Limitless
So, today's selection was Limitless, a drug-thriller starring Bradley Cooper. No, not the type of drug thriller like... ummm... Traffic? Ok, maybe "drug thriller" isn't the best way of putting it. Thriller. Yeah. Thriller might due. Actionish thriller at that. With some twistyness to it too. On the whole, it was good enough fun. But, since it does rely on some reasonable twists, turns, and complications as part of it's fun, I'm not going to say much about the plot. The basic story is that a kind of lazy, creatively-challenged, bathing-optional writer manages to turn himself into a dynamo with the help of a chance (kind of flimsy in turns of premise) encounter and a little drug that allows you to use your entirety- including the other 80%- of your brain (the idea being that the old adage that we only use 20% of our brains is actually true...). Of course, Cooper's Eddie quickly becomes addicted... perhaps necessarily... and also quickly becomes a hell of a financial guru... and author... and so on and so forth. In short, the little drug turns him into the mental equivalent of Superman, but see, it is a drug... and an illegal one at that and this, of course brings complications. And so a kind of cool, sci-fi-y thriller ensues.
And I do mean only KIND of cool. The premise seems original enough. And there is plenty of action and some genuine thrills. But the problem is, the as the action revs up and the plot line becomes more complicated, holes starting bursting through the story line. By the end, I had a pretty good time, but also lots of questions. Some were on the level of: wait, what happened to so and so by the end? Others were of the "wait, how does that make any sense?" level. And still others were "that doesn't really make much sense at all, does it?" sorts of questions. None of these are great to have rolling around your head at the end of an action/thriller movie. And some take away from the movie more than others. Ok, perhaps an example... let's see, how not to give away too much.... oh, so yeah, there's a kind of throw-away line in the scene where Eddie gets the goods. The skivvy dealer who gets him that first sweet taste lets him know that it works better for smart people. I guess in a sense it's just really unlocking your ultimate potential. Well here's the deal: Eddie is a writer. A struggling writer. Yeah the film leads you to believe he's pretty smart, he talks a good game, but no where does it hint that he has an aptitude for numbers. Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't. But that's where he makes his mark, as a financial guru. Does this mean that Eddie is really just a pretty damn smart guy in general? Does it mean that we all have innate ability to comprehend numbers? Is there any real difference between Eddie and the other folks who take it? It's hard to say. Are they trying to make any broad generalizations about people and the way the mind works? Again hard to say, but not really a big deal in the least. Just a little unclear. In the end, there were enough of the truly bothersome types of questions to drop the movie down a few notches in my mind. Yeah, I was entertained for the most part, but I was also confused. Not cool.
In a sense, the questions, confusion, and plot holes are a bit of a shame. Like I said, the movie was genuinely entertaining, and a lot of that comes from the really great performances Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro (as corporate power player Carl Van Loon) deliver. Cooper seems a natural to play the role, particularly post-drug discovery. Eddie, after all, is not a mean spirited figure, just arrogant and smug enough to have an edge, but really a decent guy. He maybe a touch slimy, but not so much that you bathe after you cross paths with him. Eddie does have charm (both before and after the drug experience) and Cooper plays this off with ease. And I'm not so sure it's a compliment, but Cooper seems really well equipped to play such a simplistic character... heavy on charm (genuine charm) and good looks... a little light on depth. De Niro, too, seems to have stumbled on an ideal role. The character of a corporate powerhouse tough guy just seems to suit him. He chews his scenes up well- if in a typical De Niro way. The best scenes in the movie are when the gritty, tough, seen-it-all, done-more Van Loon goes toe to toe with the kind-of arrogant, kind-of sincere, kind-of out of his league except for his little pill friend Eddie. Eddie's in some manner of control.. and he knows it as does Van Loon, but they both know- for the most part- that things don't quite make sense in that arrangement. It's pretty cool to watch.
But beyond the enjoyable acting and action there are indeed plot holes, superfluous characters (or near-superfluous characters), and some general confusion. I also had the sense that the film ducks what would have been a weighty and entertaining question: what are the deeper implications of possessing god-like intelligence? What are some of the moral issues with becoming freakishly smart solely because of a pill? Is it right? Not just illegal, but truly right? We don't know. I suppose if they really started trying to answer those questions, the movie would take on a heaviness that would ultimately weigh it down and work against it. So perhaps it's better that they didn't really even try. But then again, if it were done right, exploring these questions might bring about a movie that leaves audiences thinking for all the right reasons... not out of a sense of genuine confusion. But as it is? Well, it could have been worse... yeah, could have been better, but it definitely could have been worse.
Grade: B
No comments:
Post a Comment