Lucy In The Sky is one of the few movies where there’s nothing redeemable in it. The structure of the narrative is awful. The film’s use of flashbacks and slow-motion sequences make little to no sense at all. Hamm and Portman’s performance in the movie was laughable at best. Writers Brian Brown and Elliot DiGuiseppi managed to take a reasonably exciting tale and turn it into an unwatchable slog. Lucy In The Sky is the type of movie that is bewildering. How does a film like this get greenlit?
Well, if they had stuck to the premise, the film might not have been as awful as it turned out to be. Lucy In The Sky centers around the story from a few years back about the astronaut who had an affair with another astronaut and got so obsessed with him that she traveled across the country in a failed attempt to kidnap him after he had ended the relationship. The film attempts to make the argument that somehow the quest for being understood (by lucy) and a break from the ordinary is what made her snap. That’s an atrocious way of framing things. So Lucy can’t hook up with Mark (played by Jon Hamm), so that’s what causes her to have a psychotic break? The film completely glosses over the death of Nana (Ellen Burstyn) and how this could have impacted her. Instead, Lucy In The Sky essentially makes the argument that (and I’m quoting from the movie), “too much astronaut dick is making her soft.”So her sexual wants are what causes her to kidnap Jon Hamm’s character?
Director Noah Howley attempts to make an art-house film out a premise which doesn’t lend itself to it. I do wonder what this movie would have been like had it been given to a better director and screenwriters. My guess is it would have been at least somewhat better than this dumpster fire of a project.