Sometimes it becomes very easy to lose sight of what the science fiction genre actually is. This is hardly surprising considering the sheer amount of material the genre contains, featuring everything from ET to Star Wars to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The only real defining characteristic appears, at first glance, to be that all these stories contain two elements: science and fiction.
Yet occasionally, a film will come under fire precisely because it doesn’t fit a viewer’s perception of what science fiction should be. Many times, a film’s scientific accuracy becomes a point of criticism for audiences and critics alike. Such is the unfortunate case of Lucy.
Directed by Luc Besson and starring the ever-popular Scarlett Johansson, Lucy tells the story of a woman who, while living in Taiwan, unfortunately gets caught in the web of a drug ring. After her boyfriend is executed, she forcefully has a bag of a new drug surgically implanted into her body.
After a brief fight with the drug runners, the bag ends up leaking, circulating this new drug throughout her system. As the drug progresses, she begins unlocking increasingly advanced and nigh god-like brain functions, granting her telepathy, mental time travel and telekinesis.
Once she escapes her captors, she sets off to find the doctor Norman (Morgan Freeman) in the hopes that she can learn more about what has happened to her. All the while, she is hunted by the drug runners, looking to kill her in vengeance.
The biggest point of contention this film has faced has been its ludicrous setup; the drug that grants Lucy superhuman telekinetic abilities does so by supposedly allowing her to use 100 percent of her brain, whereas a normal human, according to the film, only uses roughly 10 percent.
Ever since this point was released to the public, the film has been met with backlash from scientists and general viewers alike, claiming that using an “old wives’ tale” as the foundation of a film is simply too ridiculous to believe.
However, this reviewer disagrees with this public sentiment. After all, science fiction has rarely ever been set in scientific fact. It is the genre that brought us a DeLorean capable of going back in time by reaching 88 miles per hour (Back to the Future). It brought us starships able to “make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs” (Star Wars).
“Science” fiction has always been more of a forward-looking fantasy genre than anything else, and criticizing the film based on its foundation not being scientifically accurate is to disregard the most important aspect of viewing a film: the willful suspension of disbelief. Very rarely are films true to life, and dismissing a film based on its accuracy is to dismiss it out of turn.
When simply viewed as a “drugs give superpowers” story, Lucy delivers as a work put together fairly well, providing beautiful special effects work and a story engaging enough to carry it through its modest 90-minute runtime.
That said, there are still plenty of good reasons to criticize Lucy; even its premise doesn’t get off entirely free. Disregarding the scientific implausibility argument, the fact remains that many plot elements Lucy uses to propel itself are tried and tired.
A huge portion of the film focuses on how Lucy begins to lose human empathy and emotion as she unlocks her powers. While an intriguing struggle in and of itself, the film simply isn’t long enough to give the character or the plotline the depth they require to make the story memorable on its own. Numerous plot instances are almost directly ripped from works such as Akira and Watchmen, where characters face similar struggles. In fact, much of the plot feel torn from such works, with many scenes conveying an unshakable feeling of “this happens here because in this kind of story, that’s how it usually goes.”
Besson takes little in the way of risks and allows himself to fall back on tired, clichéd premises, and that, if anything, is the issue with the “10 percent of the brain” premise in the film, not its scientific implausibility.
Scarlett Johansson admittedly gives an excellent performance in her lead role, continuing the trend this year of actors and actresses giving performances which far exceed their films’ quality (Angelina Jolie in Maleficent comes to mind). Unfortunately, her role simply doesn’t offer much for her to do. As she loses touch with humanity, so too does she begin losing emotions. As a result, Lucy herself, while a tragic character, isn’t interesting to watch. There unfortunately just isn’t much character for Johansson to portray. She is a vehicle for the plot and little more.
Where the film does excel is in its action choreography and special effects. Doing away completely (thankfully) with shaky-cam effects typical of most modern action films, Lucy instead puts a new spin on a Matrix-esque action scene. Lucy, with her enhanced abilities, is able to speed up, slow down and manipulate the flow of time in combat, which, in combination with seamless CGI telekinesis, is simply a joy to behold.
Rather than gritty and shaky, the scenes are smooth and flowing, allowing us to dance through fights rather than stampede through them. There is no wasted movement, and this succinctness coupled with the natural flow of the action generates a feeling of power around the main character which is quite awe-inspiring, despite the lackluster plot and characterization.
Despite the solid acting and cinematography of the film, it unfortunately fails to excel in many areas. While its implausibility, whether a valid criticism or not, may be a turn-off to some viewers, far more disconcerting is the lack of creative storytelling and compelling characterization.
Fortunately, the film is relatively short and is certainly not boring to watch through. It simply feels as though it is lacking weight and substance. While not necessarily good by any means, on a boring day, there are certainly worse ways to pass an hour and a half.
Overall rating: 2.5/5
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.