Limitless

“Limitless”: Take a pill, become a celebrity

"Limitless" combines awesome effects and laddish porn fantasy -- but can't overcome its irritating star

  • more
    • All Share Services

Bradley Cooper in "Limitless"

Screenplays for Hollywood movies have to be written by somebody, right? And that person could technically be described as a writer. Yet somehow the institutional contempt that the movie business has always felt toward its writers inevitably leaks onto the screen, and we get pathetic losers like Eddie Morra, the wannabe novelist played by Bradley Cooper in “Limitless,” which begins as pseudo-realism before descending into weird and mangled wank-job fantasy. Unkempt, unwashed and unlaundered, Eddie sits around his squalid apartment in New York’s Chinatown pretending to write the novel for which someone (preposterously) has given him an advance, or goes out drinking in bars where he can’t even explain his book’s basic premise to a bunch of befuddled working-class mugs. (From the looks of things, he must take the train to Long Island to go drinking, since the beefy proletarian types he encounters are in short supply in lower Manhattan’s watering holes.)

Eddie’s perky blond girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) gives him the heave-ho, although they never seem much like a plausible couple in the first place. His publisher wants the advance money back, and Eddie knows it’s only a matter of time before he’s back in his childhood bedroom in New Jersey, selling dental equipment for his dad. Then the skeezeball drug dealer who used to be his brother-in-law (Johnny Whitworth, briefly lending some life to the proceedings) gives him a teeny little gelcap, which he claims is an FDA-approved drug making its way to the marketplace. And then: Jumpin’ Jiminy, it’s Christmas in Joo-ly. Eddie bangs the cute Asian landlady to whom he owes three months’ back rent (and numerous other young ladies besides), writes a brilliant novel, learns to speak several languages and becomes a post-Gordon Gekko financial whiz, all apparently before lunchtime the next day. More important still, he gets a $300 haircut and a bunch of high-end designer suits, making him look like far more of an asshole than he did when he was just a garden-variety pretentious failure.

Here’s the problem with this reprehensible but moderately entertaining movie, or at least here’s a way to get a grip on its many problems: NZT, the super-secret blend of chemicals that turns Eddie into a hyper-intelligent Nietzschean Superman, with total recall of everything he’s ever seen, read or heard and powers of observation well beyond that of ordinary mortals, is pretty much the only thing that ever makes “Limitless” fun or interesting. (Yes, that does sound too close to AZT, a well-known anti-HIV drug, and I can’t imagine why they chose to go there, except that this movie’s veneer of knowing slickness is more than canceled out by a thick, fatty layer of stupidity.)

Dosing up on NZT seems to be like doing cocaine, crystal meth and a shot of espresso all at the same time, then topping that off with half a bottle apiece of Ritalin and top-shelf tequila, and having the buzz last for 12 hours instead of promptly resulting in unconsciousness and/or death. As Eddie muses, it’s “a drug for people who want to be more anal-retentive.” It’s like Scientology in pharmaceutical form. Director Neil Burger, cinematographer Jo Willems and their effects team come up with a tremendously cool look for Eddie’s drug highs, enriching the color palette and sending us whooshing through the streets of Manhattan at warp speed or through the synapses of Eddie’s brain. At some moments, “Limitless” is like a dumbass American version of Gaspar Noé’s hallucinogenic “Enter the Void,” with a lot less Tibetan Book of the Dead and a lot more spankin’-the-monkey boy fantasy.

When Eddie’s not conquering the world, though, we’ve got an entirely ordinary rise-and-fall and/or what-doth-it-profit-a-man fable, full of chicks, fancy restaurants, Puerto Vallarta vacations, Russian mobsters and other sinister assailants, and a thoroughly unnecessary and uninteresting supporting performance from Robert De Niro, as a crotchety, Warren Buffett-esque financial tycoon. (Seriously, Bobby: I know the transition to being a late-career character actor is tough, but what are you doing? Picking directors out of the L.A. white pages?) Eddie discovers that the drug has unexpected side effects, including extended blackouts and possible acts of violence, and that nearly everybody else who has taken it has wound up dead. Indeed, “Limitless” begins with a near-literal cliffhanger, as Eddie tells us his story from a ledge outside his luxury apartment building while a bunch of the aforementioned Russian mobsters take a power saw to his steel security door.

But Burger and screenwriter Leslie Dixon (adapting Irish novelist Alan Glynn’s “The Dark Fields”) lack the conviction or the conventional wisdom or whatever you want to call it to stick with that model either. In fact, I’m guessing that “Limitless” was rewritten late in the process at the producers’ behest, since all those plot elements get recklessly pitched overboard as part of a nonsensical conclusion that reasserts the mood of permanent masturbation. Like the abysmal alien-attack flick “Battle: Los Angeles,” this movie is meant as porn-fantasy chicken soup for the wounded American soul. We apparently live in a rapidly declining imperial power whose citizens are fatally divided as to politics but share a singular worldview: that they are all destined to become rich and famous. “Limitless” suggests that you don’t need talent or hard work or a lightning strike of good luck to do that.

Take the right pill, and you too will be bantering with waiters in Mandarin, discussing Shakespeare’s sonnets on the dance floor, wreaking masterful kung-fu vengeance on subway assailants, making millions of dollars a week and shagging skinny French babes in the powder room (in whatever order you favor those things). After Eddie becomes a celebrity pursued by shadowy thugs and New York Post reporters, he hires a pair of beefy security guards, telling them drily: “Wear different colored suits. This isn’t ‘The Matrix’!” He’s wrong about that; this is a version of the Matrix where Neo decides to stay forever, because of all the awesomeness.

There’s a further problem with this movie’s attempt to turn Bradley Cooper into a movie star, which I’ll try to put delicately: He kind of looks like a dick. Cooper is a talented actor, with all the New York theatrical training you could want, and an adept physical performer. He’s well established in comedy after “The Hangover” (with the sequel on the way), and has starred on TV in “Nip/Tuck,” “Alias” and “Kitchen Confidential.” He’s certainly a distinctive-looking guy, with big, vulpine features and close-set, startlingly blue eyes. But I respond to Cooper as if he were trying to sell me a Yugo dealership or a condominium that’s beneath the waters of the Great Dismal Swamp. That’s oddly appropriate to this role, although I don’t think it’s on purpose: Eddie Morra seems like a mendacious creep as a failed writer, whose personality is not improved by wealth, power, Ermenegildo Zegna suits and supreme studliness. If there were some kind of lesson to be gleaned from this mendacious film … but forget it, there isn’t.

 

Should we be popping the “Limitless” pill?

The film's cognitive-enhancing drug isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. Embracing these meds may be a matter of time

  • more
    • All Share Services

Should we be popping the

The movie “Limitless,” which came out on DVD last week, presents a potential future fueled by designer drugs. When we meet the film’s protagonist Eddie Mora (Bradley Cooper), he’s a divorced, disheveled, socially awkward writer who can’t even come up with the first words of his novel. After getting dumped by his girlfriend, Mora runs into his drug-dealing ex-brother-in-law who offers Eddie a solution in the form of a little round pill. Within minutes, the drug transforms Eddie into a brilliant, creative, driven alpha male who quickly and effortlessly completes his long-stalled book.

“Enhanced Eddie” then acquires a stash of these pills and, in rapid succession, cleans himself up, learns Italian, wins back his ex-girlfriend and becomes a celebrity investment banker.

The film’s “miracle” drug may seem far-fetched, but it’s based in a medical reality: Taking certain medications, specifically those developed to treat psychiatric and neurological disorders, can boost cognitive performance in otherwise healthy people.

Many of us instinctively recoil from such an idea for moral reasons. Sculpting our brains, unlike, say, sculpting our noses, seems like cheating. But consider this: 7 percent of surveyed college students (and some 25 percent of those on elite campuses) have taken an unprescribed Ritalin — or a similar drug used to treat attention deficit disorder — to boost their performance on an exam.

And the phenomenon is not restricted to college students trying to raise their grade point averages: The military has a history of encouraging — and sometimes even ordering — soldiers to take Ritalin or Provigil, a drug that boosts alertness. Canadian researchers are now looking at a drug called metyrapone that may help dull the sting of painful memories. Already common is the number of executives who swallow a little dose of Propranolol — which is normally used to treat high blood pressure but has also been prescribed for performance anxiety for many years — to calm their nerves before they speak. And with so many of us already hustling to Starbucks morning, noon and night for shots of caffeine to keep us going, the question arises: Is there a case to be made for cognitive enhancement?

A few years ago, a distinguished group of scholars claimed there was in an essay in Nature:

Human ingenuity has given us means of enhancing our brains through inventions such as written language, printing and the Internet … And we are all aware of the abilities to enhance our brains with adequate exercise, nutrition and sleep … drugs … should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology — ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself.

The writers proposed a series of principles that would help society regulate these drugs responsibly and fairly. These rules stipulated that any mentally competent adult would be allowed to use cognitive enhancing drugs, that professional organizations would develop policies for their prescription and use, that detailed research would be conducted regarding their risks and benefits, and that access to such medications would be provided regardless of socioeconomic status.  

The authors correctly point out that “there is certainly a precedent for this broader view in certain branches of medicine.” Lifestyle drugs like Viagra are an over $30 billion a year business. And then there are substances like caffeine and alcohol that we commonly use as lifestyle drugs — to keep us up, to help us relax, to make us focus, to put us to sleep — even if we don’t think of them that way. There are also those of us — myself included — who take drugs we wouldn’t normally think of as lifestyle drugs and use them as such.  If I’m going to drink a few glasses of wine over dinner, or have an extra cup of coffee to get through my day,  I’ll sometimes pop a Prilosec so that I don’t wake up in the middle of the night with heartburn.

But taking a pill to get an edge for that job interview or ace that test is deeply unsettling. On a visceral level, the idea that we’re “playing God” with our minds disturbs us. There’s also the question of what happens to our sense of accomplishment. What does it mean if achieving your dreams merely means popping a pill?

There are two more concrete arguments as well. First, access to these mind-altering substances would likely (at least initially) be limited to those with the money to afford them. The authors of the essay in Nature try to allay this fear by suggesting, somewhat naively, that every exam-taker have free access to cognitive enhancements “as some schools provide computers during exam week to all students.” But it’s easier to imagine the society predicted by the President’s Council of Bioethics in 2003, where we see “the emergence of a biotechnologically improved aristocracy. [This] is indeed a worrisome possibility, and there is nothing in our current way of doing business that works against it. Indeed, unless something new intervenes, it would seem to be a natural outcome of mixing these elements of American society: our existing inequalities in wealth and status, the continued use of free markets to develop and obtain the new technologies, and our libertarian attitudes favoring unrestricted personal freedom for all choices in private life.”  

Finally, we can’t ignore any known and unknown risks of the side effects of cognitive enhancers. In “Limitless,” we see Eddie become increasingly dependent on his drug, which leads him to visual hallucinations and memory loss. With Ritalin, we worry about sleep disturbances, high blood pressure, weight loss and emotional instability. With Provigil, there are concerns of visual hallucinations, insomnia and depression.

Of course, it’s easy to make these judgments in the abstract. But what if, for example, your child needs a lifesaving but risky and complex 15-hour surgery? Wouldn’t you want that doctor to be as alert as possible throughout the procedure, even if that meant using Provigil or another cognitive-enhancer? Or what if your son is on the ground in Afghanistan? Wouldn’t you want him to be able to take a dose of Ritalin before going on patrol, so he’s sharp and ready to defend himself?  

But regardless of your personal feelings on that matter, our ability to innovate will continue to challenge our sense of morality. We can’t simply pretend that these drugs don’t exist. The writers in Nature deserve credit for being willing to start this conversation. Still, for all of their logic, their biggest fault is their dismissal of the role of human hubris and ambition. Perhaps Eddie Mora says it best: “There are no safeguards in human nature. We’re wired to overreach.”

Continue Reading Close
Rahul Parikh

Rahul K. Parikh is a physician and writer in the San Francisco Bay Area. He wrote the Vital Signs column on Salon in 2008-2009. His pop culture-medical column, PopRx, runs on alternate Mondays.