Friday, October 7, 2022


March 18, 2011 by · 3 Comments 

The premise of Limitless has, well, limitless possibilities, most critics agree. What if a pill were discovered that could cause your brain to use the other 80-90 percent of its capacity that, it is said, usually lies dormant? The problem, the critics say, is that 80-90 percent of the movie’s potential remains rather limited. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Tribune puts it this way: “The movie is not terrifically good, but the premise is intriguing.” Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune observes that parts of the movie “are exciting; other parts are familiar or fuzzy-headed.” Phillips does not indicate the proportion of each, but he does praise screenwriter Leslie Dixon for doing “a smart and often witty job,” then concludes: “I wish it didn’t get quite so movie-stupid toward the end, with the violence. And I wish it had the guts to stay tough minded.” That’s generally the so-so reaction of most critics. “Limitless is absurd but entertaining action-adventure escapism,” Rex Reed observes in the New York Observer. “The disappointment is that for all of the possibilities, Limitless never gets beyond ‘limited,’ writes Betsy Sharkey in the Los Angeles Times. And Wesley Morris in the Boston Globe comments that if the filmmakers had taken a little risk, they might have produced “a stronger, stranger, darker movie.” However, he concludes, “The movie, instead, is merely a manic entertainment.”