Lucy

Dustin: 1 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 2 of 5 stars (Canary on life support)

Dustin: Lucy is the second steaming turd Universal Studios has taken in our theaters in the past year (the other being 47 Ronin). The film features characters the audience doesn’t care about in a ridiculous premise based on a false idea (humans only use 10 percent of their brains) and that by accessing more of our “cerebral capacity” we’ll somehow be able to break the laws of physics.

Nick: When watching Lucy my mind kept comparing it to another science-fiction movie from this year: Transcendence. I understood immediately why I was enjoying Lucy while feeling forced to watch Transcendence. Lucy is molded with schlock. I never took it as wanting to be serious. This made me forgive all the factual errors. It helped even more that early on Morgan Freeman says it’s all hypothesis, not truth. Transcendence, on the other hand, was too serious while just using computer lingo as dialogue. Both movies had Morgan Freeman in common, probably to try and add validity to an idiotic idea.

Dustin: This wasn’t really a science fiction film. It was wannabe sci-fi. Transcendence had a cautionary tale about when science advances faster than humanity’s capacity to deal with it. This movie took a widely believed falsehood and had Morgan Freeman presenting his theories in an academic setting with serious people asking him questions. There was no science, only stupidity.

Nick: I find it amusing so many people can’t look beyond the stupid idea of a premise that is portrayed as true, when false, but can let giant alien robots fight each other on a distant planet while Mark Wahlberg is an inventor living in Texas (born and raised), but having a Boston accent. That you can look past, but this idea (just because some think it’s true) ruins this movie for you and many others.

Dustin: I have to disagree. I didn’t like Transformers either, but it didn’t pretend its premise was true. This movie continues to perpetuate a stupid idea that has long been disproven. The human brain consumes more calories than any other part of the body, we wouldn’t have evolved massive brains if we were only going to use 10 percent of them.

Clearly using more than 10 percent. (source: The Skeptics Guide to the Universe)

But, I don’t think that’s entirely why I couldn’t stand this movie. It occurred to me The Manchurian Candidate is another movie based on a false idea about the brain (humans can be programmed), but why is it that movie is a classic and still immensely enjoyable even knowing the premise is false, while this movie fails?

Nick: I don’t think this movie is saying that it is true. The film doesn't take itself seriously. It might just be asking what if that were the case. It’s an action sci-fi film, not a drama. There was no part in Lucy I took seriously. I also just found an article where Luc Besson is asked about all the people who are complaining about the science behind the premise and if Besson thinks its true that people only use 10 percent of their brains. His response is that it is absolutely not true.

Dustin: Knowing that sort of makes it worse. He’s not really asking, “What if?” Science already has the answer. I just couldn’t accept the movie on any level without agreeing to the premise. The answer to “What if humans used 100 percent of their brains?” Would be, “Normal-ass humans.”

Nick: What if what humans think is using a 100 percent of their brains is actually only looking at the limited potential, but in actuality the brain can be reprogrammed to increase its capacity of knowledge. What if?… Not saying it’s possible but what if?… that is kind of the first thought behind all sci-fi films.

Dustin: I think we have to agree to disagree. I wasn’t willing to ask “What if?” in this instance due to the stupid premise. So I couldn’t participate in the film at all.

But that wasn’t the only issue. What character are we supposed to identify with and root for? It can’t be Lucy. She starts out as a ditz, and then pretty much acts like a robot after she starts using her brain. We don’t have any characters we can identify with. So that also added to my boredom.

Nick: Do you always need a character to identify with? I can only think of one Luc Besson movie where I did and that was The Professional, but that was the only movie that had an real drama. I’ve enjoyed almost every film he has directed. The films are just mindless, fun entertainment with well-worked action scenes. Movies like District B13 and Lucy work for me because the films are less than 90 minutes and don’t try to be anything more than they happen to be.

Dustin: I think absent a believable plot, yes, you need characters you can identify with. You need Luke Skywalker and Michael Corleone. Even Taken had Liam Neeson’s character. While I can’t identify with a CIA officer with a thick English accent, I can identify with a father wanting to protect his daughter. That’s something. There wasn't a believable character in this movie.

Nick:  You use two characters from two of the greatest movies ever to make to make a point against an subpar film.

Dustin: OK. Remember that Antonio Banderas movie The 13th Warrior? Of course not, unless you were one of the 13 people (coincidence) who saw it. He was from Baghdad, but we could relate to him in his journey with the Norsemen because he was learned and more civilized. He was the “everyman” through whom we can experience the unfamiliar setting.

Anyone remember this?

Nick: So you are saying if Lucy were an every(wo)man you could relate?

Dustin: If Lucy acted like a normal person for at least a few minutes I could relate. I had nothing to latch on to here. Not even a sympathetic secondary character.

Nick: One of my favorite movies of the year, Under the Skin, which also stars Scarlett Johansson, is such an amazing experience, yet I wouldn’t say I connected to nor had any feelings for any character in the film. For me, having a character to latch onto, depending on the film, can make a movie better, but if the film lacks that I don’t think its necessarily think less of it. Some films don’t have to have a connection. Having said this, I think Lucy would have been better if we could have had more time with 10-percent Lucy rather than 20-to-100-percent Lucy. But if you can’t get past the premise then I don’t blame you for disliking Lucy.

Dustin:  If Luc Besson came out and said, “This movie took place entirely in Lucy’s mind while she was tripping on the experimental drug sewn into her belly,” I would rewatch it with a different frame of mind and might accept it then.

Also, what was at stake here? Yeah, she could die if she didn’t get her fix, but since I didn’t care about the character, that didn’t mean much to me. She is basically invincible by the time she confronts her enemies, so that took away any tension the scenes could have had. What if her genius was only temporary like the movie Charly? Or she lost her power like Edge of Tomorrow, which would have raised the stakes?

Anyway, after being a wet blanket throughout this review, I will say there was one detail in this movie I really liked. There was the scene where they dragged out a human guinea pig to test the drug on. He had somehow fallen captive to the gangsters. This idea was genuinely scary, and in line with Luc Besson’s better ideas from his other films where he shows a part of society decent folk don’t want to know about.

Nick: Although his character wasn’t fleshed out enough, it was nice to see Choi Min-Sik who played Oh Dae-Su in the original Oldboy. I loved what he did with the character he had to work with. He was legitimately scary until the protagonist is able to use 25 percent of her brain.

You are definitely not wrong in your complaints. Far from it. All the problems and questions you have I always ask when watching a movie with any sincerity, but since I could get beyond the premise and understand the tone, then I was able to shut off this old “10 percent” brain and enjoy this mediocre film.

Her + Oscar talk

Dustin: 4.5 of 5 stars Nick: 4.5 of 5 stars Average: 4.5 of 5 stars (Tweety canary)

Dustin: Her is a semi-sci-fi film set in a minority-devoid near-future Los Angeles. It’s about a man’s romantic relationship with his operating system. It stars Joaquin Phoenix as Kip from Napoleon Dynamite and Scarlett Johansson playing against type as a female without a smoking hot body.

What did you think of Her, Nick? 

Nick: She was fantastic! Oh, wait. We’re talking about the movie?

Jonze created a fascinating world (as he always does) that had me in a trance even with the loud, drunk girl sitting next to me who got kicked out with 15 minutes left in the movie. 

Dustin: You were probably right not to follow your date out of the theater at that point.

The near-future in this film was really well done. I wondered what city it was at first. I thought it might be L.A., but I recognized some buildings as Shanghai. But due to the lack of people of color and the hipster clothing, I figured it might be Canada. It was later revealed to be L.A. It is glossy and spreads out beyond the current L.A. It is not dystopian, and it still feels familiar. 

Nick: All the futuristic elements were subtle from the clothes to the video games. They were all video games that I would love to play, and I don’t play many video games. 

Dustin: One disturbing element of the future though, that seemed entirely plausible just walking around today, is how people are disconnected from each other. They still have social lives, but there are no deep connections. Joaquin Phoenix works as a writer for Beautiful Handwritten Letters, a company that writes personal letters for people. In this world, you can believe someone would fall in love with his computer. 

Nick: I believe that falling in love with an O.S. could happen in our world.

I didn’t even notice the lack of diversity in this film until I read something later. Do you think they were trying to make a statement? 

Dustin: You know, I really can’t figure that one out. One of the reasons I asked myself early in the movie where this was set was because there are so few minorities (I’m not sure that is still a politically correct term). There were a couple Asians, and I think he passed a black man at one point, but the city looked about 95 percent white. Once they eventually confirmed this was L.A., I’m sure there was a reason for it, given how well thought-out the setting was and how subtly they handled it. I just don’t know what the reason might be for this artistic decision. 

Nick: Jonze is a thoughtful filmmaker, but I think it might be already so complicated and such a personally told story from one man’s view that its hard for me to believe that he was making a creative choice, but I would love to find out the reasoning. 

Dustin: This movie certainly got a few neurons sparking in my monkey brain. I thought about what it means to be human. Could a mind without a body be considered human? If Joaquin Phoenix tossed his O.S. (Samantha) into the ocean, would it be akin to murder? 

Nick: I also don’t think its murder because Samantha is communicating with thousands of people at once. So if the one phone is tossed away, that’s not murder, but maybe if the creator of the O.S.s turns them all off then maybe?... Right? 

Dustin: I don’t think so. Eventually I answered my own question and thought, Of course it’s not murder--Samantha’s not human. It’s artificial intelligence, and she is following her programming. The only true emotions are Joaquin Phoenix’s. He’s projecting human characteristics onto a machine, which humans are very good at doing. 

Nick: Which is a hilarious point because Spike Jonze made an IKEA ad with the same idea.

Nick: …same creator with a similar idea, but with a larger scope. 

Dustin: This is my first time seeing this ad. That sort of answers my question knowing now where he’s coming from. 

Nick: I believe it’s all programming based to be emotional. Like you said, it’s a very disconnected world, and the company who makes the O.S.s knows this and is feeding off the loneliness of the current world. Look for it in the future! Even the video games are either wholly interactive or are based on characters doing mundane everyday actions (like what a stay-at-home mother does all day). 

Dustin: Did you feel like this film was some sort of commentary? 

Nick: Of course. A social commentary. It’s quite incredible. If the film wasn’t overly cutesy and felt a little long (could be caused by the drunk girl next to me), then I would have thought this film was perfect. The movie is thought-provoking and it’s highly entertaining with a lot of laughs. It’s a rare combination. 

Dustin: It’s been nominated for best picture. Up against 12 Years a Slave, The Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle. What do you think its chances are? 

Nick: How many films were nominated? Eight? Nine? Ten? 

Dustin: Nine. 

Nick: Then I’d say 1/9 chance. Which is basically saying it doesn’t have one. It’s between 12 Years A Slave and American Hustle. No other film has a shot. 

Dustin: Should we go on the talk about Oscar pics? 

Nick: Sure. 

Dustin: Are there any surprises on the list for you? 

Nick: Since I’m always pretty deep into film news nothing is really surprising, but the one shock would be The Croods for Best Animated Picture with Monsters University left off the list.

Dustin: I’m surprised Captain Phillips was nominated. I thought it was great and I recommended it, but I didn’t really see it as an “Oscar” movie. 

Nick: I know you didn't. Do you remember after we saw it I said I didn’t really want to see the movie because it felt like Oscar bait to me, and lo and behold it was exactly that! 

Dustin: I remember you saying that. I thought you could’ve been right. Maybe they were fishing for an Oscar nomination, but I didn’t think the Academy would bite.

There are a couple movies I’m surprised aren’t on the list. One was Mud, which might have been my favorite from last year. The other is Fruitvale Station, which I thought was good. It wasn’t one of my favorites, but it was definitely what I thought of as “Oscar bait.” 

Nick: The reason the Oscars and other awards shows mean nothing to me is that the people of the committee who are voting are not forced to see any film. So it’s possible they will never hear about the film. The film company will make “For Your Consideration” releases, which costs them money to send out to the voters, so that they know they had a chance to see the movie. This happened to Moon by Duncan Jones, for which Sam Rockwell should have gotten a nomination, but the company wouldn’t spend money on the screeners.

Joaquin Phoenix always immerses himself in his roles, and I’m probably biased in saying he deserved a nomination, but I also think all the women in Her (Scarlett Johanssen, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara) deserved a nom as well, but Adams got hers for American Hustle, and the Academy HAS to recognize Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts in that one film that hardly anyone I know has heard about. 

Dustin: True dat. I’m don’t even know if Meryl Streep was in anything this year, but I’m sure she’s been nominated, and I haven’t even looked at the best actress nominees. 

Nick: August: Osage County (both Streep and Roberts) is hardly well-regarded, which the Academy never seems to honor actors who are in lesser films unless they are an American Sweetheart (...honorable mention Sandra Bullock).

Don Jon

Nick: 3.5 of 5  Laura: 3 of 5 Average: 3.25 of 5 (Woozy canary)

Nick: For a couple of weeks, Dustin will be off gallivanting around Asia for his real job. In his stead, I am rewarded with the lovely wit of Laura McGee.

Laura: Thank you, Nick! I consider myself to be mostly an expert on reality television, but I will try my best to live up to Dustin’s fine work in movie reviewing!

Nick: Don Jon is the writing-directing debut of Joseph Gordon-Levitt about Jon Martello whose life is perfect between his place, car, church, family, gals, friends and most importantly his obsession with pornography. What did you take away from Don Jon?

Laura: Well, the film was really enjoyable. When the commercials first aired, I figured it was a big screen version of Jersey Shore, which wasn't entirely accurate…

Nick: Which you thoroughly enjoy, right?

Laura: Ha, well yes, it is a guilty pleasure of mine. However, I’m genuinely intrigued by this idea of second and third generation Italians, who seem entirely self obsessed, particularly when it comes to their body and clothes. I’m not clear how realistic this is of young men in New Jersey, but after watching the reality show and now Don Jon, I must assume that this culture really does exist.

Nick: Normally I don’t read reviews before reviewing the film myself, but since it took us awhile to review (my fault entirely) I chose to in order to remember what happened in the film. In the review by Odie Henderson, he tore into the film for over exaggerating the stereotype of Italians in New Jersey. Henderson is an expert in this because he is from New Jersey and is insulted by what he sees on screen. In another article that I read yesterday, the Italian American One Voice Coalition spoke out against the film for the exact same reason. Haven’t films mostly been an exaggerated version of life? Look at most cop films where there is gun usage everyday in their lives, but in real life I’m sure that’s not the case. Must a film only exaggerate when it comes to violence as to not be taken seriously? Don Jon is a comedy after all.

Laura: There has to be a certain amount of truth to some of it, although some of these things can be exaggerated for a film or television show. However, one of the first things I noticed about this movie is how misogynistic it was. Early on in the film, Jon and his friends go to a club where they rate every woman on a scale of 1 through 10, calling a perfect 10 “a dime.” After finding someone that ranked high enough for them on the scale, the next move seemed to be some drinking, making out in the club and then getting said girl home for what was certain to be a one time hook-up. It was hard for me not to watch that and compare it with the guys on the Jersey Shore reality show whose main objective was always to find a girl who was ‘DTF’ (down to fuck).  

Nick: The difference between them is that Don Jon is not a misogynistic film, but has its main character grow from that into something that is considered an adult. So in no way does the film say the main character is right for thinking this way, but laughs at him and his OCD ways, especially when you see the true insides of “a dime.” While in the Jersey Shore the misogyny is “the show,” but is also justified by just how sexually perverse the women are too (at least in action). I must state I have never seen the show but have seen many clips on The Soup and I read many entertainment articles.

Laura: Haha, well I am going to stop drawing comparisons to the television show at this point, it is just a little bit hard not to associate the two. But anyway, yes, Jon does go from being a shallow guy, spending all his time on making the things he cares about look up to his standard. Early in the film he meets Barbara (a dime!) played by Scarlett Johansson and begins a monogamous relationship with her. He seems to adore her, although he seems motivated by her looks more than anything. She in turn, almost immediately begins to try and subtly change Jon, suggesting that he start night school and telling him he would be so “sexy” with a “real job.”

Nick: Barbara had amazing negotiating tactics! After withdrawing sex from the beginning of the relationship and then dry humping Jon while subtly giving her demands for their relationship to further itself. Something that irked me about the film was the writing whenever a character went through a transformation. Every time a character “transformed” it seemed abrupt instead of building steadily. Barbara with her reaction to the Swifer and Jon with any moment he has in the film.

Laura: The transformations did move quickly, although I felt like there were warning signs of the type of person she was right off the bat. A major theme in this movie is Jon’s pornography addiction. He claims to prefer porn to real sex and watches it all the time. Barbara has no idea the extent to which he watches it, but catches him looking at some the first night they spend together and tells him he can no longer watch it. She makes him promise. Granted, he did watch an awful lot of porn, but what did you think of her immediate demands that he stop?

Nick: It’s a somewhat ridiculous demand, but that is what some real relationships ask for. I have certainly heard of some that dealt with the watching of porn and other demands that are even crazier. Jon said he would stop just to calm her down and make her stay, although to his credit he tried to stop, but failed miserably. It was pretty funny that he insulted his father for not knowing what a TIVO was, but failed to recognize the irony of a search history, which shows all the porn he watches and has been around longer.

Laura: Ha, I didn't even think about that, but was surprised he didn't know how to clear his history, considering the amount of porn he watched. As the movie progressed, it became clear that he was attached to porn as he had never had a real relationship and tended to look at women as objects more than people.

Nick: Barbara was as much of an object to Jon as he was to her. Barbara saw him as a broken object that she could potentially mold into something better.  

Laura: Very true. They sort of used each other, although I did feel that Jon really wanted to make the relationship work, even when it became clear that Barbara wasn't an especially layered or even nice person. In his night school class though, he meets Ester (Julianne Moore), who is a bit older and very much the opposite of Barbara.

Nick: The film is very harsh on Barbara, who becomes more and more of a caricature the longer the film goes on. In her final scene she is brought back to show how ridiculous of a character she is while trying to make us think Jon is clear of all misdoings. Ester is another perfect person right from the start, but she never gets to have a downswing of emotion so the viewer never gets to know her well. This is OK because Jon’s name is in the title and the only purpose her character served is to be, as you said, a complete opposite of Babs.

In all the reviews I read before writing this, not one critic mentioned Jon’s possible obsessive compulsive disorder. Is this something I’m imagining or did you ever feel that way?

Laura: Jon was a controlling person and liked to have order in his life. He seemed like a man of routine. It never really occurred to me that it was affecting his life negatively.

Nick: Depends on how one looks at it. As you stated, all the times he did a routine in order to get a girl in bed, then he does a routine after he gets the girl in bed (jerk it, never call her again, and clean his place). These routines are negative and lead to his inability to give himself emotionally to another person because as he states in his voice over narration he has figured out the perfect formula for life.

Laura: This is a more enjoyable film than I thought it would be. In the beginning it looked as if it was going to be another movie that sort of objectifies women and promotes a certain type of lifestyle. However it was surprising how the characters grow and also, being forced to accept that their is some double standard in getting upset with men for focusing on looks and sex so much, when in fact women can do the same things, their focus tending to be on status and money.

Nick: Very well stated. Don Jon is a piece of edgy filmmaking with scenes from pornographies spliced throughout and showing sex between the characters as something that is not so special. The film never takes itself too seriously, but maybe should have in regards to making Jon start off as even more of a prick instead of just making him charmingly sleazy. Although it’s nowhere near perfect, Don Jon shows that the world of film has an interesting new voice that will make his main characters obsessed with masturbating!