Scarlett Johannson in Luc Besson's LUCY

[MessiahDecoy123]

I love movies like this where the victim gets god-like power and unleashes.

Limitless, Lawnmower Man, Akira...

Yeah this is a must see for me.

 

[AnneFan]

I love movies like this where the victim gets god-like power and unleashes.

Same here, and as director Besson says, "I love to see a woman as a very strong character."

The movie looks fun. I'll see it for those reasons, and for Scarlett.

 

[Superman_200]

Why do people persist with this ridiculous notion that we only use 10% of our brain? That story worked well before the internet when anyone can within a matter of seconds find out if it is true that we only use 10%. It worked well before there was electricity and computers, not so much now. That myth is so ridiculous. If we used 10%, well we would be vegetables barely able to function on our own. I think that you might not even really be able to breath on your own. In just a day you will use just about 100% of your brain. If a real professor said in a class today that we use 10% of our brain, I think half the class would walk out immediately. The other 50% would google it and then leave as well. Shortly after I would imagine he would be in his bosses office explaining himself. If the entire movie is around the premise of what would happen if we used 100% of our brains, well then just the fact alone that you will have used 100% of your brain by the time you go to sleep tonight should let you know what would really happen. It is just too much to ask for that when people write movies that they actually do some research? Just a little?

 

[DrCosmic]

1) Morgan Freeman basically gets paid to do exposition in movies. That's so crazy to me.

2) This chick is retartedly powerful, dear goodness. That's crazy.

3) I really, really like this. Limitless comparisons seem apt. Not feeling the hate for this. If Luc Besson is a bad director, he's a bad director that makes great movies.

Why do people persist with this ridiculous notion that we only use 10% of our brain? That story worked well before the internet when anyone can within a matter of seconds find out if it is true that we only use 10%. It worked well before there was electricity and computers, not so much now. That myth is so ridiculous. If we used 10%, well we would be vegetables barely able to function on our own. I think that you might not even really be able to breath on your own. In just a day you will use just about 100% of your brain. If a real professor said in a class today that we use 10% of our brain, I think half the class would walk out immediately. The other 50% would google it and then leave as well. Shortly after I would imagine he would be in his bosses office explaining himself. If the entire movie is around the premise of what would happen if we used 100% of our brains, well then just the fact alone that you will have used 100% of your brain by the time you go to sleep tonight should let you know what would really happen. It is just too much to ask for that when people write movies that they actually do some research? Just a little?

To look at it another way, I think this movie was very savvy in saying that "we only use 10% of our brain's capacity" instead of "We only use 10% of our brains." While the myth you're talking about is easily addressed, can you really say that we are all using 100% of what the human brain is capable of?

If you were in a college course and I were your professor, i'd make a simple analogy: Do you use 100% of your house? Most likely you'd say yes. Then I'd ask are you using 100% of it's capacity? Most students would want some clarification because the obvious answer: no, would show them wrong, or force them to acknowledge that they did not respond to what was said, but instead what they thought was said, so I'd elaborate with further questioning: Is there any way you can use your home more efficiently? More profoundly? More influentially? Can you add things to your house to make it better, or is it already fully in use, working at full capacity, with no room for any improvements?

The idea, that additional powers are locked away in the mind is a very common one in fiction, especially where super powers are concerned. These powers escalating independent of personal skill and being ranked on a percentage scale is relatively unique, but hardly flies in the face of modern science.

That is, unless you ignore the word capacity, in which case, it makes no sense.

 

[The Endless]

How anyone can say the guy who made Leon is a poor director is... baffling. That film is perfectly made on a technical level. And it's still Natalie Portman's best ever performance.

 

[chamber-music]

1) Morgan Freeman basically gets paid to do exposition in movies. That's so crazy to me.

Well he does have a nice soothing voice. If someone is going to narrate or give give exposition for a movie then Freeman is your man t:

 

[DrCosmic]

I think his narration career is a part of it. Because he has so very often recited so many real facts with that voice, it's like... when his movie characters start talking, you are used to believing him. It's actually pretty danged genius of him.

 

[Superman_200]

1) Morgan Freeman basically gets paid to do exposition in movies. That's so crazy to me.

2) This chick is retartedly powerful, dear goodness. That's crazy.

3) I really, really like this. Limitless comparisons seem apt. Not feeling the hate for this. If Luc Besson is a bad director, he's a bad director that makes great movies.



To look at it another way, I think this movie was very savvy in saying that "we only use 10% of our brain's capacity" instead of "We only use 10% of our brains." While the myth you're talking about is easily addressed, can you really say that we are all using 100% of what the human brain is capable of?

If you were in a college course and I were your professor, i'd make a simple analogy: Do you use 100% of your house? Most likely you'd say yes. Then I'd ask are you using 100% of it's capacity? Most students would want some clarification because the obvious answer: no, would show them wrong, or force them to acknowledge that they did not respond to what was said, but instead what they thought was said, so I'd elaborate with further questioning: Is there any way you can use your home more efficiently? More profoundly? More influentially? Can you add things to your house to make it better, or is it already fully in use, working at full capacity, with no room for any improvements?

The idea, that additional powers are locked away in the mind is a very common one in fiction, especially where super powers are concerned. These powers escalating independent of personal skill and being ranked on a percentage scale is relatively unique, but hardly flies in the face of modern science.

That is, unless you ignore the word capacity, in which case, it makes no sense.

They are not clever enough to have just used the word capacity without explanation and expect the audience to catch that they are not talking about capabilities but capacity. The myth came from:

"In the 1970's, psychologist and educator Georgi Lozanov, proposed the teaching method of suggestopedia believing that we might be using only five to ten percent of our mental capacity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

Which has been debunked. There is no need for us to think that the scriptwriters were going with anything smart here. It doesn't look smart, and we don't need to defend them either. It looks like an excuse for a super powered hot girl to be beating up people and shooting bad guys. Generic, uninspired looking, predictable already. The only thing we don't know from what we saw is if she dies at the end or not.

We both know they are using the word "capacity" to supplement his speech. We all know that they are referring to the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth, and they just used the word capacity which most people don't, that is all.

We use about 70-80% of the brain's "capacity" in particular, and use use all 100% or nearly all 100% of the parts of our brains on a daily basis. Either way that they might have chosen to word it, we know they are talking about the 10% myth. There is no untapped parts of the brain or any of that. Just people who have applied themselves harder and have more intelligence and focus and can think faster, better, etc. But no hidden brain capabilities and things like that. There are some exceptional people, but the brain of Richard Dawkins does not funking any differently than your brain or mine or the brain of any other rational, healthy, fully functioning human being.

 

[dark_b]

Besson is good,movie looks crazy fun. i dont like Johannson. she is boring.

 

[jaymes_e06]

I agree. This movie looks sick but I do wish they had someone else play her. Not to be "that guy" but JLaw would have rocked this too.

 

[dark_b]

i liked Scarlett in a lot of movies in the 90's and maybe 8 years ago. but in the last years she decided to use a face that i dont get. she looks like she is confused with open mouth. like she doesnt know where she is,what she is doing and who she is.

i could find right now 70 pics where she has the same face.

Don Jon now that was fun and good acting. she was the best

 

[Hunter Rider]

 

[dark_b]

Hunter i dont need to watch movies for hot girls. porn is free on the internet. in movies its all about the story,characters,acting. with action movies everything plus action.

the only reason she was cast was because Avengers made over 1 billion. only because of that.

 

[Hunter Rider]

 

[The Endless]

At this point Lawrence is more bankable than ScarJo. So the idea they got ScarJo because Avengers grossed 1.6 billion is flawed.

Besson obviously preferred ScarJo in the role.

 

[BlackFox]

This looks interesting. Been looking for a trailer to a film that wasnt an obvious, big budget, summer blockbuster. Something original and one off. This could be it.

Certainly be tempted to go and watch this one based on the trailer. Looks a little maga inspired too.

 

[Lily Adler]

So it's not about the life of Lucille Ball.

 

[flickchick85]

So it's not about the life of Lucille Ball.

I would like to see that too.

But yeah, this looks ok. Besson is very hit-or-miss with me so I'll be waiting for reviews on this one.

 

[dark_b]

why is Besson the only director in hollywood who has the balls to go crazy in movies?

nothing makes sense...........hahaha

 

[Octoberist]

i liked Scarlett in a lot of movies in the 90's and maybe 8 years ago. but in the last years she decided to use a face that i dont get. she looks like she is confused with open mouth. like she doesnt know where she is,what she is doing and who she is.

i could find right now 70 pics where she has the same face.

Don Jon now that was fun and good acting. she was the best

You're a unique person, Dark B.

 

[Gee]

What the heck did I just watch? Looks stupidly ridiculous... but I like it. t:

 

[terry78]

Whenever Besson chooses a chick for a role more than likely he already had them in mind like years in advance. He was never gonna want anyone but ScarJo.

 

[dark_b]

i dont buy this.

 

[Octoberist]

And why don't you buy her? She's been in several Marvel movies doing action scenes. In fact, she's going through a ScarJo-renaissance with Don Jon, Under the Skin, and other flicks.

Are you implying that she's yesterday's news even though she's still young, beautiful and fit?

 

[Kane52630]

Just let it go, you can't reason with dark_b.