I disagree. “Good” technobabble should be neutral in that it doesn’t immediately trigger a “WTF?” reaction. Bad technobabble pulls you out of the film and blows your suspension of disbelief (“unobtanium”). Pulling you out of the story is a mark of a bad movie all by itself.
All I needed to see was the trailer to know that it was a truly epic stinker. Did you at least use it as a teachable moment for your kids to learn to avoid such terrible movies? Unless they liked it, in which case it may not be too late to just give up and adopt them out! 
I laughed at it. They were more just angry. They wanted to know what ScarJo was thinking by agreeing to be in this movie. And Morgan Freeman and his riDICulous brain capacity thing. God, the stupid boggles.
Oh, and by the way: Sistine :smack:
How does it compare to Hannah?
You mean to tell me that Tammy would have been the more intelligent of the two?
More spolier space
Since she says she is God at the end (she is everywhere, she hears everything, and she contols time and space) sparking something by touching the anthropological Lucy sorta kinda makes a very little bit of sense.
My entry into the WTF allegory moments: the stars falling into the black hole/center of the galaxy – sperm into egg.
My phrase is relentless insipidity. This movie could have been a lot more fun if it didn’t take itself so seriously, and there were more shots of Ms. Johansson’s rear.
The single thing that might have redeemed this movie, and they couldn’t even get that right?
In fairness, the ideal number of shots of Scarlet Johanssen’s rear in any given movie is n +1, where n equals the number of shots of Scarlet Johanssen’s rear that are actually in the movie.
I’m afraid there’s nothing said so far that’s going to change my mind about watching this movie - I mean, I can get over Gamma Rays giving powers rather than cancer, I regularly get over SF violating the speed of light limit, and being told the human race originated off-planet in clear denial of fossil evidence only makes my left eyebrow twitch slightly nowadays, so I think the 10% thing is small potatoes.
And I thought “unobtainium” was clever, and exactly the way some scientists think about things like naming (“Thagomizer”, anyone? Or the Ytterby naming cluster recently referenced here.)
I’m going to watch because I like Scarlett Johannson and Luc Besson. And I don’t just mean the Luc Besson of Big Blue and Fifth Element - I liked Transporter and Arthur and the Minimoys too.
In terms of opening weekend, Lucy crushed it with $44 million, which gives Scarlett credibility as a legitimate bankable star who can open a movie.
She can open a movie - I will just be stunned if next weekend’s revenues don’t drop by a huge amount. I don’t think of the awfulness I saw as her fault - she delivered the stupid lines she was given just fine. This is really Luc Besson stupidity…
If the TV trailers weren’t enough to convince me this was an inane movie, the local movie reviewer gave it “no stars” and refused to say anything else about it. I’ve never seen him do that before…
Any chance this movie could become one of those “so bad it’s good” cult classics? Or is it just a stinker?
Maybe if it becomes a drinking game, where you have to down a shot and solve a brain teaser every time somebody says “brain capacity” 
If it were just some technobabble to set the plot in motion, it would be fine. The problem is that it’s not; the whole movie relies on repeatedly declaring how much of her brain ScarJo has now conquered, intercut with Morgan Freeman’s lecture about what magical powers she will achieve at each level.
The whole thing ends with a bunch of white-coated scientists in a library observing Scarlett becoming God while Inspector Clouseau fights Taiwaneese drug dealers with rocket launchers outside.
I was excited when I first saw the trailer for this movie.
Finally!.. I thought to myself… Finally a movie that will put an end to Scarlett Johanssen’s career. Dare one hope?..
Lucy 2: Some ‘Splainin’ to Do
On a $40 million budget!
When I saw the trailer, I thought it might be a bad adaptation of Ted Chiang’s “Understand” (a terrific novella). That is apparently not the case, but it’s always a good time to reread a Chiang story.
Thanks, WordMan, the trailers communicated clearly that I shouldn’t pay to see it. With the info provided in this thread, I now know it’s not worth watching for free. 
I haven’t read the rest of the thread or seen the movie, and I’m still going to agree with you. The trailer with Morgan Freeman reciting the old line about humans only using 10 percent of their brain and then stating what’s possible once you start using more was enough to make me say, “WTF?” and cross it off my list of even so bad it’s funny so I’ll watch it movies.