User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 438 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 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.
  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 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.)
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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 ??
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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, annoyingGuys, 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
  46. 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
  47. 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 amI 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
  48. 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,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
  49. 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
    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
  50. 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 butPlease 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
  51. 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 scienceThis 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
  52. 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.
  53. 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!!
  54. Dec 22, 2014
    0
    If it wasn't produced by besson , it would be classified as a B movie . This all pointless action but no substance film has more plot holes than Swiss cheese.
  55. 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.
  56. 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
  57. 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
    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
  58. 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.
  59. 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
  60. 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"
    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
  61. Sep 9, 2014
    3
    Bad thriller, but if you wanna see a comedy, it's very good haha. I think it's exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness, so bad that makes it funny!
    But in the end i feel bad por Morgan Freeman.
  62. Nov 6, 2014
    2
    Lucy is definitely the worst movie I've seen in a long time!
    The story is far too confusing and told in a very bad way.
    Morgan Freeman got his first very very bad movie.
    I'm sorry for him.
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.