Lucy
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, August 14, 2014 02:39
VIEWED: 14707
PAGE 2 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I thought Lost in Translation didn't highlight her much, but maybe it wasn't supposed to.
How dare you speak of her that way ! Take it back!
Can you tell me what you remember from the film? Which scene, or dialogue sequence, or overall impression? For me it's forgettable other than while I was watching it thinking that I shouldn't be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wish that the "using 10% of your brain" was not used, this has been proven false for many years now.
A simple search will provide many, many examples of how wrong the 10% canard really is.
Other than that, the movie looks pretty good, even if the premise has been used many times before.
I will wait for the fans reviews before going to the theater though.
Passionately indifferent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF - her eyes. Wow.
I'd continue, but you get the point. She was, IMO , a crowd pleaser in an unremarkable role.
Seen the darn thing just once.
May need a 2nd look.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually used electronics and data streams as an explanation for how River's psychic abilities works. Because the mind is really just electrical impulses anyway.
But what I didn't like about the trailer is it sounds like they're referring to that old disproven thing about how humans use only 10% of their brains and if humans used 100% all the time they'd be psychic/gods/whatever. No, they'd be having a grand mal seizure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by isrousro:
I wish that the "using 10% of your brain" was not used, this has been proven false for many years now.
A simple search will provide many, many examples of how wrong the 10% canard really is.
Other than that, the movie looks pretty good, even if the premise has been used many times before.
I will wait for the fans reviews before going to the theater though.
Passionately indifferent.
Just saw you say this, yes, oh goodness yes. I'm so frustrated by this, it's a pet peeve.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I thought Lost in Translation didn't highlight her much, but maybe it wasn't supposed to.
How dare you speak of her that way ! Take it back!
Can you tell me what you remember from the film? Which scene, or dialogue sequence, or overall impression? For me it's forgettable other than while I was watching it thinking that I shouldn't be.
I get what you mean, but Coppola's films are more about an overall impression, a feeling, a mood. Her dialogue is usually unremarkable, but her tone seems to be one of introspection. It is of behavior and attitude adjustment and change. In Lost in Translation it was two people traveling in opposite directions and meeting somewhere in the middle. Was it love or loneliness that drove them together? But you make a good point, it is unremarkable, as I suggested, and rather a film about a particular mood.
By the way, she was excellent in Her, although she doesn't physically appear, her voice performance made you feel she was there. Spike Jones did a brilliant job with the script, except for one small thing - the ending. Otherwise it's a strong film, in line with Coppola's Lost in Translation, a character study with some human truths.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Lucy - Trailer (Official - HD)
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I've seen the previews, and it looks pretty cool. Has an edge of that common-person-becomes-God . . .
I'm less cool with her ability to knock a roomful of people out with just her mind. That's moving towards "writer imagining his character becoming a god" land, I think. We'll see.
This movie's concept is similar to Limitless (2011):
"With the help of a mysterious pill that enables the user to access 100 percent of his brain abilities, a struggling writer ( Bradley Cooper ) becomes a financial wizard, but it also puts him in a new world with lots of dangers." -- www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Yeah, Limitless with Bradley Cooper came to mind. Imagine the amount of stimuli entering the brain pan..........Would it be so awesome as depicted in the movies?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yeah, Limitless with Bradley Cooper came to mind. Imagine the amount of stimuli entering the brain pan..........Would it be so awesome as depicted in the movies?
SGG
I tried to watch Limitless, but man, it was darn near cartoonishly predictable. I soon grew bored, and tuned out.
A couple of thoughts...
This idea that humans only use 10% of their brain, seems to be a running theme through out the movie. Only one problem. It's been debunked. I have no issue w/ saying humans don't use their full potential, that's not really the question. We don't. But this nonsense that she's using more and more of her brain, and " what will happen when she gets to 100% " ... rubbish.
And this drug they put into her... I wonder if we'll find out what it is, or does it remain a mystery ? Reminds me of the glowey object in the brief case of Pulp Fiction. That was never revealed in the movie, was it ? The combination to the lock was '666 ', for what ever that's suppose to matter.
As for Lucy, it seems like , for what ever reason, they don't get the package out of her, or they do, and too much of the substance has entered the bloodstream, it's damage done. I wonder if they'll fully explain what she was exposed to, and whether it was intended to affect people that way. My guess is that no, its use was for something else entirely.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yeah, Limitless with Bradley Cooper came to mind. Imagine the amount of stimuli entering the brain pan..........Would it be so awesome as depicted in the movies?
SGG
I tried to watch Limitless, but man, it was darn near cartoonishly predictable. I soon grew bored, and tuned out.
A couple of thoughts...
This idea that humans only use 10% of their brain, seems to be a running theme through out the movie. Only one problem. It's been debunked. I have no issue w/ saying humans don't use their full potential, that's not really the question. We don't. But this nonsense that she's using more and more of her brain, and " what will happen when she gets to 100% " ... rubbish.
And this drug they put into her... I wonder if we'll find out what it is, or does it remain a mystery ? Reminds me of the glowey object in the brief case of Pulp Fiction. That was never revealed in the movie, was it ? The combination to the lock was '666 ', for what ever that's suppose to matter.
As for Lucy, it seems like , for what ever reason, they don't get the package out of her, or they do, and too much of the substance has entered the bloodstream, it's damage done. I wonder if they'll fully explain what she was exposed to, and whether it was intended to affect people that way. My guess is that no, its use was for something else entirely.
Rappy,
I really like your questions regarding the "wonder" drug and your take on Limitless - although Bradley Cooper's performance was solid, the premise and script just didn't make for a good movie. For me, it was just okay (can you tell I'm a Cooper fan). But comparing it to the Pulp Fiction "glow" well..............it's off - juuuuuuust a bit outside!
Here's my take on the "glow" in Pulp Fiction
It's not supposed to be revealed. What it means to me is: it could be drugs, it could be money, but I think it's man's greed, evil, power. It is the idea that we can win if only we possess it. The "666" is the tip-off. It is the work of the devil - the fallen angel of deception, greed and avarice. It is left to the audience to wonder what's inside, although we know it's evil and valuable to Marcellus Wallace. He's the epitome of all the drug dealers we think we know and the driving force in the movie. Which makes the redemption scene near the end that much more powerful. Pulp Fiction is damn near a masterpiece, written with such completeness of thought as to make it a modern classic.
Films like Limitless, and Lucy for that matter, borrow loosely from that small but pivotal premise within Pulp Fiction where the motive isn't revealed, but merely suggested. What matters most is the players reaction to the undisclosed secret; you know, that thing that makes us go crazy, the root of all evil - the love of money, greed. What Tarantino did was make a cinematic, or visual, statement as to the motivation. Simple, effective and brilliant. It is a writer's dream to come up with such a storytelling device. It was inspired.
I'm not going to say that Lucy will borrow that self-same plot device, although it seems that way. This movie may well go in a different direction.
Now, I've heard about that 10% of our brain power before, it's just a Hollywood premise (where it came from I don't know) but it's a tired premise. But, to me, it doesn't matter if the story doesn't work. It is about, as you correctly state, about human potential. Still though, if it's not a good story, well, the movie will suck. Any movie wood.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to clarify, I was asking if the drug or blue substance in plastic bags which was placed in 'Lucy' will be revealed, or will it serve as all that stuff you said about greed, power and what not, from Pulp Fiction, and never to be fully explained.
I wasn't trying to compare the little clear pill in Limitless to the glowy gold thingy from Pulp Fiction.
Pardon for any confusion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME