Finding god through brilliance and guns

Scarlett Johansson in a scene from writer/director Luc Besson's "Lucy." © 2014 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

I'm a sucker for a film that shoots for infinity but barely scrapes into the atmosphere. I appreciate the effort and the willingness to do something a little different in order to bring a modicum of ingenuity and interest into a medium that thrives and lives on repetitiveness and creature comfort.

Those are in part the reasons I can't stop thinking about “Lucy” – a cripplingly flawed film buoyed by the joy of its extraordinary ambitions and a cold, steady and all-in-all terrific performance by star Scarlett Johansson.

Before he aims for whatever ambition is truly on his Kanye West-like mind, writer/director Luc Besson begins with the boyfriend of Johansson's titular Lucy forcing her to transport a briefcase filled with a mysterious new drug to the frightening Jang (Min-sik Choi). Because film logic is insane, the tense confrontation concludes with Choi surgically implanting the bags into Johansson and three other unwilling drug mules to transport to various ports in Europe.

The insanity builds up when Johansson is beaten brutally while awaiting transportation to her destination, which causes the bag in her stomach to rip open and unleash the drug into her system. The result is a rapid increase in her brain power and the ensuing incorporation of hyper intelligence, psychic abilities and other superhuman abilities. She uses her newfound skills to seek revenge against Choi and spread her knowledge of the universe to Morgan Freeman, playing Professor Morgan Freeman (the character's real name is immaterial; all that matters is he's Morgan Freeman). She also meets a handsome cop (Amr Waked) during her abbreviated jet-setting adventure.

Just try to say no to those eyes. Sigh.

I alluded to “Lucy” as a flawed film, and its blemishes are large and obvious enough to merit noting. The science behind the film's premise is idiotic (although it sounds pretty convincing coming from Freeman's mouth), and the special effects are haggard, sloppy and definitely picked more for their fiscal friendliness than quality. Besson once again displays his tin ear for English dialogue – a trait shared by other Besson films like “The Professional” and “The Fifth Element” – as well as a major lack of subtlety; the first third of “Lucy” plays like an extended stock footage show, one capable of making Ed Wood drool in jealousy.

And about as symbolically subtle as this.

And yet, and yet, and yet. I have to use this refrain for “Lucy” multiple times to emphasize how much I admire Besson for his wonderment and his insouciance for taking an audience wherever he wants to go. It's a risky gambit, as putting Besson's name on a project as a writer, director, producer or any combination of the three creates certain expectations of explosive gun fights (or gun fights that end in explosions), stoic leads who speak only when necessary and economical run times – essentially the prototypical action film.

Elements of the first two exist, and the film certainly nails that last factor – “Lucy,” sadly, exists for just 90 minutes of whacked-out bliss – but the first two expectations are more perfunctory and less “Lucy’s” raison d’être. Lord knows neither I nor anyone else should try to delve into the mind of Luc Besson, but the film reads as an exploration of humanity in godhood, and how important it is for the two remain intertwined.

A constant fear Johansson fights through as she gains intelligence and power is the loss of her connection with the human race, which becomes more and more tenuous as the inherent intellectual loneliness of her new existence comes into effect. Given “Lucy's” premise, many filmmakers would opt to turn Lucy into a monster, an unstoppable force hell bent on ridding the world of its sins and ruins like the eponymous Lawnmower Man.

Reason 8,791 why the '90s sucked.

But Besson doesn't take the easy route; instead, Johansson’s Lucy remains aware of her growing divide from mankind and does what she can to keep a modicum of attachment to her fellow humans. A rather passive Waked, for example, tags along to serve as a quasi romantic interest. (It’s rather nice to see a male actor serve that purpose for once.) Lucy’s mission too, morphs from bloody vengeance to intellectual preservation, and she sheds her bloodlust as the movie dives deeper into craziness.

It's a display of tremendous optimism, albeit one that isn't overly surprising when considering Besson's career – even amid the bullet sleets and cool indifference, Besson has always worn his heart on his sleeve and shown his belief that mankind is worth saving in spite of itself. 

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

(Click here to see the trailer)

Rating: R
Run time: 90 minutes
Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Ask Away

Target audience: Action and Sci-Fi fans who remember “The Fifth Element” with fondness.

Take the whole family?: Certainly not friendly for the entire family, but the “R” is on the softer side, especially as the movie progresses. Parents with mature 13 year olds can rest assured this film won't bother them too much.

Theater or Netflix?: Despite my praise, Netflix is the better option given the less than impressive special effects.

Has Scarlett Johansson receive the respect she deserves as an actress?: She is now, after highly acclaimed roles in “Her,” “Under the Skin” and the new “Captain America” film. The problem is she's always deserved more credit than she has garnered – she's good to very good in “Ghost World,” “Match Point” and “Vicky Christina Barcelona” and does what she can with her underwritten role in “Scoop.”

Watch this as well?: Luc Besson's “The Fifth Element” is an obvious companion piece, but a second film that fits right alongside “Lucy” is “Adaptation” – Spike Jonze’s and Charlie Kaufman's remarkably brilliant look at writer's block and existence.  

A holy cleansing with nothing to show for it

Cali (Zoë Soul) is protected by mother Eva (Carmen Ejogo) in a scene from "The Purge: Anarchy." [Justin Lubin / Universal Pictures] © 2014 Universal Studios.

It's evening in America, and the entire country has permitted citizens wanton acts violence and crime against one another one night in March every year. The annual ritual of destruction has resurrected America's economy – unemployment is less than 5 percent – and crime rates are almost nil, aside from the annual bacchanalian blood fest.

This is America circa 2023 as presented by writer/director James DeMonaco in “The Purge: Anarchy.” DeMonaco's vision of the country is one with an increased divide between the rich and the poor and one in which acts of violence are akin to religious ceremonies to wipe away impurity.

It sounds gloomy and intriguing, but it’s really quite stupid.

The follow up to 2013's sleeper hit “The Purge,” the sequel expands the action to the streets of Los Angeles on purge night. It's the one night of the year in which all crime is allowed, albeit with a few caveats to ban certain levels of explosives. In other words, it's Christmas for murderers, rapists and twits. 

 

Also known as field day in England.

Most people try to ride the night out by locking their doors, keeping a gun handy and just praying for survival. That’s the plan for couple in a troubled marriage Shane and Liz (Zach Gilford and Kiele Sanchez), as well as single parent Eva Sanchez (Carmen Ejogo) and her daughter Cali (Zoë Soul).

The proverbial best laid plans don't quite work out of course – a car breaks down on the first two, while the mother/daughter combination are nearly raped – but they are rescued by a mysterious and well-armed man (Frank Grillo) who offers his protection in exchange for a car. Shenanigans involving guns, bombs, revolutionaries and people with villainous and murderous intentions ensue, poorly.

Anyone who has spent a few hours playing video games will recognize “Purge: Anarchy's” plot as an escort mission, meaning the one person with a modicum of expertise (Grillo) is forced to babysit a bunch of saps who have no idea what they're doing. Escort missions are among the worst challenges video games have to offer (nothing tops the endless frustration that is a water level) mostly because the escorted people run around acting like morons instead of listening to the player's orders.

That's pretty much what drives the story in “Purge: Anarchy.” The four characters who are not awesome disregard Grillo's advice and end up in peril (the best example is when one character opts to run in the opposite direction and gets a foot stuck in a trap). It's a terrible enough experience playing it in a game; having to watch it unfold on screen is the acme of annoyance.

But the frequent idiocy is necessary to pad out “Purge: Anarchy's” runtime in order to cram in some unremarkable political and socioeconomic commentary courtesy of DeMonaco. His message isn't exactly nuanced – what I took from it is that the wealthy members of society are sociopaths and the government protects the rich at the expense of the poor – and he offers nothing that hasn't already been said more eloquently and in a more entertaining manner.

And with characters far more badass.

 The result of pinning so much of the film on lame and overplayed politic outrage is an impeccably dumb film universe. Why do the characters just stop once the purge ends? If a person has a gun and the intent to shoot somebody, would a blaring claxon really stop that person in his or her respective tracks? Seriously, would anyone really know if the murder occurred 30 seconds after the purge ended? It's not like the purge itself is ingrained in society; the film makes it very clear the annual cleansing is a relatively new development.

And what prevents the rich, who are allowed to do just about anything they want in this film, from snatching people from the street and hunting them to sport any day of the year? Why do the rich members of society keep their apparently insatiable bloodlust at bay for just one night a year? And, in a society so dark and filled with anger to make Hobbes weep in terror, what really prevents people from going around and robbing, raping or killing one another whenever they so choose?

The answer appears to be a shrug of DeMonaco's shoulders, whose rather bleak view of humanity is grounded in a lack of understanding of the human condition and heaping doses of pseudo-intellectualism, which is to be expected from the man who wrote “Jack.” 

Reason No. 1,073 for why the' 90s sucked.

One and a half out of Five Stars

(Click here to see the trailer)

Rating: R

Run time: 103 minutes
Genre: Action/Horror

Ask Away

Target audience: Fans of rather stupid vulgarity who are easily entertained by faux political enlightenment.

Take the whole family?: Much too violent for preteens, but viewers age 15 and up won’t have a problem.

Theater or Netflix?: Just don't.

Does the film have an iota of entertainment to it?: There is a jump scare or two that work on the first run through, but anything of any real entertainment is accidental and often fairly hilarious. A death scene involving a prominent character, for example, is shot in a manner that's actually pretty funny, and shows “Purge: Anarchy” could have made for some decent parody if it didn't take itself so bloody seriously.

Watch this instead?: Considering how much the film rips off “The Warriors,” you're better served renting out what New York City looked like in 1979. For a more dystopian option, rent “Escape from New York,” “Planet of the Apes” (dystopia is much more interesting with apes or Snake Plissken) or the underrated “Dredd.”