A good, but unfortunately forgettable thriller

Rating: 7/10 (31 March 2011)

I saw this film a week after it was released. Everyone who saw it with me had the same general feeling. "It was pretty good, but I've seen a lot better." Although I love the concept of a pill that allows gives the user access to their full brain capacity, it didn't have enough in it to give it some kind of legacy.
It was much better than I thought it would be. Bradley Cooper is actually a charming and relatable lead. He truly is the lead, the rest of the cast (except for a delightfully evil dude played by Andrew Howard) had nothing to them. They served as plot devices to get the film from point A to B. Even Robert De Niro was just in it for the quick and easy paycheck. The reason none of the secondary characters were interesting was that, for one thing, it centers around Cooper's character (I can't complain about that), and also, because it just had too many characters. None of them were really annoying, they just really didn't do anything to make them more interesting. I have to say that I do respect the film's decision to kill off the only mildly irritating character quickly and efficiently.
"Limitless" tries to dip into every genre. I really respect anyone who attempts to do this. My favorite movie, "Tremors", uses comedy, action, horror, sci-fi, romance and western elements, and hits each genre with high success. Director Neil Burger ("The Illusionist") tries to hit multiple genres and only has mild success with each. However, nothing seemed forced, which is good. The tense moments flow nicely with even the silliest moments. For example, a scene where a small child is used as a weapon (which is actually the most memorable and amusing part of the film).
I give it a 7/10 for being an effective, smart and tense thriller. I respect it for mixing genres (even though I have seen much better). Overall it was well made, fuelled by good direction and a good performance by the lead. I liked how it romanticized the drug (on it: bright and colorful, off of it: grey and bleak). Good message for the kiddies. But it is counter-acted when it shows the negative effect of the drug. I liked the political correctness of it all.
The final word: It kept my attention for the whole runtime. It had a few flaws, which made it mediocre. To be honest, I would be fine never seeing it again. It's an effective and entertaining movie, so you should see it, but only once. In a way, it is what every movie should be, something that you enjoy while it lasts, then you move on to the next movie. But if every movie was as efficient as that, there would be no such thing as "classics". That is this film's main flaw, nothing that could make it a "classic". But I know that the image of that little girl being twirled around and used as a slashing device, will always stay with me.
7/10. Little girls will be the 21st century equivalent to katanas.