web
counter

serial podcast / the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel


Lucy: Painfully Stupid No Matter What Percent of Your Brain You Use

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Film Reviews | July 25, 2014 | Comments ()


scarlette-johanssen-lucy-trailer.jpg


Lucy is an exceedingly stupid movie. It tries to be a special-effects laden superhuman action film but has unimaginative and dull action sequences. It tries to be pop-psych deep philosophy about our minds and the nature of the universe, but has not the slightest conception of anything about science or the way the human brain works.

The ten percent myth is beyond stupid. It’s not clever, it’s not philosophical, it’s just a hint that the writer has so little commitment to telling a good story that he can’t be bothered to know things like facts. But fine, right, it’d be one thing in passing, used just as a shorthand for “we’re capable of so much more”, used as a label to let the audience know what it’s going on about and not dwelling on it. But no. The film uses the ten percent bullshit throughout the entire movie. It has an opening monologue of Morgan Freeman saying things like dolphins use twenty percent of their brains and that’s why they have sonar. You know, not because they have a fucking organ that shoots sound waves out of their skull. It pretends like it’s quoting actual science when it says that other animals use at most three percent of their brain. And I start to question whether they know what “percent” even means, as in a portion of what is already there. We don’t magically start shooting sonar out of our fucking heads just because we take a drug that lets us think harder.

Freeman goes on about how if we used a certain percentage of our brain we’d be able to control matter. A different percentage and we could control other people. Because people aren’t made of matter, you know. A doting audience takes notes and listens devastatingly intently through the steaming piles of shit shoveled their direction, and when someone dares ask if he has any evidence for the complete fucking fictions he’s spouting. Freeman gets a darling laugh from his adoring public as he says that of course not, it’s all hypotheses at the moment (demonstrating the writer doesn’t know what a hypothesis even is) but that Darwin was mocked too.

Hey, you know what else Darwin had? EVIDENCE. He spent thirty years collecting evidence in order to evaluate whether his theory was correct. That’s what science is.

How would I react if I said, you know, most cars only use 10 percent of their power, and if they could use a hundred percent, they would have a rocket launchers, the ability to fly, and could show you what the traffic would be like on that road a hundred years from now? I don’t have any evidence of this either, it’s just a theory. You’d probably tell me that my movie was pretty stupid too.

But fine, deep breath, “it’s just a movie” all the defenders of shutting your brain off at the movie and just rolling with it are saying. That’s bullshit. The people who defend being able to shut your brain off and just enjoy a movie are the same people who’ve never turned their brains on in the first place. People who have never turn on their brains for two straight hours have some nerve telling people with standards that they should theirs off for two hours.

Okay whatever, we’ll roll with that line of reasoning. Let’s mentally screen out the entire basis of the film and the mechanism it returns to over and over again as the central point it has to make. Let’s just hand wave it as magic. Lucy drinks a magic potion. It’s fantasy, not science fiction. What do we have then?

An even shittier movie, because instead of just having no basis in reality, it still grounds itself in making deep philosophical statements about the nature of the universe while being so incoherent it’s surprising that the actors were able to even read the crayon-scrawled dialogue aloud.

Nothing Morgan Freeman says makes the slightest bit of sense. And I don’t mean in the sense that people who have read a wikipedia page or two are more informed about the way the world works than whoever wrote the pseudo-scientific drivel he spouts for the movie’s somehow too long 89 minute run time. I mean that he never speaks two sentences in which one follows from the previous in any logical manner. Actual sequence of dialogue from the movie:

Lucy: “If a car moves so fast that you can’t see it anymore, what evidence do we have that it exists at all?”

Fuck if I’m looking his character’s name up Freeman: “You’re saying that the human is not the unit of measure.”

Lucy: “Time.”

That’s not deep. That’s not even fake deep. That’s random words strung together and spoken with gravity. Nineteen year old philosophy students on LSD wouldn’t even think that was deep and they find the meaning of life in the angle a paper towel hangs at.

The only halfway redeeming feature of the film is the action sequences of the first half hour, because Besson at the very least knows how to shoot action. Of course, then Lucy becomes god and can manipulate space and time at will, which sort of renders any action sequence from then on moot. Remember how Neo in the final scene of The Matrix gets the (more) vacant look on his face and has absolute power? Imagine how boring a movie would be if he reaches that stage in minute thirty and then we pretend there’s still stuff to do for another hour. No matter how you shoot it, there’s no tension to a car chase in which the driver can telekinetically shove all the other cars out of the way, or a gun battle where one person can just pin all the bad guys to the wall.

This movie is worse than Transcendence, and I described that as “a two hour TED talk on the pitfalls of technology delivered by the brownie vendor from Burning Man”. Because at least that movie had a point to make, even if it was a stupid one badly told. This movie is what you get when that brownie vendor’s eleven year old brother gives his own TED talk. Except all he cares about are boobs and guns, and having learned that people smarter than him say words he doesn’t understand concludes that saying a bunch of words he doesn’t understand will therefore sound intelligent.

At one point in this train wreck, Freeman’s character describes his attempt to understand what Lucy is trying to say as “a dog listening to us talk about quantum mechanics”. This movie is that dog barking for an hour and a half.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here and order his novel here.


Dwayne Johnson's 'Hercules' Is Surprisingly, Uh ... Good? | Susan Sarandon Stomps All Over Woody Allen & Reveals Love Affair With David Bowie


Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • Ngo Anh Quan

    Seems like the "You only use 10% of your brain" statement receives quite a lot of critics.
    Yes, be delighted! Science has proved that most of your brain are activated when you engage in various activities..
    It's just that you (in a sense) can't control it.

    For a simple clarification: Is there anyone here can control your own heartbeat at will? Can you keep your heartbeat under 10 beats per minute?

    Yoga master can! (with a huge amount of practice)

    And I think that was what it meant in Lucy.
    10% - not 'capacity', but 'mastery', I suppose.

    Just like everyone who read blah blah thing over and over about the uttely-nonsense of this movie's catchphrase,
    I walked into the cinema, prepared for the worst.

    But when I watched the "I feel everything. Space, the air, the vibrations, the people, I can feel the gravity, I can feel the rotation of the Earth, the heat leaving my body, the blood in my veins. I can feel my brain. The deepest parts of my memory." part...
    Wow, it is indeed a quotation from some meditation book.
    I was like "Ah, so that's what it meant"
    and the movie became pretty enjoyable when you threw the "uttely-nonsense movie's catchphrase" thought away.

  • Chuckles

    People here are saying "it's a movie. Stop taking it so seriously and enjoy it"

    They don't seem to realize that this movie crossed the threshold between "a few plot holes" and "insultingly moronic".

  • Barbara

    Your missing the underlying meaning of this film.. Can we handle great knowledge, really?! Because the more knowledge we are granted, the less 'human' we are. Huge point your missing is to enjoy every moment of life as a human. Feeling, loving, embracing and spirituality. "we never die" so just relax and enjoy everything life has to offer us.

  • Chuckles

    Wow... The movie had absolutely nothing to do with anything you just said.

  • ASSASSYN

    I am watching this movie while I type this. And this article nails how pathetic this movie is.

  • Wade Wilson

    How does it end? 'Cause a lot of these 'fear the smarties & their power' flicks seem to give a lynch mob vibe in a nation which the majority of its citizens pray to a god who punished two idiots for eating knowledge-fruit...

  • Brad Moore

    What a world we live in, where a science fiction movie can't stay true to science.

  • Cheetahdriver

    Hey, we have had airplanes for just over 100 years, they are not rocket science and when was the last time you saw a movie (or TV show, I am looking at you Hawaii 5-0) that portrayed one accurately? Then you have big steaming piles of crap like Air Farce One where there are 10,000 rounds of ammunition expended inside a glorified beer can, without puncturing the pressure hull? A 9mm will go through a 747 the long way.

  • chris9465

    i really hate these sanctimonious Am so much smarter and better than everyone else i have an exceptional right to hate this film.....

  • Mor Hilai

    But this was made and marketed as a 'smart film'! If it was just an action flick (like it should have been) people would not make nearly as big a deal about how idiotic the non-scientific bullshit in this movie is. But Luc Besson wanted it to be high concept philosophical movie, so it should be judged by that standard.

  • The Pink Hulk

    I'm not so sure the science isn't accurate. I found myself using less and less of my brain as the film went on, until finally, I found sleep.

  • Voozel

    You said everything in my mind :) thank you. This movie is beyond cheesy and stupid i can't even ..

  • Dominic

    if every movie was judged on how stupid the premise is/was , we'd never go see movies ...
    that being said , they pob should have stuck to her just "Computing " faster than everyone else . once they went to her smarter brain having telepathy and mind control , they lost people like SLW
    and if you give JUST the action sequences a thumbs-up , that may be all Marvel needs to hear ..

  • Mor Hilai

    This isn't Sharknado. It isn't even avengers. This was made and marketed as a high concept, philosophical sci fi film. It was set up as a serious examination of what we currently know about science and what that tells us about humanity and the universe. Most people expected it to stumble on that because of the 10% thing, but even the 10% thing would have been OK if movie actually had an interesting message to give BUT IT DOESN'T. I mean, it's not even that good as a pure action special FX flick, but it was sold as a philosophical film and that's how I'm judging it.

  • Slytherin Sister

    Wow. I didn't know being able to enjoy stupid movies made me a brainless idiot. Thank you for letting me know how useless a human I am. But, I fucking LOVE it when people are incapable of insulting a movie without insulting the fans of the movie.

    BTW, I haven't seen the movie yet, and I hate the 10% thing. But the whole "you've never turned your brain on if you like this" thing was a bit rude.

  • Oh jeez, the "stop thinking" crowd has already hit.

    Look, people. I like dumb movies as much as anyone. But I don't have to "turn off my brain" to do so.

    First off, it isn't like it is that damn hard to see the problem here. This isn't the pointless nitpicking of CinemaSins. It is the fundamental fact of the movie, the one it is built around, the one the filmmakers put all their effort into selling to the audience in order to make it work. They go out of their way to try and establish this as some sort of scientific basis, and then want people to ignore that whole chunk of movies and watch the pretty lights. They want to be philosophical, but don't want you to think too hard.

    Second, like the 10% myth, it is impossible. You cannot turn your brain off.
    You cannot shut down your logic and reasoning faculties in order to
    enjoy a film. And you shouldn't want to. Why? Because then you make film (and really any kind of storytelling) would be pointless. Humans tell stories to entertain, yes, but part of that is the conveyance of ideas. Concepts. Even as simple as hero beats villain and saves world. You want to have your brain active to process that. Otherwise, someone could come on screen, say "kumquat" and fart, and it would be just as valid a movie as this.

    No, I am sick of people treating low expectations as a virtue. You know what? If you honestly think that processing the images and sounds of film through my senses, my memories, and my intelligence is somehow giving TOO MUCH effort into watching a movie, then maybe I am justified to be pretentious about it.

    My point: it takes someone only using 10% of their brains to think turning it off is both possible and a good thing.

  • Ryan Ambrose

    Now I wish I could append your comment to the top of every movie review ever written on the internet, if only as a means to deter the "just turn off your brain" brigade.

    The thing about suspension of disbelief is that when it's done well it becomes unnoticeable throughout the duration of a movie, regardless of how factually inaccurate the pseudoscience is. But when it fails in that department it becomes a constant and insulting reminder of how much contempt the filmmakers have for their audience.

  • e jerry powell

    If NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON can't stop nitpicking science in films, then why should I? My brain's nowhere near as good as his, but I don't intend to lower my sights because of it.

    FACTS IS FACTS. I WILL NOT STOP THINKING.

  • Ryan Ambrose

    One of the criticisms leveled against Neil DeGrasse on the internet is that his incessant "nitpicking" reveals why he can't simply enjoy a good science fiction movie without engaging with it on an intellectual level.

    Which is a moronic statement because it implies that bad science is somehow the foundation of science fiction. Not only that but it also disregards the part where he says he only fact-checks those aspects because he truly has a passion for cinema and science, and wishes the two could work better in conjunction with each other in order to craft better stories.

    There's a good interview about this subject with Dr. Tyson on the Dissolve if you're interested,

    http://thedissolve.com/feature...

  • e jerry powell

    Thank you, I shall pursue it anon.

  • Guest

    It is just a piece of entertainment, that's all. Stop taking stuff so seriously

  • e jerry powell

    NO.

    NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

  • googergieger

    I'll see it for Choi Min Sik.

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    My previous rant aside, I still plan on seeing anyway, just to put up some numbers for a female led action movie, in the hopes that they will make more.

  • linnyloo

    As a scientist, the trailer for this and "I Origins" made me sad. And deeply cynical about how people today think about science.

  • bleujayone

    Protagonist takes a mysterious MacGuffin drug that makes them into a super genius and a near demigod...

    Hey, wait a second. Didn't I already see this movie before? With Bradley Cooper? And wasn't called called "Limitless"?

  • e jerry powell

    I certainly hope that no one would mistake ScarJo for an emu...

  • SottoVoce

    But for a young Christopher Walken? Yes!

  • e jerry powell

    It could happen...

    Put that in a remake of The Dead Zone (yes, I know, gods forbid), and I'd hit it.

  • Amobogio

    I just watched this and loved it, and I don't need to turn my brain on or off.

    The fact that the movie opens with the australopithecus afarensis Lucy before introducing her modern namesake and that the set-up sequence is inter-cut with a mouse avoiding a cheese laden trap and predator and prey imagery, should telegraph what to expect.

    So if you don't understand that the whole % thing is a metaphor, then I'm sorry for you. You probably had issues with The Fifth Element too.

  • Mor Hilai

    And that part when they say "the first woman was called Lucy?" Seriously, you're going to make a movie in which Lucy plays a major part, and you can't understand that she is not the first woman, that she isn't Eve, she was just the first among many members of Australopithecus afarensis whose remains were found. A. afarensis being one of many species in the evolution from our common ancestor with chimps to Homo sapiens. She was probably not anyone too special, and may not even have any living descendants. AND SHE WASN'T CALLED LUCY THAT'S JUST A NICKNAME FOR HER FOSSILIZED REMAINS!

    The % thing is a BAD metaphor and no one in the movie made it clear that it's a metaphor which means we're going to be hearing this dumb myth parroted a lot more in the coming decade. But look, I would have been willing to ignore all the non-science bullshit if the film actually had something interesting to say about humanity or the universe. But it didn't. That's the real problem, and all the non-science bullshit only shows you how little fuck Besson gives.

  • The Fifth Element didn't base it's entire story on a debunked scientific myth, then repeatedly hammer said myth into the skull of anyone within hearing distance of the trailer.

    And having one clever scene at the beginning of the film doesn't mean squat when you apparently can't bring up anything after that point worth talking about.

    Please do not sully The Fifth Element by comparing it to this nonsense.

  • e jerry powell

    At least Fifth Element went all Lucia with the shit.
    That by itself was worth the price of admission in my book (even if only as a DVD extra). That despite the last part requiring superhuman technology.

  • PDamian

    Agreed. I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it either. Not bad for a hot, muggy afternoon.

  • I love 'The Fifth Element' too, but don't pretend that it's anything more than it is, which is basically Mike Hammer In Space. It's the direct heir to all those old serials they used to play at the movies like 'Commando Cody Vs. The Moon Men.'

  • e jerry powell

    Good for you.

  • e jerry powell

    AAAAARGH.

    I KNEW IT.

    Well, at least I saved myself the trouble...

    Who am I kidding? I wouldn't have gone under any circumstances.

  • ZbornakSyndrome

    Thank you for this. I hate the 10% myth. If you're over 10 and you tell me that we only use 10% of our brain, I'm going to assume you're illiterate or you've had a major head injury at some point.
    While I tend to enjoy mindless action movies, when on cable, I don't think I can watch this, because I scream at the commercial every time I see it.
    My biggest fear is this: Because Morgan Freeman is spouting this bullshit, people are going to believe it.

  • foolsage

    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

    That 10% myth drives me fucking crazy. How in the world would that make ANY evolutionary sense whatsoever? How would that make any sense in any religion in the world, for that matter (except in Scientology)? I mean, if you reject science (you're a terrible person but) you still can't explain that nonsensical idea. It's the worst kind of pseudoscience. Read a fucking book, people.

    I can accept that the human brain is capable of doing more (or less, or FAR less) than it does, but that's not because we're only using 10% of it; it's because brains are complex assortments of millions of chemical reactions, and we can alter those. And, sure, I can accept that most people don't achieve entelechy, in Aristotle's terms... most of us aren't the best version of themselves, and we can and should learn and grow. That doesn't however mean that we all have dormant superpowers; it means most of us are shallow and self-absorbed to some degree.

  • pajiba

    I will say this, having seen Lucy: It's every bit as idiotic as Steven says it is, but watching it makes it so much more fun to read the review because you know exactly what Steven is ranting about, and it feels so satisfying.

  • I am the cigarette in the cab ride home after a hate fuck.

  • e jerry powell

    I adore hate fucks.

    Apropos of nothing at all.

  • Germdawg

    I think I saw this movie before, it was in Toyko, with a bike gang, and a better premise...

  • Danar the Barbarian

    Godzilla?

  • Germdawg

    Deacon was right, but Godzilla is a close second.

  • DeaconG

    Akira?

  • Fabius_Maximus

    Black Rain?

  • Ryan Ambrose

    I wanted to see this trainwreck because the previews hinted at a showdown between Black Wi-- Lucy VS. Oldboy. I confess I'm slightly disappointed.

    And out of curiosity because I may have just spoiled myself by watching an out of context clip, does she really kill a cancer patient lying on an operating table? Because I'm sure that's gonna make the audience root for her by showing how ruthless her character is.

  • Mor Hilai

    She - despite no evidence that she had time to learn anything about medicine - stared at some scans of the patient's brain and determined they were sure to die. She needed the doctors to get the bag of drugs out of her. There, now you know.

  • PDamian

    Stand back, I'm about to head out of the house and go see it anyway.

    Seriously. There's absolutely nothing showing now that I haven't either already seen or ruled out as un-seeable. I'm going for free air conditioning, a bucket of popcorn, and the opportunity to watch a woman do a little ass-kicking. I don't even care if it's poorly executed ass-kicking. This has been an absolutely TERRIBLE summer for film. Except for Obvious Child and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, there hasn't been anything truly spectacular in theatres in ages. Chef, How to Train Your Dragon 2, and X-Men were good entertainment that I enjoyed, but none of them were really stellar films. Worst of all, my local multiplex is eschewing independent and art films in favor of Christian pap like Heaven is For Real, God's Not Dead and Dinesh D'Souza's steaming pile of crap, America. I'm thinking I'll probably enjoy Lucy as long as she doesn't say "God bless" or "Jesus loves you" to anyone before she kicks him in the balls.

  • lakin

    Try SnowPiercer!

  • PDamian

    Boyhood is playing in Minneapolis, about 2 hours away; I may try to see it next weekend. And I've just discovered that Snowpiercer is available on VOD, so I know what I'm doing tonight.

    And Lucy wasn't too bad, or at least not as bad as I feared. The science was rubbish, the premise was ridiculous, and the plot has enough holes in it to render it rather ridiculous. It's still not too bad if you squint and really, really make an effort to suspend your disbelief. Scarlett Johansson gives good value, anyways, and the popcorn was fresh. Oh, well.

  • jollies

    Seach out and see Boyhood.

  • DarthCorleone

    My dog and I have about the same knowledge of quantum mechanics.

  • e jerry powell

    Quantum mechanics makes my eyes glaze over and my jaw slacken.

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    god i was hoping it would at LEAST be an awesome action flick for Ms. Johansson to make up for an incredibly groan-inducing premise. i know Morgan Freeman didn't write the dialogue, but come onnnn, man

    i should go to every screening in Chicago and whenever he says "what happens if they could use 100%?" i would yell "IT'S CALLED A SEIZURE!"

  • This reminds me of Ebert's takedown on Deep Blue Sea. Basically that just because the sharks get much smarter it still shouldn't result in an expert level understanding of structural engineering and how best to take down an underwater laboratory from the inside in order to lower a fence.

  • Idle Primate

    this has never hindered my pleasure in this flic

  • Mine either. I just watched it again last week. I just love that not only are the sharks gigantic and super smart, but they also seem to have acquired the blue prints to the facility. Scenes of the sharks hovering around a table planning the escape Ocean's 11 style must have ended up on the cutting room floor.

  • logan

    I think a lot of people only use 10% of their brain power. I mean how much do you need to watch Keeping up with the Kardassians?

  • LurkeyTurkey

    I think we only use 10% of our hearts.....

  • Yeah, but cardiac bypass fixes that.

  • Idle Primate

    i think that would explain a lot about me

  • logan

    Well if this movie tanks I can just hear the Marvel execs talking:
    Exec1: "Hey about that Black Widow movie Scarlett says she'll do it after she has the kid."
    Exec2: "i dont know Lucy got torn up by the critics and only made 80 mill"
    Exec1: "Well we all know women cant open movies but all the nerds want a Black Widow movie."
    Exec3: "We cant risk it Scarlett cant open a movie. Halle couldn't. Remember Catwoman?"
    Exec1: "Maybe we could re-cast? Someone cheaper and younger?"
    Exec3: "Maybe... Scarlett will be over 30 and she's had a kid..."
    Exec2: "I say we shelve it for the time being. Let the nerds howl they will all come back for Iron Man 4."

  • So, wait. Marvel is going to chuck Black Widow, a character established in three films already and preparing to be in at least one more, into the "solo movie NEVER" can because of this movie tanking? Especially when they have a slate of films planned out for the next decade or so, with a margin of error that is thin enough to slice diamond? Really?

    Even ignoring the female superhero movie clamoring, if they were considering a Widow film before this, nothing short of Johannson dressing up as Widow and taking a dump on a baby's head in the middle of Times Square is gonna stop them.

    And even if she did that, what's to stop them from recasting?

  • They're right, though, about the very last bit. People will bitch and moan, Think Pieces will be furiously typed and posted, boycotts will be called for(which never stops being funny, by the way) .....and then six months/a year later everybody will line up to see Iron Man 4, or Thor 3, or Dr. Strange, or whatever the hell.

  • monkeytoe

    The problem with a Black Widow movie isn't whether or not Lucy tanks, but that ScarJo can't act. She cannot act.

  • Ryan Ambrose

    I used to be of the same opinion until I finally saw her performance in Her and Under The Skin. She can act, and phenomenally so.

    I know it's a subjective matter but try checking those films out first if you haven't already.

  • Anna von Beav

    I liked her a lot in Don Jon, also.

  • Orleanas

    Two good performances out of 49 does not convince me that she's a good actress, especially when one of the two includes a performance heard and not seen.

  • lamont

    # bad director never blame the actor blame the mediocre director for accepting it

  • especially when one of the two includes a performance heard and not seen

    Huh. Must make watching anything animated pretty pointless for you, huh?

  • Orleanas

    Not pointless, especially because the animated character is made to express the aural with a physical or visual expression.

    Secondly, as great as some actors have been, to my knowledge, no actor has ever been nominated for best actor/actress for their voice work on an animation alone. That fact doesn't discredit their work, but it does not yet carry the same weight as a visual performance.

  • Bu that is just bias from the Academy, a bias you seemingly share.There are no rules against nominating voice-only roles, they just haven't done so. No science fiction film has ever won either, and can you say you cannot think of one that deserved it?

    Look, you want to discount a performance because you can't see the person, that's your deal. To me, that is actually more impressive, because they are conveying emotions and character with no visual cues. And considering that Johannsen has gotten so much flack because of her appearance, wouldn't the fact that she turned in a performance not based on her physical attractiveness give it more weight?

  • logan

    Hell neither can Sam Worthington but he got tons of big budget films. All they care about is the bottom line and if Scarlett's movie tanks that does not help her get another lead.

  • monkeytoe

    True, but I guess my point is - a Black Widow movie will be terrible because ScarJo cannot act. So why is anyone pining for such movie? it will be a tremendous disappointment if it happens.

  • logan

    Ah i dont see it like that. Marvels track record is pretty good. Most of their movies are solid at least.
    I just dont think Marvel wants to risk a 150 mill or so on a movie with a female lead.

    Also the character is not as well known as the others.
    So if Lucy tanks that could be the last strike.

  • Pete Arado

    This review is fucking amazing. Is it OK that I may get more enjoyment out of reading bad reviews than I do watching good movies?

  • Ricky, Bubbles & Julian

    Exactly. I LOVE reading good writers butcher a pompous POS movie

  • Buck off

    I too love a good hatchet job. Plus they're generally less time consuming than a good film.

  • Bert_McGurt

    You know, we probably only use about 10% of our musculature at any one time too. Mostly because it's tough to go through life looking like you're agressively pooping all the time.

  • BlackRabbit

    I dunno, DeNiro might have mastered it.....

  • BlackRabbit

    I live my life 10% at a time.

  • Afferbeck

    "You never had me; you never had your brain"

  • Kala

    "THE BRAIN KEPT ME OUT OF HANDCUFFS."

  • lowercase_ryan

    I knew it. I was hoping the action stuff would make it watchable but no. This is officially a Redbox and wine night.

  • BlackRabbit

    More like a Redbox and box wine night.

  • e jerry powell

    Yeah, I was about to say...

    Don't break out the good stuff for it.

  • Thank you. From the bottom of my bio major heart.

  • Mor Hilai

    So, if an organism evolves in a harsh environment, it will "choose immortality", and if it evolves in a mild environment it will "choose reproduction". And reproduction is passing on information, passing on "what you've learned". I guess it... it SOUNDS like something I might hear in Evolution 101, but... it ISN'T. Calling this shit pseudo-science is kinda giving it too much credit because that implies that someone put enough effort into it to make it seem like science to a casual observer.

    Also, best line in the movie: "I have control of different electromagnetic frequencies, but only the basic ones" wuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

  • Guest

    That is sooo wrong in every way. In a harsh environment an organism will try to reproduce as fast as possible to generate enough mutations and allow him to survive. On the other hand, in a mild environment there will be no selective pressure at all making the organism lazy and it will still reproduce but more slowly and without generating changes.

blog comments powered by Disqus