Lucy in the Sky (2019)

Edelstein finds the film’s visual experimentation sometimes overbearing and parts of its story strained, but considers it an engaging performance showcase. He especially praises Natalie Portman’s disciplined, intensely committed portrayal of Lucy.

The accessible page identifies this as a Toronto review, but the review text is behind a sign-in and paywall shell. No verdict or specific praise or complaint is visible.

Bradshaw finds the film witty and intriguing, though uncertain in how it handles its troubled protagonist. He praises its seductive cinematography and its unsettling depiction of how space changes Lucy’s view of ordinary life.

Dowd finds the film dull and bafflingly restrained, arguing that it removes the real story’s most sensational details. He singles out Hawley’s garish visual flourishes but says they cannot make Lucy’s domestic restlessness and romantic plot compelling.

Chang finds the drama botched but beguilingly strange, with its feminist perspective undermined by an anticlimactic ending. He praises Natalie Portman’s focused, nuanced performance, which remains compelling even when the filmmaking falters.

Ehrlich finds the film frustrating and dramatically shallow, arguing that it fails to explore its astronaut protagonist’s inner life. He praises the shifting aspect ratios as its most compelling creative idea, while noting that they cannot compensate for the screenplay’s lack of nuance.

The review is negative, arguing the film’s promising premise is undermined by over-the-top antics and showy visual flourishes. It gives Natalie Portman some credit for a spirited performance, though it says she is often made to play a basic version of “unhinged.”

Loughrey finds the film reductive and ultimately unable to give its story solid ground. She criticizes its unnecessary visual trickery, which often overwhelms Portman’s performance.

The critic finds the film initially distinctive but increasingly conventional, with its melodramatic ending diminishing its ambitions. He praises the early visual ideas, while noting that the frequent aspect-ratio shifts can become distracting.

Debruge finds the film’s attempt to humanize its subject timely, but says its over-stylized direction undermines that purpose. He praises Natalie Portman’s confident performance while criticizing the film’s distracting visual flourishes and campy final act.

The review finds the film a messy, heavy-handed failure that reduces its subject to a parody. It especially faults the film’s blunt handling of mental illness and its failure to examine the gendered obstacles Lucy faces.

The review finds the film sullen, trashy, and aesthetically overbearing rather than meaningful. It criticizes the screenplay’s thin, misogyny-tinged characterization, while finding a brief late shift into pulp momentarily liberating.

Laffly says Natalie Portman misfires in the astronaut psychodrama. The film never summons the heat of a true meltdown.

The review finds the film visually dazzling but ultimately empty and lacking in depth. It praises Natalie Portman’s performance while criticizing the film’s visual flourishes for failing to add meaning.

Goldberg finds the drama underdeveloped and its use of real events exploitative. He criticizes the visual flourishes for overshadowing Natalie Portman’s performance and the characters’ emotional lives.

Crow finds the film muddled and ultimately grounded in melodrama, despite its ambitions. He praises Natalie Portman’s performance and the opening space sequence’s visual awe.

The critic finds the film an incoherent, ultimately negative portrait of a complex woman. Portman’s committed performance is singled out, but the screenplay’s vague, poorly connected motivations undermine it.

The critic finds the film an unfortunate mess with unclear intentions. They fault its thin central conflict and muddled narrative.

The critic finds the film vapid, self-important, and inattentive to its protagonist. She praises Natalie Portman’s nuanced performance, while faulting the film for wasting its cast and substituting style for depth.

The critic finds the film hapless and profoundly unlikeable. They single out its clunky writing and one-dimensional portrayal of its woman protagonist.