Skip to main content

I read your theory on the use of the brain's capacity. It’s a little rudimentary but you're on the right track.

Lucy
(2014)

Lucy is entertaining enough, but the inevitable salvo of comments, all repeating the refrain that if one uses less than 1% of one’s brain capacity one might enjoy it aren’t so wide of the mark. This is easily the dumbest movie claiming to explore intelligence and consciousness since… Transcendence, actually. Which this starts to resemble at points, particularly when the screen begins to fill up with cut-price CGI gloop and nano-cellular-gubbins. I’m sure there’s a place for a movie combining action and philosophy in equal measure; I’m fairly certain it’s one directed by the Wachoswki siblings. This most certainly isn’t it, and it probably shouldn’t be a surprise that a Luc Besson opus fails to say anything insightful in its exploration of the potential the exists within us all, or that it makes a horrendous hash of discussing our ephemeral relationship with the physical world itself.


One only has to look at Besson’s screenplay and story credits over the past two decades to realise this guy has no interest in challenging anyone to think deeply about anything. A succession of mid-budget action movies, most of which have been astutely gauged to turn a tidy profit and a few (Taken) that have gone through the roof. Since he’s become a one-man mini-studio, in tandem with his diminished desire to actually direct, he’s become a lot less interesting. The ‘90s triptych of Nikita, Leon and The Fifth Element (the latter is how to have fun making a big dumb action movie with a lot of heart and a kernel of simplistic philosophy) now look like the last valiant cry of a moviemaker who fooled us into thinking he was going places. Instead we got one who doesn’t really care what he makes, or fills in at the last moment when one of his protégés drops out.


That said, I had a lot of time for Besson’s last picture. The Family wasn’t a revelation in any way, but it made me laugh, it was well cast, and the action – when it surfaced – was every bit as confident as ever. The action bit is sort of Lucy’s problem; Besson wants to indulge in a speculative treatise (perhaps that’s pushing it… ) on what would be in store for us if only we could tap into that other 90% of our brains we don’t use (already this has been denounced as an “unscientific” stick with which to beat the picture, though really I think such a conceit is the least of its flaws) but the only bit he’s really good at is the action, and he seems reluctant to really let himself off the leash in that regard. All the old skills are present and correct; that smooth, clear coherent staging and enervating editing. Yet it’s used to little gain. The most notable sequences come early.  Later it’s time for some sub-Neo in The Matrix physics-defying shenanigans (and chains of code, and last lines that mimic the tone of his in the first of that trilogy).  Further counting against him is the evidence that Besson is most certainly no sage, such that when he attempts to strike a philosophical note Lucy is mostly laughable.


There’s also a problem of basic relatability here. Besson has apparently cited his indebtedness to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which does him no favours whatsoever (given what’s on display here you expect him to summarise that masterpiece with “Yes, that Kubrick, he’s wicked cool”), and it says something about Besson's failure to come even in the remote vicinity of its quality that he fetches up a monolith-shaped USB stick as the sum total of human knowledge. The tone of 2001 was precise, deliberate, one of cerebral inquiry and detached observance. Besson isn’t naturally a demur director, and his best films wear their passions on their sleeves. Lucy is quickly punctured by his having no one to care about, and nothing to imbue tension in the proceedings; as such, its merciful that the picture is so short.


The casting of Scarlett Johansson doesn’t help matters either. Somehow the Wachowskis hit gold with the open-faced vacuity of Keanu Reeves, positing him as a guileless messiah. That approach, of contracting someone who clearly is not a boffin, flounders here. Perhaps Besson should have asked Morgan Freeman to suck up that blue meth, then asked his stunt double to do a series of back flips. Credit where it’s due, Johansson is very good in the first 20 minutes or so, before CPH4 begins to take effect. As caught-unaware student Lucy, she is wholly persuasive emoting a palpable terror at whatever this fiendish Korean gang (those Koreans, eh?) have in mind, be it death or worse. These scenes are tense and nervy, with a fine streak of dark humour (the gang withdrawing to a safe distance while Lucy opens their potentially booby-trapped case).  Besson perversely, and perhaps purposefully (he’s not just an action director, you know) does his best to dissipate this by cutting to really subtle wildlife shots of predator and prey; once you’ve seen that, you know exactly the level of depth this picture is aiming for. The whacky Frenchman.


And yet this deranged zest also, almost, works. Wheeling out everyone’s favourite walking (just about, he’s really getting on these days) gravitas Morgan Freeman to deliver a lecture on the brain’s unused expanses is such a blatant attempt to disguise sloppy writing (to make a silk cerebrum out of a sow’s noodle), it’s not true. We can’t really blame Morgan for picking up the cheque, twice in one summer with Transcendence, and at least his rent-a-sincerity momentarily veils a seminar that possesses all the integrity of a high school essay project (what happens if we use all our potential, or even more? Hmm, you don’t really have the foggiest do you Morgan?) The decision to intercut his lecture, so utterly pedestrian, with the grimness of Lucy’s encounter with Jang (Min-Sik Choi) and his goons is so perversely off it has a daffy appeal. It’s not even close to being audaciously brilliant, but it’s likably offbeat.


However, once the bag of crystallised Lu Blue that has been sewn into her abdomen seeps and Lucy (literally? – I assumed this was intended to be a Renton-esque trip, but everything that occurs later suggests otherwise) starts climbing the walls, Johansson’s grip on the performance evaporates. She inherently fails to exude anything approaching braininess, and her attempts to button it all down and do the robot are lack lustre; Besson’s as much to blame for the material he gives her, of course. While she handles the earlier emoting well, a wholly naff scene in which Lucy calls her mother undoes this good work. She speaks to her for all the world like a student taking her first Acid trip (except no student in their right mind would call their parents in such a state). Like, the colours, man (mum), and everything is one, man (mum). And I can taste the milk from when I used to suckle on your tit, mom. What? Perhaps Lucy’s mother has early onset dementia as she seems not to bat a verbal eyelid. There, dear. Perhaps you need a nice cup of tea. The scene foregrounds a lurking suspicion that, in order to be most amenable to Lucy, one should be severely baked.


Since auteur Luc hasn't bothered to work out any of the markers of these incremental advances in brain function, from 30 to 40 to 50% capacity etc., Lucy’s marvellous antics all becomes much of a muchness. There’s magic wand waving up the wazoo, where anything can happen but nothing much really imaginative does, and there's no real danger because she's unstoppable within minutes of being loved up. Lucy uses an E.T. glowing finger to read Jang’s mind straight off the bat, then she’s making her hair change colour in the blink of an eye. So at the end it’s not so much surprising that she can transform her form in to strange mutations, or finally disappear at all, as that, with all the possibilities available, she has does so little with them (Limitless at least, by setting its sights low – too low, really – comes out with something much more coherent and much less inane). By the end Lucy is the world, she is the people, she is everywhere, but there’s zero sense of awe and nothing mind-blowing about it.


Admittedly, I liked the scene on the plane where Lucy’s cells begin striving for individual survival and she starts to tear herself apart, before sticking her nose in more drugs to calm her corporeal form down (let that be a lesson; more isn’t always less and moderation isn’t always the answer). At this point there’s a much needed – but brief –dramatic tension as she panics and doesn’t know what’s going on, combined with a suitably Altered States-esque bodily breakdown.  Because Besson can’t feed the audience’s brains, he’s unable to sustain most of what occurs post-mental expansion. And he doesn’t even care. There’s no reason Lucy would leave Jang alive, except to have a villain in the third act. The overblown shootouts are immaculately staged (there’s an amusing moment as the police pile into a building while, unbeknownst to them, the Korean mob arm up in the foreground) but there’s no dramatic investment in them. Amr Waked does good work as the confidante cop, but it’s a thankless part. By this point, another perverse turn around has occurred, such that the gangster plot is tangential now to the metaphysical rumblings,; unfortunately this isn’t particularly satisfying on either side of the divide.


Besson’s spin on his premise, of what happens when we switch on, aside from the supernatural abilities that come with it, is wholly pedestrian. As such, it's notable that the picture, for all its "anything goes" attitude, can muster little more than enlightenment or transcendence coaxing a liberating effect on our perception of time. Once it is no longer bound by time, the physical body no longer exists, so Lucy can range back and forth across the centuries and millennia… Time is a constant by which we measure our existence, and freed from that limitation we can do anything – just as long as it involves sitting in a chair and flashing across green screen landscapes. And that’s about it? Sure, Lucy meets some dinosaurs, and even gets to indulge in a bit of Grandmother Paradoxing by sparking intelligence in an unwitting ape name Lucy, but there doesn’t appear to be much else under the lid. Perhaps Besson, an avowed atheist, struggles to find more having eschewed all notions of spiritual advancement. Lucy’s development is very limited and linear, a tangible reflection of timelessness replete with CGI ape, CGI dinosaur, CGI-tentacles, and what looks a lot like CGI CGI.


I wondered occasionally if Lucy was going to show some perversely curious motivations as she grew in knowledge and understanding. Some of the discussions held had interesting germs of ideas. Why would she necessarily lose touch with her emotional and more especially empathic faculties? Such that she shoots taxi drivers and kills terminal patients with impunity? There’s an element here of divesting oneself of limiting notions of humanity, such that compassion hardly matters when you have the brain the size of the planet; was the line about the patient dying anyway an afterthought to justify the calculated machine mind Lucy? Did Besson wish to forward the idea that anyone or thing approaching the capacities of a godlike being must inevitably be morally suspect – or amorally suspect (David Icke fans will note Lucy’s lizard eyes during her transformation)? After all, Lucy would do bugger all if not for Freeman’s suggestion that knowledge should be passed on. Morgan is used to strike a positive note, then vacillates and it is left to Lucy to reassure him that ignorance brings chaos not knowledge but the idea that order should result from her actions isn’t actually actualised in Lucy, or at least not per se.


It’s almost inevitable that writers write themselves into corners when they try to broach the cosmic, which is why its usually better to verbalise as little as possible; if you’re dealing with symbols (2001, Altered States) you’re more likely to carry resonance. Still, credit to Besson for his lack of restraint in juggling armed gangsters with CG ape-men, wildlife footage and weird physical transformations. And doing it so concisely (any longer and it would have become wearying, as Transcendence illustrated). Lucy’s a stupid movie, with an attractive premise that eludes its writer-director. The shame of it is, Besson’s action chops are as great as ever but he only wants to flex them intermittently. That’s where his real talent lies. You’re not a thinker, Luc, you’re a bruiser.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

So long, sky trash!

Star Wars The Saga Ranked
This is an update of my 2018 ranking, with the addition of highly-acclaimed The Rise of Skywalker along with revisits to the two preceding parts of the trilogy. If you want to be generous and call it that, since the term it makes it sound a whole lot more coherent than it plays.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Man, that’s one big bitch cockroach.

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)
Everyone loves Bruce Campbell. He’s eminently lovable; self-depracating, a natural wit, enthusiastic about his “art” and interactive with his fans. It’s easy to be seduced into cutting anything he shows up in some slack, just by virtue of his mighty Bruce-ness. I know, I’ve done it. Unfortunately, not everything he does has the crazy, slapstick energy of his most famous role. Most of it doesn’t. Don Cascarelli’s Elvis versus Mummy movie has a considerable cult following, based as much on the cult of Don as the cult of Bruce, but its charms are erratic ones. As usual, however, Campbell is the breezy highlight.

The blames rests with Cascarelli, since he adapted Joe R. Lansdale’s short story. The premise is a great high concept mash-up; Elvis Presley, a nursing home resident in declining health, must fight off an ancient Egyptian mummy. Is he really Elvis, or Elvis impersonator Sebastian Haff? Or both, as the King claims to have switched places with the real Haff so as t…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

That Freud stuff’s a bunch of hooey.

Spellbound (1945)
Spellbound is something of a stumbling follow-up to Rebecca, producer David O Selznick’s previous collaboration with Hitchcock. Selznick was a devotee of psychoanalysis, and the idea of basing a film on the subject was already in the mind of the director. To that end, the producer’s own therapist, May Romm, was brought in as a technical advisor (resulting in Hitchcock’s famous response when she pointed out an inaccuracy, “My dear, it’s only a movie”).