• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Who has seen limmitless?

Sort by date Sort by votes
I liked the first act.... but it sort of fell apart afterwards and the ending is terrible. With all the "limitless" potentials...he became a *spoiler* .... Senator?? And De Niro literally didn't do anything worth remembering and he's my favorite actor. It's sad.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brennanrobideaux said:
I think this tutorial will help. You can use the same technique kinda
http://ae.tutsplus.com/tutorials/vfx/endlessly-zoom-into-your-own-droste-effect/
Click to expand...

Thanks man!

Sweeney Jet said:
I liked the first act.... but it sort of fell apart afterwards and the ending is terrible. With all the "limitless" potentials...he became a *spoiler* .... Senator?? And De Niro literally didn't do anything worth remembering and he's my favorite actor. It's sad.
Click to expand...

I thought the movie was great i personaly like bradly cooper alot and the story was pretty original. The acting was great, i even thought the loan shark had a great role. If only E.Z.N.T. was real :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you go over to reduser forums, the director is talking about how he did this. They are using motorized follow focus and then chaining them in post. The reason the effect is so good is that it's almost all full frame footage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I really enjoyed LIMITLESS. As for DeNiro, how was this supporting role not better than what he did in MACHETE? :lol::D:lol:

I've actually been enjoying a lot of movies lately, including UNKNOWN, THE SOURCE CODE, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'd have to agree that there was a lot of potential squandered in the second and third acts. The girlfriend subplot petered out and, in my opinion, contributed nothing to the main plot's arc. The second-act "downside" to the drug was expected and somewhat cliche. The third-act resolution wasn't convincing and was anti-climactic.

Screenwriter Leslie Dixon adapted Alan Glynn's novel. I didn't read the original novel, and I've come to realize one must NEVER blame a screenwriter for the end-product without being privy to the whole production process. Ergo, you get a pass, Ms. Dixon.

On the other hand, when the finished product is genius, the screenwriter should ALWAYS get all the credit!

:D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I loved it. The pseudo-gritty vibe reminded me immediately of Fight Club, but after the second act, I really had to wonder where the story was going. I was hoping for a large scope and scale in a story called "Limitless," but despite some here-and-there disappointment, it was a fun, well shot, well acted sci-fi-ish fling.

Seems like there's a trend out in Hollywood studios currently towards smaller-scale suspense stories that place intrigue over scale. Twilight Zone-style storytelling. I like it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
At first when I started watching this film, I got pretty scared, because in act 1 it was almost an 80% match for a project I'd been working on for years, called transparency filter. For a minute, I thought someone had beat me to the punch, and all my work was gone.

Then came act 2 and 3. After thinking through where this scenario would likely go, this film appeared as a dud firework. I really liked it, don't get me wrong. It's just that they took an idea that could be as epic as star wars, and turned it into something that happens between a few people in a neighborhood. Take an idea that could would undoubtedly change the course of human history, and have it culminate into a guy with a bat chasing the protagonist? I'm sort of questioning if the writers need some of their own fictitious pills.

For those that are younger, these type plotlines originate primarily from Daniel Keys famous novel "Flowers for Algernon" which was at one point made into the film "Charlie". Ultimately, you'd probably enjoy Limitless more, but there's a movie coming in the future that takes this concept to a whole new level....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top