Limitless

Limitless grows more stupid as the screenwriter runs out of pills. The idea on which the film is based is used skilfully at first and Burger succeeds in filling the holes in the logic (and in the chosen form of the narrative) with a boatload of optical effects. As the minutes pile up, the very simple initial situation begins to show signs of wearing thin until the people behind the camera seriously have no idea what else they can squeeze out of it (in the climax, they basically take a blind shot in the dark), at which point the film ends. The underused potential of the central premise is revealed by the cautious stab at politics just before the closing credits roll. If the plot had unfolded in this direction from the beginning, without the cheap subplot involving an Eastern European taxidermist desperately passed off as the main plot, Neil could have given us a nicely biting satire for our hour and forty minutes instead of another toothless thriller. 60% (03/26/2013)

I'm debating the whole way out of the cinema whether to give it the full 5 stars or just 4 stars. Since the film had a few weaker moments at the beginning, I'm giving it 4 stars. At times I felt like a blotter that can't take in any more liquid because it's too full. At times it was really crazy and rushed and I couldn't keep up. The "licking" camera was getting to me and it’s a wonder it didn't make me dizzy. The scene where Cooper drinks blood from the ground was really good! Everyone in our row put their hands in front of their eyes. The NZT idea was fully exploited and I'm actually an enthusiastic viewer. (04/24/2011)

Limitless features an interesting and valuable subject that had great potential for a truly top-notch sci-fi thriller. However, this potential was wasted by an average screenplay that dealt with the subject in the easiest and least risky way for producers, resulting in a technically polished and professionally directed thriller, but one that also amounts to quite an undemanding popcorn movie with logical gaps. It is necessary to ask why the distribution of a commercially extremely interesting drug collapses after the death of the only dealer. How is it possible that the only user manages the correct dosage, and why can users who are pumped by chemicals that greatly enhance cognitive performance not obtain the appropriate substance from the manufacturer given their intelligence quotient? Not to mention that competition between individual geniuses themselves would have much greater potential. However, that would require an extra intelligent screenwriter who would probably have to be on the drugs himself. Many others have mentioned the quality of the cinematography and dynamic direction, and I agree with that and give the film a weaker 4 stars, noting that it could have been significantly better. Overall impression: 70%. (10/18/2011)

Say yes to drugs? Limitless is a decently made, but ordinary, sometimes very stupidly naive fairy tale with a blatantly messed up ending (I really don't think one needs any special finesse to hit another person in the head with a TV, or to put a dish brush in his mouth). But the film thankfully has a likable Bradley Cooper, and Robert De Niro, although he doesn't have much to do this time and is in the film mainly to be in it. They say the book is better. I'd like to believe it, but I don't want to read it. God knows who wrote it and under what influence. (08/20/2011)

A smart and nicely psychedelic film with skilled cinematography and several excellent dialogue scenes, a few visual effects, and some high-quality finesse. It loses a bit of breath by the end, and I felt throughout that although the main character has an impressive vocabulary, he is extremely unlikeable, whether he is a loser or a superstar. De Niro is a Maybach is fine, in one of his typical roles, otherwise the topic is rather non-standard and attractive, with good ideas, but feels unfinished. (07/23/2011)