Jeromy's Movie Review: LIMITLESS
Limitless, directed by Neil Burger (The Illusionist), is about a man who takes a drug which enables him to use 100% of his brain capacity. This is ironic considering how the film requires it’s audience to use so little of theirs. It’s definitely one of those movies that asks you to check your brain at the door, which in itself is fine. This film, however, also asks that you check your imagination.
It’s safe to assume almost everyone knows the little factoid that humans only use around 10% of their brain and I also would venture to guess that many of those people have contemplated what it would be like to use 100%. In my imagination, using 100% of our brain means that perhaps we can move things with our minds, communicate telepathically, levitate, cure all diseases, colonize other planets or at least negotiate world peace. Who knows? We don’t know because, well, we only use that measly 10%.
If we accept, for the sake of suspending disbelief, that the 10% theory is a fact it’s unfortunate then to discover that in the world of Limitless using 100% of your brain means that you essentially become an anal retentive algorithm nerd with a compulsion to buy awesome clothes and get a makeover. Limitless has a very intriguing concept, but fails to even come close to tapping it's inherent potential.
The story kicks off by introducing us to Eddie Morra played by Bradley Cooper (The Hangover, The A-Team), a divorced, down-on-his-luck writer with a severe case of writers block. After his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) breaks up with him he bumps into his drug dealer ex-brother-in-law who gives him a cure for his blues in the form of a pill. Called NZT, this wonder drug will allow him to use 100% of his brain. The next one will cost him $800.00. Thus begins his roller coaster journey, kicking off with the ability to start writing his book again.
My biggest issue with the film is that Eddie doesn’t do anything truly spectacular and one of a kind. There are plenty of geniuses who work in mathematical predictions and algorithms on a daily basis. There are people who can learn multiple foreign languages with relative ease. There are people who remember the tiniest detail from their past, who can crank out a novel in a short amount of time, or who can get a woman’s pants off within a few minutes of talking to them. The only difference is Eddie can do all of these things slightly faster and better.
Plot problems aside, Bradley Cooper does quite well here. In the past, he’s been cast as a romantic interest, charming sexy guy or wisecracking buddy. This enviable part allows him to take center stage and play several different personality types within the same role. It plays to his strengths to be sure, but it alsollows him to stretch his wings a bit showing a degree of versatility. Robert De Niro as a corporate CEO is a role I don’t recall ever seeing him in but seemed like a brilliant bit of casting. To a degree, it’s just De Niro showing up and doing his job but there was a little more room for subtlety in this role. Abbie Cornish as Lindy does a decent job, though there’s nothing here that will elevate her status more than her next role in Sucker Punch likely will. From a technical standpoint, there is nary a dull moment. DP, Jo Willems (30 Days of Night) does an excellent job of supporting the action, drama and distinguishing between the various states of mind.
What killed the film for me were the plot holes the size of elephants, the often times badly written dialog and the utter lack of imagination in fully realizing the concept all made for a disappointing outing. The screenplay by Leslie Dixon is adapted from the novel “Dark Fields” by Alan Glynn which I have not read, so I’m not sure where to place the blame but there is definitely enough to go around. Some may find it completely enjoyable if they can manage to shelve part of that 10% of their brain. If the filmmakers would have said the film's wonder drug would allow me to use just 11% of my brain I’d say it would make the whole story a lot more believable. Unfortunately it does not, leaving Limitless to become a bitter pill to swallow.
- Login to post comments
-
Comments
Pietro Filipponi
Managing Editor
Man that's a shame, this film looked like it had monster potential. I'm gonna have to check it out to at least check out the wicked cinematography you refer to.
Robert K
The idea sounds good but it just reminds me of Flowers for Algernon
GLFanboy
Correspondent
The idea sounds good but it just reminds me of Flowers for Algernon
If ONLY this movie contained the drama and exploration that Flowers did.
There are similarities but whereas Charlie's increased itellect had adverse affects on his relationships in society, Ed's has the opposite affect. Everyone loves him. Everything works out for him. The only downside are the physical affects the drug has on him. Which is fine. If that's the story they want to tell, so be it. It just doesn't make for very good drama.
Robert K
The idea sounds good but it just reminds me of Flowers for Algernon
If ONLY this movie contained the drama and exploration that Flowers did.
There are similarities but whereas Charlie's increased itellect had adverse affects on his relationships in society, Ed's has the opposite affect. Everyone loves him. Everything works out for him. The only downside are the physical affects the drug has on him. Which is fine. If that's the story they want to tell, so be it. It just doesn't make for very good drama.
Well that sucks. It sounds like it had alot of potential.
Interesting John
Web Developer
My wife has an interesting theory on the whole 10% theory. Basically, think of a brain like a hard drive, also consider that historically, people lived a lot longer in ancient times, so possibly, in ancient times, people "filled" their brain with more knowledge because they lived longer and learned more things. Makes sense to me, these days we don't live as long, so we're only able to accumulate a certain portion of that knowledge. Just an idea.
Pietro Filipponi
Managing Editor
My wife has an interesting theory on the whole 10% theory. Basically, think of a brain like a hard drive, also consider that historically, people lived a lot longer in ancient times, so possibly, in ancient times, people "filled" their brain with more knowledge because they lived longer and learned more things. Makes sense to me, these days we don't live as long, so we're only able to accumulate a certain portion of that knowledge. Just an idea.
That would make sense except the facts the theory are based on are completely wrong. Our life expectancy keeps increasing, not decreasing. the oldest Neanderthals lived up to 30. In Roman times 55 was considered geriatric age.
Interesting John
Web Developer
My wife has an interesting theory on the whole 10% theory. Basically, think of a brain like a hard drive, also consider that historically, people lived a lot longer in ancient times, so possibly, in ancient times, people "filled" their brain with more knowledge because they lived longer and learned more things. Makes sense to me, these days we don't live as long, so we're only able to accumulate a certain portion of that knowledge. Just an idea.
That would make sense except the facts the theory are based on are completely wrong. Our life expectancy keeps increasing, not decreasing. the oldest Neanderthals lived up to 30. In Roman times 55 was considered geriatric age.
I'm operating on the biblical records in this case of people living to 900 or so. True or not, it makes an interesting theory.
evolute
My wife has an interesting theory on the whole 10% theory. Basically, think of a brain like a hard drive, also consider that historically, people lived a lot longer in ancient times, so possibly, in ancient times, people "filled" their brain with more knowledge because they lived longer and learned more things. Makes sense to me, these days we don't live as long, so we're only able to accumulate a certain portion of that knowledge. Just an idea.
That would make sense except the facts the theory are based on are completely wrong. Our life expectancy keeps increasing, not decreasing. the oldest Neanderthals lived up to 30. In Roman times 55 was considered geriatric age.
Actually, Paleolithic people lived into their 60's, 70's, and 80's. The only reason their *average* lifespan was 33 is that they had such high infant and childhood mortality rates.
The lifespan of Neanderthals is not relevant to us, since we are not descended from them.
evolute
The reviewer already realizes this, but in case anyone else doesn't, the 10% thing is myth.
I think people use it as a metaphor for our sense that we are not using our full potential.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
I was mislead by the reviewer's use of the word "factoid", which carries a different meaning in my area.
evolute
The reason that the movie did not get into telepathy, telekinesis, and levitation is because the movie is meant to be sci fi, not fantasy.
Pietro Filipponi
Managing Editor
Err.... telepathy, telekinesis, and levitation are all sci-fi elements.
Also, Paleolithic defines an era, not a people. The Paleolithic era -- also known loosely as the Stone Age because of the identifiable use of stone tools -- was identified as the first established timeframe when humanoids grouped together and identified themselves as a culture. Neanderthals, like every other subspecies of the human race (yes, human race, that's why their scientific name begins with Homo) are a part of our lineage just like every evolutionary stepping stone in history.
Interesting John
Web Developer
The reason that the movie did not get into telepathy, telekinesis, and levitation is because the movie is meant to be sci fi, not fantasy.
Err.... telepathy, telekinesis, and levitation are all sci-fi elements.
Also, Paleolithic defines an era, not a people. The Paleolithic era -- also known loosely as the Stone Age because of the identifiable use of stone tools -- was identified as the first established timeframe when humanoids grouped together and identified themselves as a culture. Neanderthals, like every other subspecies of the human race (yes, human race, that's why their scientific name begins with Homo) are a part of our lineage just like every evolutionary stepping stone in history.
Haha... homo.
GLFanboy
Correspondent
@Evolute
1. Your grasp of the obvious is astounding. As I mention in the review, it's a "theory" and that we have to accept it as a fact only for purposes of willing suspension of disbelief. John also refers to it as a "theory". No one is claiming it's a fact but your google skills are admirable.
2. It's not really sci-fi. Just because it incorporates scientific element as a plot device doesn't automatically make it Sci-fi. I'm talking about the potential of the concept which, although I found lacking, might be right up your alley.
3. If you've seen the movie, feel free to refute or disagree with anything in the review. I can talk all day about the silly or absurd moments within it and would enjoy the discussion. If you haven't and you're simply trying to sound smart, you're not doing a very good job.
evolute
Err.... telepathy, telekinesis, and levitation are all sci-fi elements.
I concede your point. I meant to say that there is a sub-genre of sci fi which restricts itself to elements that are essentially consistent with current science (but not current tech), and this film appears to be meant for that sub-genre.
Also, Paleolithic defines an era, not a people. The Paleolithic era -- also known loosely as the Stone Age because of the identifiable use of stone tools -- was identified as the first established timeframe when humanoids grouped together and identified themselves as a culture. Neanderthals, like every other subspecies of the human race (yes, human race, that's why their scientific name begins with Homo) are a part of our lineage just like every evolutionary stepping stone in history.
Yes, certainly neanderthals are a branch of the genus Homo, and we share a common ancestor with them. But at least half of the known species in the genus Homo are not our ancestors, and are instead our "cousins". For example, we are not evolved from Homo habilis, H. cepranensis, nor H. neanderthals, and probably not from H. floresiensis or H. erectus either.
The current thinking is that our ancestry is H. heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, and maybe H. erectus.
The "stepping stone" or "ladder" model is misleading and widely criticized by paleoanthropologists. We are not evolved from chimps, we share a recent (~6 mya) ancestor with them; same deal with neanderthals (~0.4 mya).
(Yes, Paleolithic defines an era, but it's not uncommon to use it used as an adjective as in: paleolithic tools, paleolithic culture, paleolithic humans, etc.)
evolute
@GLFanboy
I appreciated your review and the chance to talk about the flick.
1. Offering a supporting link is generally considered polite, but perhaps it comes across as too nerdy on this site?
2. Ok, I'll defer to you on that one. But aren't genres somewhat fuzzy categories that reasonable people might disagree on?
3. I don't have any interest in refuting your review, but do I appreciate the invitation to discuss further. At your suggestion, I am reconsidering what my motivations might have been.
I just learned that the accepted definition of the word factoid is not the same as how it is used in my area; I was mislead by your (more standard) use of the term.
Pietro Filipponi
Managing Editor
Err.... telepathy, telekinesis, and levitation are all sci-fi elements.
I concede your point. I meant to say that there is a sub-genre of sci fi which restricts itself to elements that are essentially consistent with current science (but not current tech), and this film appears to be meant for that sub-genre.
Also, Paleolithic defines an era, not a people. The Paleolithic era -- also known loosely as the Stone Age because of the identifiable use of stone tools -- was identified as the first established timeframe when humanoids grouped together and identified themselves as a culture. Neanderthals, like every other subspecies of the human race (yes, human race, that's why their scientific name begins with Homo) are a part of our lineage just like every evolutionary stepping stone in history.
Yes, certainly neanderthals are a branch of the genus Homo, and we share a common ancestor with them. But at least half of the known species in the genus Homo are not our ancestors, and are instead our "cousins". For example, we are not evolved from Homo habilis, H. cepranensis, nor H. neanderthals, and probably not from H. floresiensis or H. erectus either.
The current thinking is that our ancestry is H. heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, and maybe H. erectus.
The "stepping stone" or "ladder" model is misleading and widely criticized by paleoanthropologists. We are not evolved from chimps, we share a recent (~6 mya) ancestor with them; same deal with neanderthals (~0.4 mya).
(Yes, Paleolithic defines an era, but it's not uncommon to use it used as an adjective as in: paleolithic tools, paleolithic culture, paleolithic humans, etc.)
Great, great points
I keep forgetting that every few years the tables turn on this debate. Thanks for the up to date info and welcome to the BLAM!
GLFanboy
Correspondent
@GLFanboy
I appreciated your review and the chance to talk about the flick.
1. Offering a supporting link is generally considered polite, but perhaps it comes across as too nerdy on this site?
Not at all. They are appreciated.
2. Ok, I'll defer to you on that one. But aren't genres somewhat fuzzy categories that reasonable people might disagree on?
At times, sure. This one though is really more in the drama/thriller realm. It's funny that you bring it up though because after watching it I was actually wondering what genre this fits into. I just don't see any connection to sci fi beyond the basic concept. It would be easy though, to make that assumption based on the trailers and synopsis.
3. I don't have any interest in refuting your review, but do I appreciate the invitation to discuss further. At your suggestion, I am reconsidering what my motivations might have been.
Just so you know, the invitation is genuine. The way I like to write reviews is to (try to) incoporate wit, sarcasm, analysis, and sometimes a bit of smart-assery. It's my style but at the same time I want those things to generate debate. Your participation whether it's in agreement or opposition is not only welcome but appreciated. If possible, just try and keep it on-topic, bud.
All that being said, welcome to the Blam! Stick around and stay part of the discussion!!
evolute
@GLFanboy
Sci fi seems to always be combined with either: drama, action, thriller, horror, adventure, a few comedy, and rarely romance. Since sci fi is essentially a plot device, whereas drama/thriller really give a movie a "feel", I can see your point on Limitless.
Now it makes sense to me why sci fi books are so different than movies; the books have less need of an additional genera to generate "feel". This also could explain why most folks don't like sci fi books; not enough "feel". And why sci fi buffs are often frustrated by sci fi movies.
@Pietro
Yes, it is surprising how fast this stuff changes; I only discovered it very recently.
@All
Thanks for the welcomes. I'll save my thoughts on why the main character's actions were limited until I see it.