Ebert, Limited

Maybe it's not fair to mock Roger Ebert for his faulty film analysis. The guy's been through a lot these last few years.  Also, he sees every film that comes out--if I reviewed hundreds of movies a year I'm sure there'd be plenty of nits to pick.

It's just that he so often seems to miss basic plot points.  Whenever I see a film and then read his review, I wonder if he was paying attention, or did I miss something.

For instance, from his review of Limitless:

The difference here is that Eddie Mora remains himself before and after, and all that changes is his ability to recall everything he ever saw or heard. “Limitless” assumes that would be a benefit and make him rich, but what if most of what he ever saw or heard about Wall Street was wrong (as it usually is)?  The movie sidesteps the problem that what we need is more intelligence and a better ability to reason, not a better memory.

Maybe I got it wrong, but this wasn't my impression.  The pill that Eddie Morra (that's two r's, Roger) takes in Limitless does, in fact, improve his intelligence and ability to reason. Yes, he has access to everything he's ever seen or heard, but he also knows how to use it. I had some problems with the plot, but the premise, which seems to be Roger's main complaint, worked fine.