Limitless (spoilers)

[stj]

Well, no, I don't believe that personal grooming is a reflection of the interior state of mind. I think the idea is commonly held but I still have to regard it as silly. But even if it did, what does the bad haircut on the Senatorial candidate reflect from the inner self?

Further, the drug may possibly clarify the mind of "irrational" fears, but how a chemical can tell the difference is a question that really strains willing suspension of disbelief. Eddie should have doubts about what happened to that woman and clarity of thought will only sharpen the urgency of answering the question. Except that he's not the kind of man who cares, and the producers people should only identify with the winners.

 

[Agent Richard07]

Well, no, I don't believe that personal grooming is a reflection of the interior state of mind. I think the idea is commonly held but I still have to regard it as silly. But even if it did, what does the bad haircut on the Senatorial candidate reflect from the inner self?

The idea that a person's appearance reflects their state of mind isn't silly. When that person doesn't doesn't consider personal grooming a priority, it shows. It's simple enough. As for someone who has a bad haircut but wears a suit... Maybe they're eccentric, stuck in a rut, out of touch, think they look fine based on their standards or simply don't care about that sort of thing but know they have to wear the suit. Reasons for why people look they way they do can be simple or complex, I'm guessing because people themselves can be simple or complex.

Further, the drug may possibly clarify the mind of "irrational" fears, but how a chemical can tell the difference is a question that really strains willing suspension of disbelief. Eddie should have doubts about what happened to that woman and clarity of thought will only sharpen the urgency of answering the question. Except that he's not the kind of man who cares, and the producers people should only identify with the winners.

Thinking about the drug further, maybe it enhances a person's focus the way meditation or hypnosis would. One side effect of that would likely result in clarity of thought as opposed to all-around, seemingly omniscient clarity. That could explain why he doesn't "think of everything".

 

[Trekker4747]

On tapering off:

The lethal or degenerative side-effects of the drug had made his ex-wife too far gone to be saved, likely. And caused by getting off of the drug too quickly.

I'm fairly sure Eddie simply reformulated the drug through his lab to produce a version that could be tapered off while retaining its benefits, which simply had rewired his brain in a "good" way rather than the "bad" way his ex was re-wired.

I don't think any blame should be put on his shoulders for not mass-producing the drug or using his knowledge to help others. I mean, am I bad person for not sharing my Tylenol with poor people who have headaches? I mean I've got a bottle right here with 500 pills on it so I have the stuff to spare.

Also, if he wanted to manufacture the drug and then use it to distribute he'd have to go through more legal channels and he paid off the lab to circumvent the usual ways of making a drug.

Really, he may not have been a "good guy" but he's our protagonist. The guy we want to see get to his goal and to not fall victim to the drug's deadly side-effects. DeNiro's character is the bad guy because he wants to buy Eddie's power at the end for his own gain. Eddie, presumably, wants to pursue a political career for the better of the country/world.

I've got the novel for this movie and started reading it about a week ago, got distracted, and haven't been back to it yet. So-far the novel I wouldn't say fills in much of these mentioned gaps.

I don't think a movie's main character should have to be clearly good or clearly bad. Eddie seems like a pretty "normal" guy who takes everything he's faced with in a manner that's consistent with his character. I wouldn't say he is selfish but he's not completely altruistic, either. It's likely he never realized how much he could "help" while on the drug (it's established, and shown, it doesn't make you know things you don't already know) by distributing the drug to those effected by it in a negative manner. Or he weighed his options and felt that he could "best help" by being in political office vs. trying to help the remaining few still alive who were impacted by the drug who were probably to far gone to help anyway.

I think the movie leaves it pretty uncertain on who killed the woman in the hotel. I think it was the assassin guy who was after him but it could have just as easily been Eddie (were also shown the drug heightens self-preservation over the welfare of others -see what the girlfriend did with the girl in the park) and we're not really shown or told which it is.

Anyway, it's a movie I really liked and think a lot of that goes to Bradley Cooper's performance. I liked the visual style the movie used of making the lighting brighter and the colors more vibrant whenever Eddie is on the drug.

 

[stonester1]

Appearance DOES indicate SOME things about one's inner state of mind. There's all mentioned above. A lack of cleanliness indicates slovenliness and being socially tone deaf, if one can do more. Overweight can indicate a lack of discipline and willpower.

The idea that appearance has NOTHING to do with one's inner state of being, that's one of the silliest notions I've ever heard.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

On tapering off:

The lethal or degenerative side-effects of the drug had made his ex-wife too far gone to be saved, likely. And caused by getting off of the drug too quickly.

I'm fairly sure Eddie simply reformulated the drug through his lab to produce a version that could be tapered off while retaining its benefits, which simply had rewired his brain in a "good" way rather than the "bad" way his ex was re-wired.

I don't think any blame should be put on his shoulders for not mass-producing the drug or using his knowledge to help others. I mean, am I bad person for not sharing my Tylenol with poor people who have headaches? I mean I've got a bottle right here with 500 pills on it so I have the stuff to spare.

When the audience has to invent excuses why the script doesn't suck, that's when you know it really does. That's something I'll only do (sometimes) for Star Trek or another show that has an irrational hold on my loyalty, but never for some random forgettable movie. Those are just a bunch of rules governing the drug invented solely to patch together a bad script, and they weren't even in the script. But if they had been, they would have only made things worse by exposing what a convoluted pastiche the script was.

Here's the real solution: invent simple, logical rules for the drug - how it works, how it might harm you - and then stick to the damn rules, even if it means using some ingenuity in devising a plot that works within the rules. Yes, that's hard work, but that's the kind of hard work that good writers are willing to do, if only to prove they're not talentless hacks.

And I don't think it's a moral failing Eddie didn't mass produce the drug. Maybe he didn't even think of it. But it might have pushed the story in a more interesting direction, or at least solved the why-do-I-give-a-fuck-about-this-guy problem.

I think the movie leaves it pretty uncertain on who killed the woman in the hotel. I think it was the assassin guy who was after him but it could have just as easily been Eddie (were also shown the drug heightens self-preservation over the welfare of others -see what the girlfriend did with the girl in the park) and we're not really shown or told which it is.

The triumphant Eddie-beats-the-bad-guys tone of the final scene works against that. Van Loon is presented as the definite bad guy, and Eddie is good because he's off the drug. If we're expected to believe Eddie might be a murderer, then the final scene should have been more ambiguous. Eddie should have looked sinister, instead of being the next Mitt Romney (but presumably far more successful)?

I just thought of a movie that does pull off the ambiguous-protagonist thing much better: The Player. There's an example of a movie where the protagonist is unlikable and amoral, yet the movie holds together. I guess that just goes to show how vital it is to have a director like Altman if you're trying something difficult. This movie had the right star, but neither the screenwriter nor the director were up to the task.

 

[Trekker4747]

When the audience has to invent excuses why the script doesn't suck, that's when you know it really does.

I'm not inventing anything. His wife says herself that getting off of the drug has pretty much the opposite extreme on your brain, you become something akin to a Heroin junkie with ADD.

There may have been holes in the script, yes, but the fact that Eddie didn't use the drug, or his knowledge, to help his ex, the other people out there on the drug, or even to go into the pharmaceutical business is not a flaw in the movie.

You tend to do this a lot Temis where you down-rate a movie simply because it didn't do what you would have done. Like with "Inception" you down-graded an excellent film because you didn't think the dreams were surreal or bizarre enough. That they should have dreamed dinosaurs or something in the final mission; ignoring the entire point of what they were doing was to not tip-off the subject that he was in a dream.

Simply put: The reason why Eddie didn't use the drug to help his wife or others is because that wasn't the story. It was a story of HIS life and what he did while under the drug and with the "power" it gave him. I find that character vastly more interesting that watching one about a man who finds a nifty drug and then decides to become his own drug company with the altruistic purposes of helping people around the world become crazy smart.

I will say my one heavy complaint about the movie is that it jumps from the action to a "and then everyone lived happily forever, okay bye" ending. Eddie drinks the blood of the loan shark, gets the drug's powers, and thinks his way out of that situation. Then he tracks down the hit-man guy who apparently is cool now with helping Eddie and not killing him, helps him get more drugs, flash forward a year where all of Eddie's problems are solved, he's engaged and he's off the drug.

Seems there's probably 15-20 minutes of movie there.

I also wonder how he'd succeed in an election with him being a subject of a murder investigation, let go only due to lack of evidence to hold him not through an acquittal.

But, none the less, I liked the movie see Eddie as an "everyman" character who is neither bad nor good and don't have a problem with what Eddie did while on the drug -solved his own problems and improved his own life rather than the lives of others.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm not inventing anything.

I don't remember the part about Eddie reformulating the drug. How was he able to reformulate it? Did he study biochemistry, and if so, why did he need to hire anyone to replicate the drug?

You tend to do this a lot Temis where you down-rate a movie simply because it didn't do what you would have done.

You're right - when I can think of ways to make a movie better, I tend to lose all respect for it. Why should I have respect for it, when I can do better than the so-called professionals? Conversely, when I can't think of a way to do better than the so-called professionals, I will cheerfully acknowledge that they did a good job. On what other basis could I, or anyone else, ever criticize anything? Being able to think of a better way to do it, or many better ways, is the only legitimate basis for criticism. Otherwise, it's just aimless carping.

The reason why Eddie didn't use the drug to help his wife or others is because that wasn't the story. It was a story of HIS life and what he did while under the drug and with the "power" it gave him.

You've identified the fundamental flaw of this movie. If it's just about Eddie and the power it gave him, then all it is, is an adolescent power fantasy. Pfft, I can read a comic book for that (and many comic books are more sophisticated than this stupid movie.)

To avoid being an adolescent power fantasy, the story would have had to explore Eddie's power in a more mature way. For instance, suddenly having the power to do or be anything is not going to always have a happy outcome. They dipped their toe into this idea by having his girlfriend reject him for using the drug, but then that was conveniently swept aside at the end, when new rules were invented allowing Eddie to have his cake and eat it, too.

 

[Agent Richard07]

What makes for a better movie, especially in this case, is subjective. Power fantasies are fun for most people, and personally, that's what I wanted to see. Who wouldn't want to better themselves, become financially well off if they weren't already and do all the things they couldn't do before? That angle seemed like the natural and obvious way to go. As for Eddie pulling through in the end, why not? He was smart enough and lucky enough to be able to do so. That happens too. I was afraid the movie would become a cautionary tale about power corrupting or something along those lines. I'm glad it didn't turn into that.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'm not inventing anything.

I don't remember the part about Eddie reformulating the drug. How was he able to reformulate it? Did he study biochemistry, and if so, why did he need to hire anyone to replicate the drug?

I think it was suggested somewhere in his conversation with the chemist.

You're right - when I can think of ways to make a movie better, I tend to lose all respect for it. Why should I have respect for it, when I can do better than the so-called professionals?

Your right, I suppose. But your idea of "better" falls within a pretty narrow set of people who'd agree with that. I mean, I hardly think many people wanted Inception's climax to have dinosaurs and more surreal elements to it as opposed to more realistic set-up which was all more about Cobb's dealing with his inner demons than it was about the mission itself.

Also doubt that people wanted this movie to be about Eddie starting his own altruistic pharmaceutical company dealing with mind-enhancing drugs while he goes around using his cache of the drugs to help those people wronged by it.

Yeah, that sounds like a great movie!

Eddie going around seeking out people who need the drug to avoid death from its side-effects sounds riveting!

 

[stj]

Power fantasies are indeed fun for most people, when they identify with the protagonist. The criticism is that Eddie is not someone you want to identify with, that the main thing attractive about him is winning. And the rest is repulsive. (And his looks, but they are pretty standard in Hollywood.) The bad haircut in the end of the movie was Eddie disguising himself as common folks so they'd vote for him. Is this really the kind of inspiring version of themselve people really want to see in their cinematic daydreams?

Some people deem conformism as a positive moral quality. People who get haircuts and mow their lawns are conforming to ideas about what looks good and what is perceived as desirable by those who (presumably) matter. That's one reason why deeming Eddie's turnaround as a real improvement in his personality is a remarkably shallow view. Eddie conforming to get ahead is what the producers' of this movie thought of as "smart," much smarter than figuring out the drug.

 

[BoxWhatBox]

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.

If I had access to NZT, the first day I would have just went to Alantic City and had a little fun. The next day, I would have started figuring out how to back engineer the drug, so I would never have to worry about my supply running out. After that, I would acquire enough cash to be comfortable for the rest of my life and then drop off the face of the Earth (or build my own spaceship).

 

[Trekker4747]

You'd have to know how to build your own spaceship before you could build it. As the movie told us, the drug didn't give you knowledge, information, or even intelligence you did not already have. It only allowed you to use and process that information more efficiently. Eddie wasn't able to talk about the law book because he suddenly knew about it, he was able to talk about it because he had paged through it years earlier but didn't consciously retain the information, NZT allowed him to remember this information that was stowed away in the back of his mind somewhere.

We're kind of shown how this works with the loan shark. Eddie wasn't an intravenous drug user, or a drug dealer, so it'd never occur to him to dilute the drug into intravenous rather than oral one. He didn't have any knowledge of how drugs work.

But the loan shark was a drug user so he knew to dilute the drug into an injection and NZT allowed him to fully realize this to get the most use out of the drug.

If I had the drug I'd, like Eddie, would use the first couple of days to finally hammer out -and finish- my book and then probably go to a casino and count cards at black-jack to win big and then play in the stock market to make more money -again, like Eddie did.