Limitless (spoilers)

[Temis the Vorta]

Yet another movie I finally got around to seeing on DVD. Mixed bag. The saving grace was Bradley Cooper in the lead - he has a very unusual quality of looking like he should be a giant douchebag, but coming off as the opposite.

For starters, why are we supposed to be rooting for Eddie? Mainly because of the actor playing him, which kept me engaged in the story until I abruptly realized about 2/3rds of the way through that there was no reason to root for this guy taking a drug to find fame, power and fortune.

Having one more competent sci fi author, card sharp or corporate dickhead in the world doesn't accomplish much in my estimation, and it's downright chilling that we're supposed to be happy this guy is going to be elected President someday.

Why does he want to run things? Just because of the power rush, I guess. Does he have any ideas beyond ego? Now I'm describing most politicians, but the ending should have made us realize that we'd been watching a monster being created, or at the very least, have a cynical rather than celebratory tone. Perhaps the haircut that Senator Eddie inflicted on himself is punishment enough?

I'm also pretty dubious about the logic behind the whole Atwood conspiracy (they were behind the murder of the woman Eddie slept with, right?) which seems to involve an implausible number of coincidences, starting with Eddie having a convenient blackout during that night.

And it was far too easy of an "out" for other people to die from the drug, but some magical rule lets Eddie "taper off." Too bad for everyone else that Eddie stole his brother in law's stash and kept it for himself instead of, say, rushing to a few hospital bedsides to at least try to save the other addicts with some tapering-off medication.

His ex-wife's mind was messed up permanently, but magically Eddie gets to retain some of his abilities - why? Van Loon was absolutely right that Eddie hadn't earned anything he got. Why was Van Loon the "bad guy" then? Eddie should have gotten his comeuppance in the end. He didn't earn a happy ending in the least.

Good lead actor, fun camera work, script needed lots of work.

 

[cylkoth]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing, why am I supposed to root for this guy?
As for tapering off the NZT, he only just learned that it was possible from the Russian loan shark at the end of the movie, so on that, I'll have to give him some slack. As you mention, no concern for the others afflicted makes him a selfish (setting up a private lab to replicate the drug, all for himself...), uncaring lout, so why again, am I supposed to cheer him on?

 

[stonester1]

Beautifully shot, technically. But the characters are thin and poorly established. Plus, all kinds of ideas and mediations upon the nature of who we are could have added depth, but were avoided, yet they didn't commit to a balls out action film, either.

It's like they didn't know what kind of movie they wanted to make. They just knew how to make it visually appealing.

An unfortunate miss, a miss with potential...but a miss nonetheless. But saw The Adjustment Burea right after, and that one was MUCH MUCH better, a great movie.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

When I was talking about The Rules, I don't mean the rules as the character understands them, but as the screenwriter (and maybe the author - not sure how much was changed from the book) constructs them.

Rules that are constructed to be convenient for storytelling don't impress me. Since they're pretty arbitrary in this story, they can be constructed any old way. Why not construct them for more interesting storytelling rather than just lazily get from Point A to Point B?

Let's say Eddie does realize when he's going through his brother in law's black book, that he might be able to save some of the other addicts if he gives him some of his diminishing supply of pills. Now he has a moral dilemma and as far as he knows, every pill he gives away makes it that much more likely that he'll end up dead sooner. But if he does give some away, then he's signalled to the audience that maybe he is someone worth rooting for. And then a different story spins off from there. (And giving away those pills should have some impact on him - it shouldn't just be a question of him needing to "taper off" sooner.)

Rules shouldn't be constructed to let the character off the hook. They should be constructed to sink the hook in deeper. If this story had been constructed more with that philosophy, I think it would have been a whole lot better. It seemed to be written largely as a boringly obvious power-fantasy wish fulfillment rather than what it should have been, either a cautionary tale or a cynical semi-comedy about human nature and power. (Personally, I'd love to see it replayed with a rewritten and more comic/antic script.)

But saw The Adjustment Burea right after, and that one was MUCH MUCH better, a great movie.

Thanks, I'll give that one a shot next. This is my summer for checking out Mind-Bending Thrillers. Source Code - pretty good. Unknown - eh, give it a miss.

 

[Jetfire]

Trekker4747 already had a thread about this in TV/Media.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=139097

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Ehhhh...I think this one is over the line into sci fi, which is why I started it here. And that's a pretty old thread, not sure if it's within the resurrection limits.

 

[Admiral_Young]

How is that an older thread? It was started in March when the film came out. There are a lot older threads on the board that have been resurrected in here than a thread from seven or so months ago.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Well I like my thread better.

 

[Jetfire]

I see.

I would like to check this out sometime...I never see alot of movies unless it is something I really am in to...last "new" movie I saw was Sucker Punch...I wanted to see Scream 4...still need to get to that when it is on DVD.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The only other comment I can think to make about this forgettable movie is that it sealed my conviction that Bradley Cooper should play Doctor Strange because he does "smart but over-matched guy deals with bizarre and dangerous new reality" very well.

 

[Jetfire]

That is interesting actually...could you believe that Tom Welling was talked about to play Dr Strange back in May when SMALLVILLE was ending. Cooper I could see.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yiiiiikes, not Welling!

 

[Jetfire]

IGN had that story but nothing came of it...thankfully. http://movies.ign.com/articles/116/1167441p1.html

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Urg, it's disturbing they'd even think about it.

 

[Jetfire]

I don't hate Tom Welling but he isn't right for Dr Strange. Back to Limitless...

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-EUTCkfXEI[/yt]

Trailer

After watching the trailer again...it seems like the type of movie to watch on Sat afternoon when I am bored...not that it is a bad thing...just sayin'...

 

[Agent Richard07]

I'm sick of cautionary tales. It was nice to see the guy get to live it up with his newfound abilities and realize his goals in the end.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

One last thing occurred to me: why didn't Eddie try to use the drug to become smart enough to manufacture more of the drug? Why didn't he give some of the drug to the chemist he hired? Why didn't any of the other addicts try this route? Atwood certainly would have had enough resources.

Too bad Eddie never met Walter White. Story would have had a very different ending.

 

[stj]

Obviously we're supposed to root for Eddie because he becomes a winner. This story line worked for Kirk in the Star Trek reboot, why carp about it here?

What strikes me as absolutely fascinating is the conviction that being supersmart means you a) get a good haircut b) clean your apartment c) wear good clothes d) can judge the depth of water dozens of feet away e) become a huge success at "business" because you can awe the other businessmen with your incredible smarts and f) become perfectly self-confident. Eddie doesn't learn to make the drug because that's geek crap and smart people don't do geek crap, they know how to impress the God-like billionaires.

The notion that businessmen stand on the summit of the human intellect is actually a pretty common one but it seems to me that inside information, lack of scruples, putting moneymaking above everything else and just plain luck play roles in business success. The easy assumption that Eddie's self-confidence will make him popular with his readers and, later, voters, reflects a notion that really smart people are the ones who can successfully manipulate the unwashed masses.

No, it doesn't make any sense that the Atwater people would frame Eddie for murder. As pointed out, that would mean they knew about the blackouts. But there's no way they could. However, if Eddie killed the woman, they would have a reason to wipe up prints after. If cops seriously investigated Eddie, they might find out about the NZT. Eddie's indifference to the question of who murdered the woman is a decisive indication of his character.

The people who did make NZT will also be players in this fictional universe. But the movie is only interested in Eddie, who stands in for the winner "we" all want to be supposedly.

The novel may be ironic. But it seems to me that after it was translated into the semi-sociopathic worldview of the Hollywood producer, we get this movie.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Obviously we're supposed to root for Eddie because he becomes a winner. This story line worked for Kirk in the Star Trek reboot, why carp about it here?

Because Kirk's storyline isn't over. Trek XI set his (and Spock's) arcs up. I'm expecting the real storyline to commence in next movie. He needs to be more than a glib punk who fakes his way into success. If that's all his story turns out to be, I will happily join the bashers and apologize to them for ever having had faith in JJ Abrams.

Eddie's indifference to the question of who murdered the woman is a decisive indication of his character.

Or just sloppy writing. He seemed to have a reasonable moral compass in other ways. Even after he realized he could make millions at the snap of his fingers, he tried to get his old girlfriend back rather than shacking up with a succession of supermodels. Which he sort of did anyway, but only because of those nasty blackouts which were leading him astray.

And he already had won the genetic olympics just by his looks. If he'd looked like Bill Gates, all the fancy talking in the world wouldn't have gotten him invited to Aruba with his sexy NY club scene friends. Ditto for the book contract - did that have nothing to do with his looks and the editor at that company that he attracted, to give him the inside edge? Doubtful. The dimbulb didn't need drugs, all he needed was a comb.

 

[Agent Richard07]

One last thing occurred to me: why didn't Eddie try to use the drug to become smart enough to manufacture more of the drug?

He did didn't he?

What strikes me as absolutely fascinating is the conviction that being supersmart means you a) get a good haircut b) clean your apartment c) wear good clothes d) can judge the depth of water dozens of feet away e) become a huge success at "business" because you can awe the other businessmen with your incredible smarts and f) become perfectly self-confident.

The bad hair, the grungy of clothes and the messy apartment were reflections of his cluttered and chaotic state of mind. When he took the drug, it gave him a new state of mind... Clarity. His haircut, new clothes and clean apartment were reflections of that. Why the confidence? Clarity gets rid of doubt.