User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 270 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 69 out of 270

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 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, if befuddled police officer) add to the international cast. A fun ride. Expand
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 a nod to scientific philosophy. Have fun, but take it with a boulder of blue salt. Expand
  9. 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
  10. 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:
    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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 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
  14. 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
    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
  15. 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
    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
  16. 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
  17. 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.)
  18. 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, 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
  19. 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
    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
  20. 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.
  21. 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 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
  22. 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
    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
  23. 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.
  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 for air-conditioning and a good nap. Expand
  25. 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 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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, (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
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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
    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
  34. 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.

    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
  35. 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 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
  36. 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 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
  37. 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.
  38. 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 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
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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 light comedy from the first half in the second half. No movie should ever remind you of Transcendence. Expand
  42. 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.
  43. 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 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
  44. 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 a tad bit too seriously when it could have had much more fun with it's premise. Expand
  45. 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 some Hawking time issues and even imaginary time issues. 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 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 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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
    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
  50. Aug 4, 2014
    7
    Lucy has some nifty action scenes and a story that is exaggerated. The movie isn't realistic but Scarlett
    is good in the lead role as is Morgan Freeman in his role.The movie has a comic book feel to it even though
    it isn't based on a comic book. Overall Lucy is a fun action thriller, nothing more nothing less.
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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 and develop our brain capacity. Expand
  56. 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 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
  57. 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 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
  58. 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.
  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 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. 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
  61. 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.
  62. 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 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
  63. 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.
  64. 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.
  65. 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
  66. 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.
  67. 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
  68. 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.
  69. Jul 26, 2014
    5
    I went into Lucy hoping to see a film that would be the third entry in the ScarJo Sci-fi Trilogy, along with Her and Under the Skin. This film is nowhere near as good as those, but Johansson’s performance is. In fact, her performance as Lucy is a perfect blend of the best parts of her portrayals of Her‘s (faceless) Samantha and Under the Skin‘s (mostly silent) nameless entity. Besson may have failed at his ambitious attempt to give us a smarter summer movie, but Johansson saves the day with a sublime performance worth paying to see. Expand
  70. 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
    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
  71. Jul 27, 2014
    3
    A huge disappointment. You've already seen all the best action the trailer. The end is like a new version of the end of 2001 [and her pupil color changing with every blink is a direct steal]. I expect fun and funny from Luc Besson. This is no Fifth Element. The tension and suspense doesn't build, it drains. The one car car chase is interesting, because it hasn't been seen before, but even that is never thrilling.

    A must to avoid.
    Expand
  72. Jul 27, 2014
    3
    Guys, this movie is bad. Like if it were a TV sitcom it would be called "I Hate Lucy" (OK, that one was lobbed down the middle). Everything in this movie is just so boring and stupid. The plot tries to be intelligent but ends up just being moronic, derivative and, by the end, a big middle finger to the audience. Its like LIMITLESS met TRANSCENDENCE, and they had a really dumb, annoying child. I really don't know what else to say. I implore you not to see this film. Expand
  73. Jul 29, 2014
    5
    After a fairly interesting 30 minute set up, the film devolves into a series nonsensical "esoteric" visual compilations mixed with a few scenes of frenetic and confusing action - neither of which do much to grab the audience. The end is a mishmash mess of shootouts and silly "science" that graciously ends just before a headache starts.
  74. Jul 29, 2014
    1
    Please don't waste your money and time. This is an awful movie. There's plenty of bad, unrealistic science fiction that can still be somewhat entertaining. This film crosses the border into being preposterous and stupid. The acting is wooden. The action is uninteresting. It's hard to care about Lucy because she doesn't care about humans. The Morgan Freeman character is likable but befuddled and unhelpful. There is no redeeming quality to this film. Expand
  75. Aug 1, 2014
    1
    This movie is a veritable plethora of scientific drivel. I seriously facepalmed at the end when the hairy omnipotent computer babe farted out a USB drive with stars all over it. Nice 2001 reference, ugh. The movie makes no sense, Scarlett's acting is horrible and the plot is full of more holes than swiss cheese at a shooting gallery. I strongly recommend if you know anything about science that you stay well away from this move as it will just irritate you. This movie is just a recast of "What the bleep do we know" with significantly less depth. Horrible and a waste of time. Expand
  76. Aug 1, 2014
    1
    Disappointing. no plot,evolution based and attempted to duplicate Matrix. Scarlett Johansson did what she could with what she had.. We have a creator GOD and we didn't come from apes.
  77. 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 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
  78. Aug 2, 2014
    6
    This film wasn't bad but it wasn't amazing. This is a film you have to watch and not take it so seriously, it's a fun ride and it does deliver. It starts off very well and has you on the edge of your seat but when it came to the film's end, it loses all the work it's put in throughout the movie. I must say I was hoping for a better close to such a great start. Over all, "Lucy" is worth a watch because all the actors involved did a great job. Expand
  79. Aug 3, 2014
    3
    Four things great about this movie;

    The concept of what could happen with humans using X% of brain power.
    The Actors are a great Cast. ( reason I Pay)
    Three 2 minute / action packed moments.
    The few funny bits

    This movie was S8!T** It needs a better Screen Writer, Director, camera operator. Did I mention DIRECTOR!!
  80. Aug 3, 2014
    5
    Completely implausible and utterly ridiculous, Lucy is a dull and uneventful experience thats offers nothing more than a typically charismatic performance from Scarlett Johansson.
  81. 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 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
  82. Aug 5, 2014
    5
    This movie is okay. That's all I could think during it. There were a lot of parts where I just called **** For example: the entire concept of the movie. Humans don't use 10% of their brain. They use more. Like I said, okay movie. There are better ways to spend your money.
  83. Aug 5, 2014
    5
    Greetings: First of all, this movie is great. (despite few things I will be talking further on) The movie start with an awesome "out of the bloom" intriguing introduction, not knowing nothing of what is going on from the start, it makes you feel that you are that girl (Lucy) because it place you on the point of view of this Lucy character from the get go. Scarlett Johansson has an incredible and surprisingly acting in this movie, which is one of the thing I really enjoyed of this movie with the sci-fi aspect of the ending (I wont give spoilers by the way) All though I am not saying that she is and have done back acting (is my perspective though) The only thing I find that makes you go nuts sometimes is the cut scenes between Morgan Freeman, just because it takes you out of the comfort and "over the edge of your sit" every time it switch it's from Scarlett Johannsson story from Morgan's Freeman introductions scenes.

    Despite the subliminal message this movie shows about "human scientists" studies, always finding the meaning of the real life and human capacity to understand human brain and their surroundings and meaning of life and what God created and "if or not" sub topics wrap up in the main topic of the story, it is a great flick in the point of view of filming perspective.

    Yet Morgan Freeman doesn't give nothing new in his acting on this movie, (which is not surprising) despite that who really shines in this is Scarlett Johansson besides that she is the actress that plays the main character, it is sad that the director din't put the same effort and care to show or try to nurture a different acting for Morgan Freeman.

    P.s. Overall and despite the message and weak acting's in some of the actors and the obvious and the typical acting of Morgan Freeman, the movie is packed with some great and awesome pretty looking visuals and fun. At the end, it is your prerogative to watch it or not.
    Expand
  84. Aug 14, 2014
    5
    Lucy is great if you can get past "the theories and higher-level thinking" involved (which are trying to hard I think), although at the end of the day, it's Scarlett Johanson dealing with bad dudes trying to kill her. A different movie than the other action flicks out there, but not one that will hold your attention like it should. Maybe a bit more work in the development department, because it falls apart towards the end.
    In summary, different film that you should probably rent (so you can replay key parts). Or skip it altogether if you want. Didn't really miss anything.
    Expand
  85. Aug 20, 2014
    3
    I sure hope Samsung paid big bucks for product placement! The special effects are cool, Could have been so much more....Jessica and Morgan are the best features.
  86. Aug 21, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This will be the first time that I've reviewed a movie on this aggregator, apart from my typical video game reviews. The reason why? I guess a time for change, and a passion of confusion and problems that Lucy seems to bloat in our face. For starters, this is in no way a demonstration of attacking the "humans only use 10% of their brain" logical fallacy, as I'm willing to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and allow myself to believe that humans are capable of 'great' things. But in any case, even jumping that obstacle Lucy still seems to stumble on narrative consistencies, as well as awkward dialogue and other plot points unexplained, such as why exactly Lucy needs that European Cop to continue helping her with her escapades even after he had willingly got her the packages she needed to keep her brain "configured", how Lucy lost her way back home when she was sent back despite that the other three victims got to their respective locations just fine, and why exactly Lucy seems to haplessly murder and kill victims either because they are "in their way" (despite her saying that all obstacles are out of her way) or they don't speak english! (yeah, sounds a little racist)

    Which brings me to my next point: Lucy is not a likable character, despite her being the 'hero' and 'protagonist' of her own self-proclaimed movie. As I mentioned above, she kills innocent civilians only because supposedly all this knowledge is overcoming her human emotion, which I would believe if they managed to at least give Lucy some reason as to why she does what she needs to do. The importance of any kind of main protagoist for the audience is that we have to sympathize with them, and if we don't? We tune out. As a matter of fact, Koba from DAWN of the Planet of the Apes was more sympathetic than Lucy, and he's supposed to be the ANTAGONIST!

    Not to mention that all of the characters that surround Lucy are so, **** stupid. Lucy walks in a hospital with a silencer pistol all out? no one cares. Lucy changes her hair color in public? no one cares. Lucy body and molecules literally dematerialize on an airplane and NO ONE gives a **** They just keep asking her that they are going to land. Believe me, this is NOT how human beings would react to such crazy stuff. While Scarlett Johansson does pretty well at her role, even being a pretty interesting apathetic omniscient, and the gun play and visuals all play out nicely, but it's just spectacle with no substance, with a unlikable main protagonist and a confused execution of a brilliant premise. Not a recommendation.
    Expand
  87. Aug 23, 2014
    1
    I give an E for effort. I like the premise of the movie: what happens if we use so much more of our brain power? too many corny scenes not plausible or connecting well with the rest of the movie like the Asian mafia kingpin slaughtering people right and left. And the answer to the above question was a crappy answer. Limitless and Phenomenon did far better jobs with this idea. I am surprised that a great actor like Morgan Freeman associated himself with this film. Don't waste your time. Expand
  88. Aug 24, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Without a doubt, Lucy disappointed me tremendously.
    After watching the trailer and learning that it was a box office hit elsewhere, I must say I had pretty high hopes that there finally would be an interesting movie that explores the vast possibilities of man using more of his brain capacity for truly great uses. But alas, everything boils down to violence, cruelty, arrogance and the total lack of respect for human lives in this movie. The weak plot, multiple loopholes and limited storyline left me shaking my head in disbelief.
    After Lucy presented herself at the reception of the hotel, the hotel manager contacted Mr Chang, and spoke to him in Mandarin. Lo and behold, when Mr Chang appeared subsequently with his gang, there wasn’t a single Chinese amongst them! Who did the manager speak to then?? And what’s up with planting a Korean gang in Taipei, ending up using the confusing mix of Mandarin, Korean and English to communicate among the parties?? With their obnoxious open acts of murder and kidnapping in the 5-star Taiwan hotel, it appeared as if the Korean gang owned it! So why not set the setting in Korea or introduce a Taiwanese gang instead??
    As Lucy’s cerebral capacity increased, so did her penchant for violence and cruelty. Shooting her would-be rapist was still conceivable, but shooting a cab driver simply because he could not speak English?? Was that what a human with increased cerebral capacity should be doing? And killing an anaesthetized patient at point-blank because the cancer had metastasized to his brain and spinal cord? What right did she had to end a human life like that? Horrors of horrors, after witnessing what she did, the surgeon still had the mood to explain to her what CPH4 was in an interested manner and appeared completely at ease. Unbelievable…
    After witnessing her avid display of violence, imagine my surprise when she “only” stabbed the hands of the gang leader after what he did to her, and “mercifully” left him alive to carry out his subsequent anticipated revenge and killings. In addition, since she now had the newfound multi-linguist ability, wouldn’t it be more credible if she spoke to him in Korean instead of English? At this end, Scarlet Johansson (and the director) would have impressed the audience even if she learnt to speak in a few Korean sentences, and left the rest of her English monologue for her own musings.
    If CPH4 was enhancing her cerebral capacity but shortening her life as well, then why did consumption of additional CPH4 on the plane revived her form in the end?
    I cringed at the car scene through the streets as she drove about literally crazily, and caused countless crashed cars and lost lives. Perhaps the director was trying to portray the impressive motor skills of the “heroine”, but her lack of regard for human lives appalled me. So what if “we never truly die? “ (quote from the film). With an increased in cerebral capacity, did she also attain the status of “God” to take away lives as she pleased? Why not just give her the power of tele-transportation and be done with it? Incomprehensible…
    The biggest question mark of the plot was why did she look up the professor played by Morgan Freeman in the first place? To show off her qualities? She certainly did not need his help, and all the group of esteemed doctors and researchers did for her in the end was to set up the intravenous drips which I was pretty sure she could have done herself… Moreover, if she ended up everywhere in the end, then what was the need to pass on her knowledge into a thumb drive?
    In the end, my conclusion after watching the movie was that, as our cerebral capacity increases, our level of humanity, compassion and judgement can only spiral downwards. I certainly hope that is not the case.
    Expand
  89. Aug 24, 2014
    2
    Knowing a film is based on nonsense before entering probably means I'm more of an idiot for paying money for nonsense, expecting other parts of it to not be nonsense. But guess what?! It's nonsense. Nonsense oozing out of every one of Scarlett Johanson's sexy-smart orifices.
    The scientists were talking nonsense. The acting was nonsense. Even the humour was nonsense. What's worse, it tried
    to club in some religious nonsense. I'm pretty sure I spat at the screen at one point! And nobody likes that guy.
    So there you have it. I definitely won't be naming any of my children Lucy after seeing this utter, infuriating, frustratingly bad, turd of a film. Nonsense!
    Expand
  90. Aug 26, 2014
    10
    The science is just not true, but who cares, we have plenty of factual science shows if we want hard science. Instead we want a beautiful woman being a superwoman. And we get it...Taipei, Triads, Paris, Rome, an irreverently hilarious English guy. Morgan Freeman being cool.....and Scarlet being fantastic.. Lucy the first humanoid female is here too with a little spirituality thrown in..Not a 10 really but 5.7 is way too low.. Expand
  91. Aug 27, 2014
    4
    Too much money, creativity limited . The beginning is interesting; it decreases after the first 30 minutes.
    Horrible ending! It had to end somehow though
    Morgan Freeman character UNNECESSARY in the movie.
    I could say - It kind of catches you because of the curiosity of how is gonna be the "incredible" outcome.
  92. Aug 28, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have just seen the movie and I have a question for all those who saw it too. I could not find a reason why, when S. Jo has the chance to "see the universe", she does not go ahead in the future but decides to watch the past. What she sees there, at least until the Big Bang, is clearly already notorious. So if you want to download the whole knowledge for the human race, why not watching into the future? Expand
  93. Aug 29, 2014
    6
    If you can get past the fact that the whole idea behind the movie is painfully inaccurate you may find some enjoyment. The movie isn't something that will be talked about years from now but it's a pretty entertaining way way to spend 90 minutes, just don't expect too much.
  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 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 31, 2014
    5
    Lucy stars Scarlett Johansen and Morgan Freeman, why wouldn't you be excited? The movie spent a lot on 2 big hollywood stars, but had little money left to get better supporting actors. The movie had potential, it sounded interesting and look good, but it unfortunate didn't live up to it. It wasn't bad, but wasn't exciting for me, i was sadly disappointed with this movie. It was boring at certain parts, a bit confusing ,and just didn't catch me. Overall, it was decent but nothing special. Expand
  96. Sep 1, 2014
    5
    The premise is interesting, but the execution is so shallow and rushed, that the situations become funny and absurd, without this being a comedy of any sort. It isn't plain bad, because the mere action keeps it afloat, however, it is not a good movie by no stretch of the imagination. For something similar, I recommend Limitless or The Professional if you want another Luc Besson movie.
  97. 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 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
  98. Sep 4, 2014
    2
    The plot was incredibly bland. I felt like it honestly could have been written by a child. I mean, Besson didn't even google the duration of life on earth. Her male companion has 0 relevance in the story, and when she reveals why he is relevant, the movie never explores that idea ever again.

    Also, I feel like I really have to explain that the concept of "using only 10% of your brain"
    makes no scientific sense. I hope people understand that the fact that you are breathing, heart is beating, blood is flowing is part of the brain that we do not have access to, which explains why we only use 10% of our brain. If we had access to all of it, we'd have to actively take part in not dying every second of the day.

    However, I will admit that I enjoyed the concept of universal connections and whatnot, albeit very badly implemented. Additionally, after I accepted that the plot was bland and threw my concepts of 'science', I actually enjoyed the action scenes for what they were, just a 'i'm incredible look at what I can do' moment. Since i'm talking about the action already, I just wanted to add in one more thing; that car chase was incredibly awkward.
    Expand
  99. Sep 5, 2014
    2
    Lucy was a interesting idea. However it was poorly executed and screamed "I'm trying to be a independent film!" Throughout the beginning, then becomes a nonsensical crap chute of bad sci if powers. The plot is she ingests cocaine, becomes a emotionless Jedi and then becomes a God. The movie is filled with laugh out loud moments, which were unintentional. The movie was poorly executed, laughably bad and racist, as apparently every Asian guy carries shuriken. Expand
  100. Sep 6, 2014
    10
    I really love this film! This's best sci-fi i ever watch! With so much scientific and proving, some kind like making that the film is real, the theory is real! I hope see Lucy 2 soon!
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.