$463 Million Sci-Fi Success of Scarlett Johansson Based on a Scientific Misconception, Despite 67% Rating on Rotten Tomatoes

Directed by Luc Besson, Lucy is a 2014 sci-fi action film that became a box office phenomenon, grossing approximately $463 million worldwide. The movie features Scarlett Johansson in the title role of Lucy, a woman who acquires extraordinary psychokinetic abilities after unwittingly ingesting a synthetic drug designed to unlock her brain’s full potential. Despite its commercial success, Lucy faced criticism for its lack of scientific accuracy, securing a 67% rating on Rotten Tomatoes due to its engaging visuals, thought-provoking themes, and Johansson’s powerful performance.

The film’s climax takes Lucy to a dimension beyond space and time, presenting a philosophical perspective on human cognitive potential. Although there was speculation about a sequel, reports in 2022 suggested that a spinoff series was in development, potentially featuring Morgan Freeman. However, updates on this project have been scarce. Nonetheless, Lucy stands strong as an independent film, illustrating how a science fiction narrative can captivate audiences despite its scientific missteps.

The 10% Brain Usage Myth

Scientific Evidence Disproves the Myth

At the core of Lucy’s narrative lies the widely held misconception that humans use only 10% of their brains. When Lucy, portrayed by Johansson, is forced to become a drug mule and ingests a synthetic substance known as CPH4, she experiences incredibly heightened physical and mental capabilities. This premise explores the concept of utilizing the brain’s full potential, as Lucy’s abilities evolve to include telepathy and telekinesis. However, this scientific foundation is flawed; articles published in the Journal Nature soon after the film’s release clarified that the idea of limited brain usage has been debunked.

Financially, Lucy triumphed, earning over eleven times its production budget of $40 million. The film’s box office success underscores its appeal, despite the inaccuracies linked to its premise.

While it is accurate to say that there remains a degree of untapped cognitive potential in humans, the specific suggestion that we only use 10% stems from historical misinterpretations, including a forward by Lowell Thomas in 1936 in the classic self-help book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. The theory has been thoroughly debunked through various scientific methods, notably brain imaging studies, which invalidate Lucy’s central thesis. Although Lucy may not rank among Johansson’s best works, its entertainment value and impressive box office results are notable.

An Entertaining Sci-Fi Experience Despite Flaws

Tomatometer Ratings & Viewer Reception

The realm of science fiction often thrives on imaginative storytelling, and Lucy is no exception. Even if one chooses to overlook its scientific inaccuracies, the film remains a captivating watch, bolstered by Scarlett Johansson’s exceptional performance. In 2024, the movie re-entered Netflix’s Global Top 10, amassing significant viewership. During the week of August 19-25, it secured the eighth spot with an impressive 4.4 million views, surpassing other popular titles like Night School and Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Lucy‘s enjoyment does not hinge solely on scientific validity, as critics have commended its dynamic energy and thrilling sequences, earning a solid 67% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. In stark contrast, audience reception was less favorable, with a disappointing 47% approval rating, reflecting discontent with its convoluted and far-fetched plot. Such polarized reviews cast doubt on the likelihood of a sequel or spin-off, especially considering that director Luc Besson has expressed no interest in pursuing further stories within this universe, and Scarlett Johansson’s involvement would be crucial for any sequel.

Ultimately, engaging with Lucy is primarily about the experience of storytelling rather than a rigid adherence to scientific principles. Acknowledging its imaginative motifs allows audiences to appreciate the creative landscape of science fiction cinema.

Sources: Journal Nature

Source & Images