Short but Sweet review: Limitless (2011)

Director: Neil Burger
Script: Leslie Dixon (screenplay), Alan Glynn (novel)
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, Anna Friel, and Abbie Cornish

When it was originally released, the concept of "Limitless" (2011) did intrigue me, and now, having finally watched the film, I am having trouble remembering why. Here it is:

The trailer draws you in, and combined with Kanye Wests song 'Power' it leaves the viewer willing to spend the extra hundred and two minutes of their time to watch the entire film.  In his song, Kanye West states: 'no one man should have all that power', and in "Limitless" Bradley Cooper  proves Mr West right as Cooper demonstrates that he should not be given any sort of power, in pill form or otherwise, as he doesn't have a clue how to use it in an entertaining way.

The film is based on the techno-thriller novel, "The Dark Fields" by Alan Glynn. Bradley Cooper plays Edward Morra, a struggling writer who is having trouble keeping up with fast paced New York city. He hasn't written a word of his book, he is divorced with an ex-wife and then dumped by his new girlfriend at the start of the film; with no motivation and enthusiasm his life is grey and this is highlighted through the use of blue/grey tint in the frames in the cinematography. After a chance encounter with his ex-brother in law he is introduced to a new drug known as NZT, which he has been led to believe was FDA approved and had passed clinical trials. According to sources, NZT enhances brain usage and allows the user to access information and old memories and extort it to their best advantage. Yes, it sounds all very scientifically plausible. Morra takes the clear pill and his outlook on life changes (along with the cinematography, as the colours in the frame brighten up with warm yellow and orange tones in contrast to the grey). It turns out the pill hasn't been tested at all, and soon Morra becomes addicted. However whilst on NZT, Morra manages to finish his book, get his girlfriend back, learn several languages, and win over various influential people helping him land a high profile job in the stock market. The downside to the drug however is that it can send the brain into overload- so the users memory becomes disconnected and oh... if you do not continue to take the drug you become critically ill and die.

The marketing team who spread the word about the film  went to great lengths not just to promote the film but they also created a website advertising the drug itself. The website for NZT looks incredibly professional and would definitely succeed in convincing people to buy into the product. If anything, NZT is a reflection of the many drugs that people consume today: there's the cups of coffee providing the energy to wake up in the mornings, the cigarettes to take a de-stresing break in their busy schedules, and the easily accessible paracetamol to reduce the headaches. It is just how the world works nowadays- everyone is unwillingly relying on some sort of drug. This is highlighted in the film by the fact that the pill is clear, giving the impression that anything could be inside it. Nevertheless the (slight) reference to how people fuel their daily lives does not mask the fact that the film itself is lacking in-well- pretty much everything that a decent film requires. 

Firstly the narrative is flawed: drugs for an aspiring writer? how original! But then Morra's writing and his novel seem to take a back seat and then he moves into finance. Of course! where else would an aspiring writer go? Granted it is where the money is, but he has all these capabilities with enhanced brain usage and he is in a film where the possibilities are (sorry for saying) limitless and he chooses to go into finance? how dull. The film is very predictable and as the famous saying goes: 'mo money, mo problems', and sure enough Morra is led into trouble. He is being followed by a random killer stalker who seems to lose interest at the end of the film, and at the same time Morra is being chased by a Russian money lender, who also becomes addicted to NZT and begins injecting the drug instead, as it gets into the blood stream faster (side note: if the drug really did enhance brain usage why didn't Morra jump on the injecting bandwagon). For me, however, the most ridiculous part of the film was when Morra has to drink the blood flowing out of the shot moneylenders' body to survive, as the blood contains (aswell as other fluids) NZT in it. Yep it happens, and it makes me cringe inside.

The films flawed story line is not the only reason why the film doesn't deliver. Bradley Coopers acting leaves a lot to be desired. From the concept of the film I imagine him to be a cross between a drug fuelled Hunter S. Thomson character and slick Christian Bale in "American Psycho" (2000). Cooper was neither and overall rather bland as a character; he is boring on and off the drug and is really lacking in character definition making it hard for the viewer to form an opinion and like him. The script is not witty (in the slightest) and lacked the sophisticated 'hard' edge that the film seems to desperately seek. For other ways in which "Limitless" is flawed click here. Finally, and possibly the defining moment in which I decided there was no way I could enjoy the film ever again, was when Bradley Cooper talks down to Robert De Niro. Please. How ridiculous is that? So for a film with a drug that claims to boast a 'recipe for grandeur' it falls short on its promise and doesn't offer a "sparkling cocktail of useful information" as Cooper claims it does in the film. 

Verdict: Disappointing. Maybe watch, if you've literally got absolutely not-a-thing to do with your life.

The philadelphia story vs. High Society: just a little bit of history repeating

The other week, whilst visiting my family in Rome, I watched one of my favourite films: "Sabrina" (1954) with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. I couldn't help thinking how much more I preferred the 1954 version better than the remake in 1995 with Harrison Ford and Julia Ormond- probably because Audrey Hepburn and Bogart just ooze class and are on different levels from Ford and Ormond, but also I am always weary of remakes of films and songs etc and have always believed that the original is the best.  So, with the recent release of "The amazing Spiderman" (2012) so close to the Sam Raimi version with Tobey Maguire and Kristen Dunst, it got me thinking about how fast the turnover of similar, or a exact reproduction of the same film is distributed to the public. One benefit of these 'copies' (as they can be called I suppose) is that the audience get to see the different ways that various directors and producers adapt the same narrative. Who knows...maybe Andrew Garfield, the new Spiderman, embodies the role of the well known superhero much better than Tobey Maguire. I haven't seen the film and so am yet to judge.

Moving on, talking about remakes, the other week I watched the critically acclaimed "High Society" (1956). Safe to say, there could hardly be any room for error with Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Grace Kelly and Louis Armstrong as the cast members. But as the film progressed, I slowly realised that I recognised the story, almost word for word: an upper class woman, who had been previously married to a childhood friend, about to be remarried to a self-made man, and a journalist and photographer who are both trying to get-the-scoop on the wealthy socialites wedding. After some searching it came to me, "High Society" was a remake of "The Philadelphia story" (1940), another favourite, starring Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant.

"The Philadelphia story" (1940), directed by George Cukor, is based on the broadway play written by Philip Barry. Barry originally wrote the main character, the socialite Tracey Lord, for Katherine Hepburn herself and the role suits her perfectly. The film is a classic example of the screwball comedy of the 30s and 40s. The film proves once again that the Katharine Hepburn-Grant duo can not be separated on the silver screen; not even by the charming James Stewart who plays the journalist, Macaulay Collins, who also falls in love with the socialite. Stewart uses fiery poetry to try to enchant Hepburn in the scene below:

"High Society" is the musical version of Barry's play and "The Philadelphia story", directed by Charles Waters. The film incorporates the popular songs of Cole Porter, such as "Well, did you evah! (what a swell party this is)" and "Who wants to be a millionaire?"sung by the cast members. In addition, the actors endorse the elegant fashion in the same way as the characters in "The Philadelphia story", but one can see the shift in iconic style from the 40s to the 50s- not just in the fashion but also in the grandeur of the mansions. There are some critics who claim that Grace Kelly mimicks Katherine Hepburns' take on the character far too much; but Grace Kelly, coming from a high society background herself, knows very well the airs and graces of a woman with money. A scene from "High Society" is shown in the clip below. Frank Sinatra plays the same character that James Stewart played in "The Philadelphia story". Instead of poetry, Sinatra uses his voice to sing the bewitching "You're sensational" to win Kelly over:

Both scenes are well performed and directed in their own right. Watching both films, it is clear that Charles Waters took Philip Barrys' narrative and added his own touches to this fantastic love story- that has been (and still is) repeated and/or adapted in the rom-coms of today. In addition "High Society" was Grace Kellys' final film before she became the Princess of Monaco, and this also added to the films success. Both films were distributed by MGM but, unlike the two productions of "Sabrina" where I could clearly distinguish which version I preferred, it seems to be more difficult to choose a favourite between "The philadelphia story" and "High Society". Using just the two scenes above it seems to be a choice between James Stewart reciting poetry and Sinatra admiring you and calling you 'sensational'- and I can't seem to choose! With both films being alluring for different reasons it becomes clear why they were advertised as two separate films in the first place.

The commercial success of "The Philadelphia story" and "High Society" highlights why producers and directors will continue to remake films with the same narrative- and it's not only because they can take money from a new generation who might not have heard of the original story. Narratives can be restyled and refreshed by adding different musical scores, lines adjusted by new witty scripts and changing the lineup with current celebrities of the time, not to mention improved graphics with new technology. Thus who knows...maybe fans of the old Spiderman movies will also become fans of the new "The amazing Spiderman" (2012) and appreciate both films in their own right; after all, it's just a bit of history repeating. 

What else is there?

Well, according to the Finnish director Tino Vuorensola there are Nazis in space. His new film, "Iron Sky" (2012) is about a group of Nazis who have been living for more than 70 years on the moon, more specifically the 'dark side of the moon,' having escaped the crumbling Third Reich after 1945 and by 2018 they have built the Fourth Reich, a secret space centre, and they are planning to invade earth. So...what is to be done with a film that concerns Space Nazis, was primarily funded by a group of fans and refused to be distributed in many UK cinemas? Watch it, of course. I went into this film with an open mind and with the general attitutde I maintain towards most films (albeit for this film I was more dubious than usual). Nevertheless I was quite surprised and I have an inckling that "Iron Sky" is set to become a cult classic.   

What does "Iron Sky" have to offer? It appears to be a genre mish-mash of sci-fi, comedy, a war epic and in a strange way, it's also a political satire. The film begins with American astronauts landing on the moon and discovering a Nazi space base. One of them, James Washington, is captured by the Nazis and used for experiments by a scientist strangely resembling Eienstein. Using Washington's (very technologically advanced) mobile phone the Nazi scientist manages to generate enough power to get the engines of the spaceship working. Therefore the major general, Klaus Adler, decides to make a trip to earth on a secret takeover mission. The teacher to the young Space Nazis about earth, Renete Richer, travels to earth for a different reason- to spread peace. She believes that Chaplin's famous film "The great dictator" (1940) is a short film about Nazi ideology spreading throughout the world (through the globe scene) and that the swastika is a symbol of peace. Washington eventually shows her the real truth about the National Socialist Party. The American President, who does indeed strongly resemble Sarah Palin, discovers Klaus Adler's takeover plan and declares war; because after all, any American President who starts a war in their first term gets re-elected (as the film points out). In the end, a somewhat natural order is restored (which ever way that can be taken in a film as bizarre as this). Parts of the film are not very polished with its overuse of stereotypes and cliché lines like 'take me to your leader,' but when all comes to pass I'm all for Charlie Chaplin's "The great dictator" (1940) still being appreciated in 2018.

'Nazis in space! what the f*** is this?'  But surprisingly the concept is not as far fetched as it seems- in the sense that other people have thought about Space Nazis before Vurensola's film release rather than it's a widely acknowledged fact, obviously (I'm not crazy, I swear). What is an accepted fact is Operation Paperclip- an American led project after WWII where over 700 Nazi scientists were employed by the American goverment in order to win the race against the Soviet Union and gain access to the Nazis techonological secrets. In 1930s German scientists began the 'Amerika Bomber' project where they would develop a suborbital bomber spacecraft known as Silbervogel (aka 'silver bird') to drop bombs on New York City. The design never materialized but after the war the forward thinking Nazi scientists designing these technologies were highly sought after for their advanced research. In the meantime, Robert A. Heinlein, in 1947, published 'Rocket Ship Galileo'; a science fiction novel regarding three American teenagers who travel to the moon only to find Nazis residing there. More recently, and perhaps, one of the more influential ideas came from Richard C. Hoagland- a man who in a recent radio transmission stated that he believed Obama cancelled the Lunar Program because he was warned by none other than the Space Nazi's themselves: "there's a war going on upstairs" he states, 'a Space Nazi civil war'. So it seems Space Nazi's have been suspected for a while.

However, if there is one thing this film advertises is the increasing popularity in using crowdfunding and crowdsourcing for Independent directors who do not have a Hollywood Budget. The film, which is a co-production between Finland, Germany and Australia was funded through sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo which handle fund-raising and then OpenIndie helps find and build audiences. This method of raising funds is becoming increasingly popular in the UK and Europe but is still illegal in the US. For “Iron Sky” the budget was around €7.5m, and although the fans may have payed a huge chunk of this, Mr Vuorensola was still determined to have the last word in regards to the film as he states: "this has nothing to do with democracy...this is a pure dictatorship." One bonus for the fans is that through Vuorensola's website (wreckamovie.com) they can request screenings in their area in advance, and help with with given tasks such as recording the background audio or design graphics work. The overall importance of crowdfunding is that it helps build a dedicated fan base for the films release and I believe it will become a popular method of raising support for many 'indie' films made in future years. "Iron Sky" will continue to accumulate fans, as using Nazi representations in films will always attract an audience. There are two reasons for this: firstly people feel guilty about the whole ordeal and want to try and understand why it happened and secondly Nazis represent pure evil so brilliantly it's always compelling to watch. I am not suggesting that this film will be for everyone, but with an average of three out of five stars on film rating sites such as imdb and rotten tomatoes it's definitely watchable, and effectively demonstrates how to stretch a budget. Thus, I leave you with the trailer: