TOS wrote: john wayne was always monstrously overrated
Someone ought to belt you for the trouble you cause, but I won't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3343LUHNb4
The Hell I won't!
TOS wrote: john wayne was always monstrously overrated
ukimalefu wrote: I liked Lucy. There, I said it.
Now, if you want to watch Scarlett Johansson naked, the movie you want is called 'Under the skin". I also liked that one.
Metacell wrote: ^^ But was he shot at the end or not?
TOS wrote: john wayne was always monstrously overrated
DEyncourt wrote: Lucy (2014).
Y'know, I watched the interview Scarlett Johansson had with Stephen Colbert on his new show on his second night. There she--at least as much of her public persona that she revealed--was utterly charming and very sophisticated.
In comparison this was what was SO disappointing in "Lucy". While Johansson played the clueless ingénue very well--after all: she IS a good actress--that she was for the first 20 minutes or so in the movie, while such a persona could have some charm to it in itself, in this role Johansson was distinctly unattractive (though still in a physically pretty way).
And for the "I wanna see Scarlett being sexy in states of undress" crowd this movie is VERY disappointing. Quite frankly the viewer saw--for a longer time--more of Johansson through the opening credits of "Lost in Translation", and through most of THIS movie she is rather unsexily in a physical state of confusion trying to cope with her situation.
The basic premise of the movie is that Lucy gets caught up in a rather confusing attempt to smuggle a new drug being cooked in Taiwan for distribution into the US and Europe. In the seemingly unnecessary demonstration of this drug the Taiwanese drug lord shows Lucy a guy who sniffs up a couple of crystals of it and goes from a VERY stereotypical movie-version of being completely drugged out to grinning beatifically before the drug lord again unnecessarily shoots him in the head (the drug lord is NOT going to push the addict back onto the streets as advertisement for his new drug? Stupid drug lord).
The drug is a synthetic version of a hormone that women naturally produce in tiny amounts during pregnancy that specifically stimulates the development of the brain in the fetus (as far as I know none of this bit of fiction is true). For the purposes of smuggling this drug Lucy and 3 seeming drifters found in Taiwan (though with passports to 3 different European nations) had their intestinal regions cut open into which they have gotten inserted a bag containing about a kilogram of this drug. At this point another McGuffin is inserted into the movie where for no explicable reason Lucy is moved to a locked chamber where she is chained to wall in order to...what? Make sure that she complies with delivering the drug to the drug lord's connection in the US by physically beating her up INCLUDING kicking her in the stomach where the bag of drugs is--shouldn't that drug lord have simply killed his assistants for abusing their drug mule in this particular way? "Naturally" this results in rupturing that bag inside Lucy and then the "fun" begin.
Though the rest of the movie is distinctly not at all fun. Morgan Freedman is NOT wasted as the senior brain researcher because he delivers a more sophisticated version of the movie's tag line--"The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity. Imagine what she could do with 100%"--that had me at least nodding along while he was delivering this mostly pure nonsense. The remainder of the movie consists of Lucy telling Interpol to apprehend the other drug mules at their respective landing airports so that Lucy could get the rest of the drugs they were carrying in order for her to reach that 100% mental capacity (why exactly would Interpol cooperate this way?). There are many more such inadequately answered questions throughout.
So overall this movie was not worth the time I wasted on it.
user wrote: Refreshing to see Cruise playing a kitty.
sturner wrote: The title is a not so subtle reference to the first progenitor of human kind in the Leaky discoveries of hominin remains. Lucy meets the first Lucy in the last portion of the movie.DEyncourt wrote: Lucy (2014).
Y'know, I watched the interview Scarlett Johansson had with Stephen Colbert on his new show on his second night. There she--at least as much of her public persona that she revealed--was utterly charming and very sophisticated.
In comparison this was what was SO disappointing in "Lucy". While Johansson played the clueless ingénue very well--after all: she IS a good actress--that she was for the first 20 minutes or so in the movie, while such a persona could have some charm to it in itself, in this role Johansson was distinctly unattractive (though still in a physically pretty way).
And for the "I wanna see Scarlett being sexy in states of undress" crowd this movie is VERY disappointing. Quite frankly the viewer saw--for a longer time--more of Johansson through the opening credits of "Lost in Translation", and through most of THIS movie she is rather unsexily in a physical state of confusion trying to cope with her situation.
The basic premise of the movie is that Lucy gets caught up in a rather confusing attempt to smuggle a new drug being cooked in Taiwan for distribution into the US and Europe. In the seemingly unnecessary demonstration of this drug the Taiwanese drug lord shows Lucy a guy who sniffs up a couple of crystals of it and goes from a VERY stereotypical movie-version of being completely drugged out to grinning beatifically before the drug lord again unnecessarily shoots him in the head (the drug lord is NOT going to push the addict back onto the streets as advertisement for his new drug? Stupid drug lord).
The drug is a synthetic version of a hormone that women naturally produce in tiny amounts during pregnancy that specifically stimulates the development of the brain in the fetus (as far as I know none of this bit of fiction is true). For the purposes of smuggling this drug Lucy and 3 seeming drifters found in Taiwan (though with passports to 3 different European nations) had their intestinal regions cut open into which they have gotten inserted a bag containing about a kilogram of this drug. At this point another McGuffin is inserted into the movie where for no explicable reason Lucy is moved to a locked chamber where she is chained to wall in order to...what? Make sure that she complies with delivering the drug to the drug lord's connection in the US by physically beating her up INCLUDING kicking her in the stomach where the bag of drugs is--shouldn't that drug lord have simply killed his assistants for abusing their drug mule in this particular way? "Naturally" this results in rupturing that bag inside Lucy and then the "fun" begin.
Though the rest of the movie is distinctly not at all fun. Morgan Freedman is NOT wasted as the senior brain researcher because he delivers a more sophisticated version of the movie's tag line--"The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity. Imagine what she could do with 100%"--that had me at least nodding along while he was delivering this mostly pure nonsense. The remainder of the movie consists of Lucy telling Interpol to apprehend the other drug mules at their respective landing airports so that Lucy could get the rest of the drugs they were carrying in order for her to reach that 100% mental capacity (why exactly would Interpol cooperate this way?). There are many more such inadequately answered questions throughout.
So overall this movie was not worth the time I wasted on it.
TOS wrote: idaho transfer
peter fonda directed this early 70s time-travel-post-apocalyptic movie
very odd, bit confusing, dark flick ... used mostly nonprofessional actors and became a bit of a cult classic after peter fonda allowed the copyright to lapse because he wanted people to see it (which is why it can be on youtube without any problems)
i quite liked it, especially considering it was made on next to no money
Ribtor wrote: She was prominent until she was killed.
radarman wrote:TOS wrote: idaho transfer
peter fonda directed this early 70s time-travel-post-apocalyptic movie
very odd, bit confusing, dark flick ... used mostly nonprofessional actors and became a bit of a cult classic after peter fonda allowed the copyright to lapse because he wanted people to see it (which is why it can be on youtube without any problems)
i quite liked it, especially considering it was made on next to no money
WTF did I just watch?
user wrote:Been advertising that a lot on Hulu. Looks depressing.Donkey Butter wrote: Me, Earl and the Dying Girl.
I really enjoyed the movie.
Ribtor wrote: No Way Out (1987) Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman, Sean Young, Will Patton. Such a good movie. Everything works. One of my go-to movies on VHS when I want something familiar.
Séamas wrote: A Clockwork Orange
I must have seen this at least a half dozen times, but probably haven't seen it in something like 20 years.
Seeing again now had a different impression on me. I think now I was a bit more disturbed by the almost seductive quality of the highly stylized violence --where when I was younger it just seemed cool in a way. I can see why people accused it of glorifying violence--especially the sexual assaults and sexual fantasies --all pretty much idealized.
I read the book way back when, and haven't decided on which message I really prefer.