It’s a fun practice that I like to do when I can, watching two different movies with the same actor back-to-back. It helps to give you a sense of that person’s range, and to see in which types of films they perform their best (or worst). Recently, I was able to do this with Scarlett Johansson’s films “Under The Skin” and “Lucy,” which both premiered this year. Both films touch on science fiction themes, but it is really here that the similarities end. “Under the Skin” is a slow, artful, introspective film. “Lucy,” on the other hand, is the epitome of mainstream Hollywood, where not only the concepts, but the entire presentation is completely ridiculous. They are about as different from each other as night and day. I will start with my review of “Under the Skin.”

“Under the Skin” is set in Scotland, where a mysterious beautiful woman named Laura (Scarlett Johansson) picks up men and then lures them back to her place, where, unfortunately, they get very unlucky. Almost right away we know that the woman is a little off, and that there is perhaps something inhuman about her. Aimlessly driving through the streets, she is focused only on her task at hand, which at this point seems basic routine. With her sultry good looks and seductive manner, the men she meets cannot help but fall victim to her spell. There is also a man on a motorcycle that picks up after her. For example, he goes back to a place where she picked up a guy in order to retrieve the man’s belongings, so as not to show where he went missing. We never really know who this man is.

If the movie sounds strange already, then you’re on the right track. “Under the Skin” is unlike anything I have ever seen, even when compared to all the other arthouse films I have watched. It is at times disturbing, beautiful, and terrifying, but it is also somehow tender and poignant.

Also, don’t expect too many explanations. The director Jonathan Glazer seems to prefer leaving things open-ended, letting the camera do the talking rather than the people. For much of the movie, we simply see the blankly staring face of Laura, with eyes that seem curious about her surroundings, but incapable of understanding what she sees. It is a remarkable performance by Scarlett Johansson, quite possibly the best of her career to date.

“Under the Skin” is a visual feast, with lavish camera shots of the landscape of Scotland, as well as the cities and their inhabitants. At one point, we see an overlaying shot of hundreds of people walking through the streets, talking to one another, eating at restaurants, basically everyday things. Yet, when the images are laid on top of each other, it becomes a moving tribute to humanity. At other times, the images we see are very inhuman, such as when we see what exactly happens to the men that Laura brings back to her house. (Be prepared to cringe.) And, at all times, the haunting soundtrack of Mica Levi overpowers the film, allowing it to flow from one creepy image to the next. It is movies like “Under the Skin” that show just how artful film can be.

And then there is “Lucy.” In this Luc Besson film, Scarlett Johansson plays the title character, a girl who unwillingly becomes a drug mule of a powerful substance, which enables the person to use more than 10% of their brain power if ingested. When the substance accidentally leaks inside her stomach, it starts to infect her, and as her brain power increases, so do her abilities. She is now super intelligent, is able to control electronics, and is even able to control the minds and bodies of people around her. As a result, she is able to take out her revenge on the people who forced her to become a drug mule.

Yet, “Lucy” is not really a revenge fantasy film. It may be for the first few minutes after Lucy takes the drug, but then it shifts into a metaphysical, transcendental film (or at least tries to). If it had stayed as just a ridiculous, fun action movie, then the film might have succeeded. But Besson fell victim to that classic movie flaw: don’t try to be something more than you are.

“Lucy” is, of course, based on a false concept: the idea that that we only use 10% of our brain. If you just do a simple Google search, you will know how wrong and disproven the theory is. I tried to shrug this thought away, and just enjoy the film for what it was. Yet, when we see a group of doctors seriously discussing this as scientific fact (including Morgan Freeman as a professor), the whole premise just becomes laughable. The idea was also used in the movie “Limitless,” starring Bradley Cooper. But in that film, it never becomes distracting or silly. When people take the drug, it makes them smarter and more focused. They don’t suddenly have godlike powers, like in “Lucy.” If you’re going to base your movie on a false concept, at least make it somewhat believable.

Scarlett Johansson also gives a hokey, unfocused performance as the title character, although perhaps it is not entirely her fault. When forced to say such lines as “We never really die” and “This is what can be done with life,” it must have been hard to say them without uncontrollably laughing. She at least says them with a serious expression, which is admirable. Also, what is Morgan Freeman doing in this movie??

There is at least one scene in “Lucy” that almost swayed me. In the end, when Lucy is near 100% brain potential, she starts to gain the ability to go back and forward through time and across space. She travels to different cities, goes back in time to the 1800’s, then goes back to the time of the dinosaurs, and then watches the birth of the universe, all from the comfort of her chair. The sequence is a visually stunning trip, and it almost made me forget how bad the rest of the movie was. Ultimately, though, it’s not enough. A good 10 minutes could not make up for all the flaws that preceded it.

Basically, “Under the Skin” and “Lucy” could not be more different from one another. One is an impressive artistic feat, while the other is silly and forgettable. One of the best movies I have seen this year versus one of the worst. The sad thing is that it will be “Lucy” that will probably be more popular, while many people might not even give “Under the Skin” a chance. If you ask me, though, “Under the Skin” is not a movie that should be passed up. (For “Lucy,” save your money.)