The upcoming Luc Besson film starring Scarlett Johansson has a plot based on the inaccurate myth that humans use only 10 percent of their brain capacity, but that doesn’t bother me.
It also features Morgan Freeman playing the same role he’s played for the past ten years, but the man’s got to work, so I’ll let that slide.
The plot also kicks off with a mashup of the “poor sap drugged and operated on while unconscious” and “forced drug mule” tropes, both of which have been done today, but it’s clear when you see Johansson controlling her environment like Neo at the climax of The Matrix (a film she was not old enough to see in theaters when released) that this is basically a mixtape movie. You don’t complain that a mixtape is a scattered collection of unrelated songs. You just sit back with the lights off and enjoy it while trying to interpret whatever message you think your crush is sending through it.
No, what bugs me is that the movie’s name is Lucy.
Lucy? Really? Is there a scene where she has to wrap lots of chocolates or gets drunk while filming a commercial? (Links below because they’re funny as hell.)
Movies named after characters tell you nothing. You might as well call it Scarlett Johansson Fall Project. Even now, can anyone recall offhand what were the genres of the Will Smith films Hitch and Hancock? One was a mediocre romantic comedy and the other was a mediocre superhero film. Either way, the titles tell you nothing.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer gives us hero, villains, and premise in four words. It also enhances the incongruity of someone named Buffy slaying vampires. Shorten to just Buffy and the title is significantly less interesting.
I dare say, great movies have great titles. It’s not just Kane or Chuck. It’s Citizen Kane. It’s not Travis or Bickle. It’s Taxi Driver, which gives us concept and theme (dehumanization).
And I do somewhat regret naming my first book Mahogany Slade, for the very reasons I’ve listed. If I could think of a better title, I’d still change it. Maybe I’ll rerelease it as Lucy.