about a woman becoming god. I think she will be benevolent. Don't expect too much. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the good parts.
  99. Aug 2, 2014
    5
    Lucy does entertain - it's action packed and ripe with incredible visuals. However , this movie suffers greatly in too many departments. It confuses more often than it takes you along for the ride, Lucy's character development is forced and unnecessary, but the movies biggest hindrance is bad writing. There are moments that shine, but in almost all cases it comes off as trite in itsLucy does entertain - it's action packed and ripe with incredible visuals. However , this movie suffers greatly in too many departments. It confuses more often than it takes you along for the ride, Lucy's character development is forced and unnecessary, but the movies biggest hindrance is bad writing. There are moments that shine, but in almost all cases it comes off as trite in its attempts to be sophisticated. It's existentialism is pretty silly and when it tries to be philosophical or sage it always sounds ridiculous. Scarlett Johansson saves it occasionally by being a strong lead, but more often than not the script is a laughable attempt at SciFi wonder and profound thought. The last line is one of the worst, and without spoiling anything, leaves the audience wondering what they just watched and whether it was worth their time at all, because it far from ends the film on a well-scripted note. It provokes thought, but not by nature of its own quality, rather because it's subject matter is inherently interesting. I wouldn't say it's not worth seeing, but I would certainly go in with low expectations - only then may it please you. Expand
  100. Sep 2, 2014
    5
    A cinema-going in a newly-discovered multiplex in Cairo inside a half-empty shopping mall, LUCY is another rare triumph of a female-driven blockbuster directed by Gallo-film entrepreneur Luc Besson, whose creativity and clout has been significantly ebbed away after THE BIG BLUE (1988, 8/10), LÉON: THE PROFESSIONAL (1994, 9/10) and THE FIFTH ELEMENT (1997, 8/10). So I have beenA cinema-going in a newly-discovered multiplex in Cairo inside a half-empty shopping mall, LUCY is another rare triumph of a female-driven blockbuster directed by Gallo-film entrepreneur Luc Besson, whose creativity and clout has been significantly ebbed away after THE BIG BLUE (1988, 8/10), LÉON: THE PROFESSIONAL (1994, 9/10) and THE FIFTH ELEMENT (1997, 8/10). So I have been intentionally steering clear of his subsequent work, however recently the noteworthy career renaissance of Scarlett Johansson intrigues me immensely and I am tempted by the conception of gearing up the the maximum of human's cerebral capacity. But, in the end, Besson overkills the idea since his brain capacity doesn't quite hit the requirement to facilitate such an ambitious project.
    continue reading my review on my blog: google cinema omnivore, thanks
    Expand
Metascore
61

Generally favorable reviews - based on 45 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 45
  2. Negative: 2 out of 45
  1. Reviewed by: Ben Nicholson
    Sep 5, 2014
    80
    This undeniably silly, but raucously entertaining, off-the-wall transhumanist actioner is an absolute riot.
  2. Reviewed by: Tom Huddleston
    Sep 5, 2014
    60
    This ridiculous, highly watchable, at points startlingly psychedelic action thriller is probably Luc Besson’s best film since ‘Léon’ (which isn’t saying a great deal).
  3. Reviewed by: Kate Stables
    Sep 5, 2014
    80
    Besson is at his balls-out bonkers best in this genre-scrambling, mind-expanding exhilarator.