15 replies to this topic

[Peter T Chattaway]

How many other movies, I wonder, have been based on the false belief that we use only 10 or 20 percent of our brains?

[Peter T Chattaway]

Re-posting something I just posted at Facebook:

There's one line in this trailer that has always bugged me, and ruins my ability to believe that this character is a mathematical genius: "I see every scenario. I see 50 scenarios. That's what it does, Karl. It puts me 50 moves ahead of you." But wait a minute, if he can see 50 moves ahead of someone, shouldn't that give him a much, much bigger number of scenarios? Even if every move was a choice between only two options, shouldn't that still give him, what, 1,125,899,906,842,624 (i.e. 2 to the power of 50) scenarios? If he can see only 50 scenarios, doesn't that mean he's only 5 or 6 steps ahead of Karl *at best* (and even less, if there are more than two options with each move)?

[Peter T Chattaway]

‎... aaaaaand it turns out that line that bothered me isn't even in the actual movie! But there's a line very similar to it that gets spoken somewhere near the end of the film... and the characters are standing on opposite sides of the screen... which leads me to wonder if the last section of the movie wasn't changed in reshoots or something.

[Tyler]

Sometimes, I watch a really bad movie to help me better appreciate the good ones. Limitless was one of those.

[Overstreet]

"But... but... it stars the SEXIEST MAN ALIVE!" - Americans who buy magazines in grocery lines

[Ryan H.]

LIMITLESS' vision of super-intelligence is actually quite limited. Here, cultural status is everything, but intellectual pursuit as its own end is nothing. Bradley Cooper's Eddie Morra only uses his super-intelligence to become a version of the "ideal American male": the well-dressed, smart businessman who has more money than he needs, drives a sleek car, and has more sex than you can possibly imagine.

There are so many other ways this film could have gone, and here's a few. What if his super-intelligence made Eddie Morra smart enough to develop a complex Theory of Everything, but not quite smart enough to complete it, and so he was forced to try and make an even better drug to make himself able to solve the greatest puzzle? What if his unbounded intellect allowed him to uncover an intricate, global conspiracy ala FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM that no-one else is able to see because no one aside from him has the capacity to put all the miniscule clues together? What if the drug he takes eventually tips him over from super-intelligence into madness, destroying a brain that isn't prepared for its kind of super-charged activity? What if Eddie's super-genius results in a lack of interest in contact with other human beings, ala WATCHMEN's Dr. Manhattan? Not all (or any, even) of those ideas are great, but they all flesh-out the conceit in more interesting ways than the film does.

I'm now tempted to go and revisit Francis Ford Coppola's YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH, which is also about a man gifted with super-intelligence, but prizes the quest for truth more than the quest for cash.

Edited by Ryan H., 19 March 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[Attica]

small spoilers.

For me the film ultimately didn't say anything of value, when there were opportunities for it to do so. It ended up saying that super-intelligence can help a person get away with bad moral choices, and then end up on top. But then again, sadly, that may sometimes be true.

[Persona]

I rather enjoyed the ride but for the most part agree with the recent two posts. Those muddy waters are where I'm trying to figure out what is a "good" film sometimes. You hear it all the time - people will say, "Oh, that's a good film!" I did enjoy this film. It might have a bad moral message. I don't know if that makes it a "bad" film or not.

Kinda went off the rails at the end (blood drinking?), and the first twenty minutes were better than the rest.

[Anders]

Persona, on 19 March 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I rather enjoyed the ride but for the most part agree with the recent two posts. Those muddy waters are where I'm trying to figure out what is a "good" film sometimes. You hear it all the time - people will say, "Oh, that's a good film!" I did enjoy this film. It might have a bad moral message. I don't know if that makes it a "bad" film or not.

Kinda went off the rails at the end (blood drinking?), and the first twenty minutes were better than the rest.

Yeah, I mostly agree with Ryan's take on the film. Cooper isn't terrible and the idea is cool, but it doesn't really do anything with it (stock market? *Yawn*).

The film actually was most enjoyable when it went of the rails at the end.

[Attica]

Persona, on 19 March 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I rather enjoyed the ride but for the most part agree with the recent two posts. Those muddy waters are where I'm trying to figure out what is a "good" film sometimes. You hear it all the time - people will say, "Oh, that's a good film!" I did enjoy this film. It might have a bad moral message. I don't know if that makes it a "bad" film or not.

Kinda went off the rails at the end (blood drinking?), and the first twenty minutes were better than the rest.

I thought the film had some good elements to it.... it looked sharp, was edited well, and moved at a sharp brisk pace (fitting with his quick mind), without becoming confusing or overly hurried. It was well acted and did initially deal with interesting ideas and concepts in what was probably a beneficial way, although arguably with an overly fantastical view on these (it wasn't trying to stick all that close to a realistic understanding of the mind).

When we had left the theatre I said to my wife that I thought the film was ok...... but the morality of the ending put a real damper on it for me. In a sense it could be argued that this type of ending was a brave or unique film choice, because our expectations would be for a film like this to have him learn his lessons and turn for the better. But I dunno.... this film ended with a lesson which went against my sense of fairness, and morality, to a point where any unique (twist?) ending was unsatisfying.... and therefore, I suppose, kind of pointless. I mean what is the film's ending really saying that can enhance our understanding of the world.... we already know that people can often act like dinglefritzes and get away with it (at least for awhile).... we don't need to be encouraged to do so.

I think its possible for a film to have a "bad moral message"... but still in that be saying something "good" in that we realize the films bad moral message is indeed not a true message... and we realize that the filmmakers are trying to tell us this. But I don't think this film was trying to do that, and if it was, it didn't succeed.

Edited by Attica, 19 March 2012 - 08:48 PM.

[Ryan H.]

Anders, on 19 March 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Yeah, I mostly agree with Ryan's take on the film. Cooper isn't terrible and the idea is cool, but it doesn't really do anything with it (stock market? *Yawn*).

The film actually was most enjoyable when it went of the rails at the end.

When it goes off the rails, it starts to suggest what this film might have looked like had it been made by David Fincher circa '97-'99.

[Jeremy Ratzlaff]

I find it difficult to imagine how the ending is satisfying to anyone, at all. It was like, "Yeah we just sent you on a maniacal trip through the highs and lows of drug use, now here's a half-hearted conclusion that doesn't justify the rest of the film in any way." There were actually a few moments when I thought the film might really pick up and fly. But, then it crashed and burned instead.

[Persona]

Jeremy, on 19 March 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

I find it difficult to imagine how the ending is satisfying to anyone, at all. It was like, "Yeah we just sent you on a maniacal trip through the highs and lows of drug use, now here's a half-hearted conclusion that doesn't justify the rest of the film in any way." There were actually a few moments when I thought the film might really pick up and fly. But, then it crashed and burned instead.

I don't know. I just can't really see "crashed and burned." Take the moral implications away, and it is a "good" film. lol

Peter T Chattaway, on 16 March 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

Re-posting something I just posted at Facebook:

There's one line in this trailer that has always bugged me, and ruins my ability to believe that this character is a mathematical genius: "I see every scenario. I see 50 scenarios. That's what it does, Karl. It puts me 50 moves ahead of you." But wait a minute, if he can see 50 moves ahead of someone, shouldn't that give him a much, much bigger number of scenarios? Even if every move was a choice between only two options, shouldn't that still give him, what, 1,125,899,906,842,624 (i.e. 2 to the power of 50) scenarios? If he can see only 50 scenarios, doesn't that mean he's only 5 or 6 steps ahead of Karl *at best* (and even less, if there are more than two options with each move)?

Yeaah... so, this is why I actually came back to the thread. I just wanted to say Kudos, PTC. This is freakin' genius... However, in order for me to fully understand it, I think I'd need at least one dose of NZT.

[Jeremy Ratzlaff]

Persona, on 19 March 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Jeremy, on 19 March 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

I find it difficult to imagine how the ending is satisfying to anyone, at all. It was like, "Yeah we just sent you on a maniacal trip through the highs and lows of drug use, now here's a half-hearted conclusion that doesn't justify the rest of the film in any way." There were actually a few moments when I thought the film might really pick up and fly. But, then it crashed and burned instead.

I don't know. I just can't really see "crashed and burned." Take the moral implications away, and it is a "good" film. lol

The ending felt so forced, I was convinced it had to be an alternate. It didn't merely 'take away moral implications'... it was simply terrible! It's like they had a great idea for a movie, and then while into production they had to somehow figure out how to end it. Some endings wreck the rest of what might have previously been a "good" film, and this was one of those.

[Persona]

Jeremy, on 19 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Persona, on 19 March 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Jeremy, on 19 March 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

I find it difficult to imagine how the ending is satisfying to anyone, at all. It was like, "Yeah we just sent you on a maniacal trip through the highs and lows of drug use, now here's a half-hearted conclusion that doesn't justify the rest of the film in any way." There were actually a few moments when I thought the film might really pick up and fly. But, then it crashed and burned instead.

I don't know. I just can't really see "crashed and burned." Take the moral implications away, and it is a "good" film. lol

The ending felt so forced, I was convinced it had to be an alternate. It didn't merely 'take away moral implications'... it was simply terrible! It's like they had a great idea for a movie, and then while into production they had to somehow figure out how to end it. Some endings wreck the rest of what might have previously been a "good" film, and this was one of those.

How could that car crash, and the prediction of it, feel forced?

[Jeremy Ratzlaff]

Persona, on 19 March 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Jeremy, on 19 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Persona, on 19 March 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Jeremy, on 19 March 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

I find it difficult to imagine how the ending is satisfying to anyone, at all. It was like, "Yeah we just sent you on a maniacal trip through the highs and lows of drug use, now here's a half-hearted conclusion that doesn't justify the rest of the film in any way." There were actually a few moments when I thought the film might really pick up and fly. But, then it crashed and burned instead.

I don't know. I just can't really see "crashed and burned." Take the moral implications away, and it is a "good" film. lol

The ending felt so forced, I was convinced it had to be an alternate. It didn't merely 'take away moral implications'... it was simply terrible! It's like they had a great idea for a movie, and then while into production they had to somehow figure out how to end it. Some endings wreck the rest of what might have previously been a "good" film, and this was one of those.

How could that car crash, and the prediction of it, feel forced?

The 'prediction' was only a flashy display of quick observation and calculation on the part of Eddie Morra. I'm talking about the entire last scene, where we're suddenly forced ahead years into the future and Cooper has a different haircut. For me, it was a slap in the face to whatever emotional roller coaster I might have been on for the rest of the film, because it forces a pat answer. I didn't want to see that everything had worked out perfectly for Morra after all, and I didn't care that he was politically successful and that he was independent of De Niro's character. All the bad guys, all the edgy side-effect sequences, all the emotional turmoil... suddenly void of meaning because science made everything perfect.