Limitless is a good enough movie. Good enough for a world of cinema dominated by social justice and post-apocalypse. Sure, there are the standard, nit-picky, potholes that accompany every sci-fi movie, but the most significant omission is the “Super-Hero Factor”.
Yes, that may seem a bit obnoxious, considering that, other than social justice and post-apocalypse, Super Heroes occupy all of the remaining space on the big-screen (which, currently, just so happens to manifest itself as post-apocalyptic social justice) but at the heart of every super-hero story (and the right fan will tell you such) is the ‘hero’. Limitless fails to make one.
One might be able to chalk it up to an aversion of expectations if only the “lack of a hero” wasn’t, itself, already terribly played out. The uniqueness of this story, however, is that it could’ve so very easily had one. The main character was far from evil and only needed a pinch of virtue to catapult his story from mediocre to good, and thus the movie.
To put it bluntly, my biggest issue with the movie was, perhaps, the creators’ main intent; which was that the main character shows no reason why his experience with the miracle drug was so much better than all the others. He was not the first to encounter the drug, but does appear to be the only one able to ‘control’ it. There is no good reason, depicted, why he faired so much better with the drug than all those that came before him.
We can set aside the lack of explanation as to how or why his ex-brother in law even had it, why someone with access to so much of their brain couldn’t figure out, sooner, how it would effect them, or how his sick rival found out that he had it and why he wouldn’t come up with a better attack plan than “send a solo goon”. The story must go on and suspension of disbelief is a hallmark of the genre. But you gotta give us a ‘why’. Why he handled it so much better than those other folks. Why this guy, and not the last guy, or the next guy, is the right one. Why he was able to do what the others couldn’t, and why he SHOULD.
Even if the vision the creators were going for was one in which addiction to success was just as dangerous as any other or, perhaps, that addiction doesn’t have to be negative, the presence of a hero would help to tell that story.
I fear that the reason there is no “why” is precisely why(unintentional) the film industry stinks in present day. They couldn’t give him a ‘why’ because in order to do so would mean abandoning their nihilistic attempt to “subvert all expectations”. In order to ‘subvert expectations’ in current day’s idiotic view, everything must be turned over. Everything must be thrown out. And the problem with this (that anyone who’s thought about it for more than 10 minutes) is that when you do that, nothing makes sense. Nothing means anything anymore and whatever point you were trying to make is replaced by an unpleasant emptiness.
And that, I suppose, is my criticism of present-day cinema. Everything leaves a person feeling empty. Hollywood is so predictable in their efforts to be unpredictable and the product is not fun. It’s not enjoyable. It’s aimless and hollow.
But, like I said at the beginning, the movie is good enough. There are hints of good. It’s well-acted with great cinematography and a concept full of potential. Like a 21st century, state-of-the-art Tin Man. It’s just missing a heart.
AgingMillenial 