Limitless, the new Relativity Media picture, helmed by Neil Burger (The Lucky Ones, The Illusionist, Interview with the Assassain) and starring Bradley Cooper (The A-Team, The Hangover, Wedding Crashers), Robert DeNiro (if you don’t know what movies he’s been in then go back to Mars) and Abbie Cornish (Sucker Punch, Bright Star, Stop-Loss) has found an easy way to defy itself.
It simply fails to live up to its audacious title.
Bradley Cooper and Robert DeNiro discussing a deal
The concept of the film is simple enough. An average guy gets his hand on a drug (NZT) that enables him to unlock the full potential of his own brain, allowing him to have almost superhuman intellectual abilities.
Think of the Superman of MENSA. Then make him 100 times smarter.
The core of the film, in the grand spectrum of trash that is usually fed to us, is quite genius. But unfortunately, the plotline doesn’t cash in on the exponential number of possibilities available to such an interesting premise.
Without diving into the specific narrative details of the film, the protagonist, Eddie Mora (Bradley Cooper), ultimately utilizes his unlimited intellectual capacities in a rather limited way. He becomes obsessed with finding the quickest way to earn a ton of money, make a lot of powerful friends, and eventually, settle into politics.
The overarching message of the film? Money equals power. Power equals money.
Eddie Mora peers out of the window
At one point, the main character does mention something about some grand plan which needs a lot of cash to become a reality. Sadly, the audience never sees Eddie work towards this secret goal, nor does it seem that the writer, Leslie Dixon, or the director, Neil Burger, ever cared to explore any aspect of it.
At an advance press screening in NYC, I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Burger about the limited spectrum in which Eddie uses his powers in the film. He danced around the question a bit, then shook my hand and made a quick exit towards his limo.
It felt like I posed a question to a Senator, not a director.
Neil Burger - The Senator, er... Director of "Limitless"
To be fair, what would one actually do if they were able to miraculously attain a God-like intellect? Cure cancer. Eliminate hunger. Create world peace. Obviously, the simplified renditions of these types of altruistic endeavors would also miss the mark for this film. But, there is certainly some space in which the filmmakers could have explored the indubitable intricacies of a limitless human mind.
It would be a bit difficult for me to come up with suitable narrative alternatives for this film in the 20 minutes or so in which I am spending on this whirlwhind review, but believe me, a world of options do exist. Besides, if I did have a good answer, I probably wouldn’t post it on this blog. Then again, if you’d like to dangle some union compensation in front of me, you better believe that I could do it.
The failure of Limitless does not lie in an inability to tell an entertaining story. It actually does that. And it does it relatively well. The film simply leaves one with a sense of emptiness at the film that could have been made. A film that would possibly have slightly less commercial appeal…or a film that could have been something much, much bigger. To put it simply, Limitless comes off like a supercharged version of Entourage, when it could have been in a category of psychological/sci-fi noir with Dark City, The Matrix, Inception, etc.
If it was really well executed, it could have been in a category of its own.
Abbie Cornish in Limitless. She's pretty. And has an Australian accent.
If anything, a film like Limitless only projects a sad commentary on the materialistic nature of the world around us. It simply reiterates the laissez faire principles that dominate our culture. Just look at the central message of the film:
If any one of us had all the intellectual aptitude ever dreamed to be possible between our ears, all we should want to do is make hoards of money and unilaterally acquire as much individual power as possible without regard to the betterment of the common man.
Doesn’t sound very limitless to me.
>CW<
This is another example of why I fell Robert DeNiro is becoming less relevant; can’t believe I would say that.
Feel
it happens bro. nobody stays at the top forever. that said, the performances in the film were pretty good. i’m just always looking for deeper levels in the script and execution.
Feel he’s still at the top, just making weak choices. How many roles did he turn down before he landed here? Or meet the parents 3? Money? Everyone can’t be who I want them to be, but he’s one the greats; taxi driver, raging bull, gdfater 2, etc etc. It ‘s a let down, wish he was more Woody Allen / Neil Young than this…dare I say he’s selling out. But who am I? – exactely. Hear ya on the scirpt analysis and execution.
oh…bobby d can definitely still hang. those types of skills don’t just leave overnight. but you’re right…we’re talking about choice of material here. when that suffers, no matter how great you are, your brand starts to waver.
little fockers was a complete joke. i didn’t even see it and i know that. it was all about the money. the guy created the franchise wasn’t even attached to it in any significant way. that should tell you something. he’s an NYU grad btw.
the last movie that i liked that bobby was in was probably the good shepherd. before that, ronin.