Lucy, an exercise in Hollywood absurdity

kimmy · January 4, 2015

When I learned that French director Luc Besson had made a remake of "I Love Lucy" I was intrigued. I was curious to see how Besson would bring the essential human comedy and drama, which is love, into this age of CGI-obsessed troglodytes. After viewing this wretched piece of trash, I believe the future of cinema is doomed. Everything that was great in I Love Lucy has been cut away in an effort to appease the sensibilities of the modern film goer.

To appeal to modern ideas of political correctness, Lucy is no longer a daft housewife. Instead, she has been transformed into an action hero. Rather than prat-falls, she performs martial arts. Rather than a ditz, the 2014 Lucy is a college student who evolves into a genius. This occurs in an inane sub-plot involving an experimental narcotic that Lucy is accidentally dosed with, which through some completely unrealistic means, somehow accelerates her brain and unlocks hidden potential in her mind. Lucille Ball needed no such gimmicks to win the hearts of viewers. In an effort to appeal to 14 year olds in Asia, the movie is set in Taipei and filled with nonsensical CGI, particularly in the later stages when Lucy becomes almost a parody of The Matrix, another film that equates drugs with attaining a higher state. As with Neo and the Red Pill, so with Lucy and the experimental crystal methamphetamine. Clearly a nod to the currently trendy notion of legalizating drugs. The message is obvious: do drugs to achieve enlightenment. In my view, audiences will not be fooled.

This movie is a complete disaster that bears no resemblance at all to the I Love Lucy that we remember. There are few laughs here. Indeed it is some sort of absurdist action adventure. Such is the state of today's cinema that even the quintessential American love story can't be told without being completely rewritten to appeal to drug-using 14 year olds in Hong Kong. There is no romantic chemistry between Johansson and Freeman. Indeed, they are not even on screen together until the final minutes of the film. Scarlett Johansson is no Lucille Ball. Morgan Freeman is no Desi Arnaz. And Luc Besson is no Frenchman.

-k

Michael Hardner · January 4, 2015

This sounds made up. But even if it isn't... one bad film doesn't doom cinema.

Michael Hardner · January 4, 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%282014_film%29

Ha ha. Strange but (un)true...

Bob Macadoo · January 5, 2015

Wow that was alot of effort for a smirk....you're dedicated.

overthere · January 5, 2015

It is a vanity movie.

Many actors feel obliged to do them at a certain point in their careers. Johannsen felt her talent was so immense, she needed to do two in a row to display her prodigious ~~chest~~ talent: Lucy and Under the Skin.

Your cultural development would not be impaired by skipping both.

Michael Hardner · January 5, 2015

Under the Skin.

I saw this one yesterday on Netflix. It was very well done for what it was, but wouldn't appeal to a broad audience.

cybercoma · January 5, 2015

This is some of the best parody/satire I've read in a long time. Thanks for the laugh, kimmy.

Edited January 5, 2015 by cybercoma

cybercoma · January 5, 2015

To those who are confused, this is a take on August's absurdist reviews.

guyser · January 5, 2015

To those who are confused, this is a take on August's absurdist reviews.

Ok now I get it.

Black Dog · January 5, 2015

B+ lost points only for no mention of "Western leftists"

overthere · January 5, 2015

I saw this one yesterday on Netflix. It was very well done for what it was, but wouldn't appeal to a broad audience.

I'm not that broad, nor am I a broad.

I did not care for it and never did calculate 'what is was'

Did you notice Johanssen was in pretty much every scene? That makes it a vanity flick IMO.

I just deleted a long rant about watching movies on TV vs. at a theater. I'm proud of myself.

Michael Hardner · January 5, 2015

1. I'm not that broad, nor am I a broad.

2. I did not care for it and never did calculate 'what is was'

4. Did you notice Johanssen was in pretty much every scene? That makes it a vanity flick IMO.

6. I just deleted a long rant about watching movies on TV vs. at a theater. I'm proud of myself.

1. Check

2. Did you try ?

4. It's better than Steve Buscemi in every scene, in that you get to look at Johanssen.

6. Good for you. I will imagine a short rant in my head right now and not post it.

Moonlight Graham · January 5, 2015

Who plays Fred?

Edited January 5, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

Bob Macadoo · January 5, 2015

Ok now I get it.

Well now it's ruined. Thanks.

overthere · January 6, 2015

It's better than Steve Buscemi in every scene, in that you get to look at Johanssen.

Agreed that SJ is better looking than Buscemi. but she cannot carry his jock as an actor.

Once I've seen SJ without her kit on a couple times and the thrill is gone, I'll take Buscemi.

On the big screen if possible.

Edited January 6, 2015 by overthere

WIP · January 6, 2015

When I learned that French director Luc Besson had made a remake of "I Love Lucy" I was intrigued. I was curious to see how Besson would bring the essential human comedy and drama, which is love, into this age of CGI-obsessed troglodytes. After viewing this wretched piece of trash, I believe the future of cinema is doomed. Everything that was great in I Love Lucy has been cut away in an effort to appease the sensibilities of the modern film goer.

To appeal to modern ideas of political correctness, Lucy is no longer a daft housewife. Instead, she has been transformed into an action hero. Rather than prat-falls, she performs martial arts. Rather than a ditz, the 2014 Lucy is a college student who evolves into a genius. This occurs in an inane sub-plot involving an experimental narcotic that Lucy is accidentally dosed with, which through some completely unrealistic means, somehow accelerates her brain and unlocks hidden potential in her mind. Lucille Ball needed no such gimmicks to win the hearts of viewers. In an effort to appeal to 14 year olds in Asia, the movie is set in Taipei and filled with nonsensical CGI, particularly in the later stages when Lucy becomes almost a parody of The Matrix, another film that equates drugs with attaining a higher state. As with Neo and the Red Pill, so with Lucy and the experimental crystal methamphetamine. Clearly a nod to the currently trendy notion of legalizating drugs. The message is obvious: do drugs to achieve enlightenment. In my view, audiences will not be fooled.

This movie is a complete disaster that bears no resemblance at all to the I Love Lucy that we remember. There are few laughs here. Indeed it is some sort of absurdist action adventure. Such is the state of today's cinema that even the quintessential American love story can't be told without being completely rewritten to appeal to drug-using 14 year olds in Hong Kong. There is no romantic chemistry between Johansson and Freeman. Indeed, they are not even on screen together until the final minutes of the film. Scarlett Johansson is no Lucille Ball. Morgan Freeman is no Desi Arnaz. And Luc Besson is no Frenchman.

-k

Isn't this the same problem every time when Hollywood remakes history? On the plus side, it can't be worse than the remake of the Scarlet Letter a few years back, that starred Demi Moore!

The whole point behind the I Love Lucy reruns and other old sitcoms and variety shows, is to go back in time and have a snapshot at pop culture of the past. Otherwise what's the point? It would be different if it was a biopic on Lucille Ball - who definitely was not ditzy in real life. She was playing to what the expectations of a young housewife were in 1950's America at the time. Trying to change that, and it's worth asking: why bother trying to redo the story in the first place?

bush_cheney2004 · January 6, 2015

....The whole point behind the I Love Lucy reruns and other old sitcoms and variety shows, is to go back in time and have a snapshot at pop culture of the past. Otherwise what's the point?

Superficially that may be true, but the development and longevity of I Love Lucy represents many significant elements of Hollywood radio, television, and movie production. The show was wildly successful for CBS, and spawned Desilu Productions which eventually became Paramount Television. Notable Desilu programs included Mannix, Star Trek, Mission Impossible, and of course, The Lucy Show.

I Love Lucy..Live on Stage...is currently touring at theatres in the U.S. and Canada.

A dog with a note in his mouth could sell a film screenplay idea about I Love Lucy.

BubberMiley · January 6, 2015

The best satire always leaves a few who are completely oblivious to what is going on.

Black Dog · January 6, 2015

It is a vanity movie.

Many actors feel obliged to do them at a certain point in their careers. Johannsen felt her talent was so immense, she needed to do two in a row to display her prodigious ~~chest~~ talent: Lucy and Under the Skin.

Your cultural development would not be impaired by skipping both.

Curious to hear what you think of Locke or All Is Lost.

overthere · January 6, 2015

Curious to hear what you think of Locke or All Is Lost.

I have not seen All is Lost, but Redford is nothing like Johanssen. He has nothing to prove as an actor and no need to cement or gloss a reputation. He does not even need to remain relevant as he ages, as he is already well respected in several areas other than acting.

Hardy is in fact much like Johanssen in terms of age, body of work and similar places in their careers. But Locke is not a vanity movie. He appears in every scene because that is how it was written, for a single character- that is the plot A similar movie would be Buried with Ryan Reynolds. I was a bit disappointed with Locke. Hardy is a fine actor, but he has been better in movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Lawless and best of all in The Drop.

Other examples of vanity projects : Sean Penn in I Am Sam, Charlize Theron in Monster. Theron made a fortune off that bit of hackneyed self promotion, despite being a generally crappy actor.

AngusThermopyle · January 7, 2015

All Is Lost is a great movie. Redford shows how its done. For the duration of the entire movie he only speaks once (actually yells) yet he manages to convey feeling and emotion without having to speak. As I said, he shows how it s done, and done properly.

Black Dog · January 7, 2015

I have not seen All is Lost, but Redford is nothing like Johanssen. He has nothing to prove as an actor and no need to cement or gloss a reputation. He does not even need to remain relevant as he ages, as he is already well respected in several areas other than acting.

And?

Hardy is in fact much like Johanssen in terms of age, body of work and similar places in their careers. But Locke is not a vanity movie. He appears in every scene because that is how it was written, for a single character- that is the plot. A similar movie would be Buried with Ryan Reynolds

Just like Under the Skin.

I was a bit disappointed with Locke. Hardy is a fine actor, but he has been better in movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Lawless and best of all in The Drop.

Other examples of vanity projects : Sean Penn in I Am Sam, Charlize Theron in Monster. Theron made a fortune off that bit of hackneyed self promotion, despite being a generally crappy actor.

So what determines whether or not something is a vanity project is whether or not you like the actor and whether or not that actor has breasts. OK.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Black Dog

overthere · January 7, 2015

And?

and the comparison between Redford and Johansson, and the two movies, is evident in what I wrote.

Why not drop the hostility so we can have an intelligent conversation?

Just like Under the Skin.

Locke has only one character, so that means whenever a human is on screen it will be him. Under The Shin has numerous characters, but Johansson is in nearly every scene, and that is entirely unnecessary to tell the story. . Can you see the difference?

So what determines whether or not something is a vanity project is whether or not you like the actor and whether or not that actor has breasts. OK.

Nope. I'd define a vanity movie as one where the lead actor is presented in a way so as to promote their career, not further the story. I generally like Johansson, she has had some decent roles. But the attempt to create $20 million paydays consistently has to be done mainly through talent, not blatant self promotion. The world has limited room for another Madonna.

Instead of having Angelina Jolie as a role model, she'd do better with examples like Jessica Chastain or Jennifer Lawrence or Philip Seymour Hoffman or even Matthew McConaughey. Better chops vs a better publicist ......

Black Dog · January 7, 2015

and the comparison between Redford and Johansson, and the two movies, is evident in what I wrote.

Why not drop the hostility so we can have an intelligent conversation?

Their respective status is irrelevant to the question of why one is considered a vanity project and one is not.

Locke has only one character, so that means whenever a human is on screen it will be him. Under The Shin has numerous characters, but Johansson is in nearly every scene, and that is entirely unnecessary to tell the story. . Can you see the difference?

Locke has multiple characters, we just happen to only see one (two, if you count his father). Under the Skin has one central character and a smattering of people with whom she interacts, but she's the one around whom the entire story (such as it is) revolves.

Nope. I'd define a vanity movie as one where the lead actor is presented in a way so as to promote their career, not further the story.

To me, a vanity project is something like Kevin Spacey's excerable "Beyond the Sea" or Travolta's "After Earth" in which the leads were heavily involved in multiple aspects of the production beyond simply appearing on screen. They used their clout and status to make a film that they and few others cared about.

I generally like Johansson, she has had some decent roles. But the attempt to create $20 million paydays consistently has to be done mainly through talent, not blatant self promotion. The world has limited room for another Madonna.

That reminds me of another actual vanity project: Madge's then husband Guy Ritchie's remake of Swept Away. I dunno what ScarJo has done to warrant such opprobrium, especially since one of her best roles to date involved her not even appearing on screen at all.

Instead of having Angelina Jolie as a role model, she'd do better with examples like Jessica Chastain or Jennifer Lawrence or Philip Seymour Hoffman or even Matthew McConaughey. Better chops vs a better publicist ......

Yeah I don't even know what this means or why you'd say the bold when they have little in common beyond being good looking.

overthere · January 7, 2015

Their respective status is irrelevant to the question of why one is considered a vanity project and one is not.

Of course it does.

To me, a vanity project is something like Kevin Spacey's excerable "Beyond the Sea" or Travolta's "After Earth" in which the leads were heavily involved in multiple aspects of the production beyond simply appearing on screen. They used their clout and status to make a film that they and few others cared about.

That makes no sense. Why would they use their clout and status to make a movie they did not care about?

That reminds me of another actual vanity project: Madge's then husband Guy Ritchie's remake of Swept Away. I dunno what ScarJo has done to warrant such opprobrium, especially since one of her best roles to date involved her not even appearing on screen at all.

Opprobium: harsh criticism, vilification, public disgrace.

Could ya dial down the hyperbole? Thanks.

SJ is at the place where she is getting leading roles but she isn't really getting great roles, the ones that guarantee big paydays. I've pointed out how others have done the same thing by doing movies in the same vein as Lucy and Under The Skin. It's hard to get into that elite. It is hard enough to get continual work in Hollywood.

Oh, and SJ was OK in Her, a movie that I personally found pretty creepy overall.

Yeah I don't even know what this means or why you'd say the bold when they have little in common beyond being good looking.

Because Jolie represents a career path that SJ is obviously seeking and is obviously emulating. It works, sometimes. All the rest of those noted have taken a different path so far than Jolie/SJ, and all of them have better work and better paydays than her(with the exception of Hoffman now.)