cenotaphic said: I loved your Lucy review. I went into the movie with no expectations, and I thought it was entertaining. I liked the risks the film took structurally, in terms of cutting between the story of the film and the Discovery Channel type footage of animals as metaphors for that was happening to Lucy. Despite the bad science, I could suspend my disbelief for the film. I thought they tried to do too much in a two hour film so it felt rushed. It could have done better as a tv show or miniseries.
It would have been a stellar miniseries but the structure is something I took serious issue with: I don’t think it knew if it wanted to be cheeky, action packed, or theologically science fiction.
I really wish it would have carried the discovery channel motif through the entire film but it didn’t…
Sigh, so much potential.
Thank you for reading and stopping by to speak!!
If I were to grade Lucy (2014) as a literary work, I’d give it a solid C for poor writing and an underdeveloped thesis but good idea none-the-less, however, as a film, a low D may do.
Many are saying it’s a waste of time but I’d beg to differ. Yes, scientifically it has failed…miserably. As entertainment…well… But, as a work of fiction, it has served a certain purpose.
Let me explain why we have fictional stories in our written works and maybe the film’s poor execution will become a little less important.