Limitless (2011)

13 mistakes

(1 vote)

Plot hole: If Bradley Cooper was able to "quintuple" his money every day in the market as he claims to have done, he would have been able to earn the $100k he borrowed from a loan shark within a few days, starting from $800. Alternatively, he is shown in one scene winning a pot in poker where he could presumably also make a large amount of "seed" money from gambling. There was no need to borrow such a small sum of money from a loan shark, making the entire sub-plot unnecessary.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The main character says he did quintuple his money four days in a row, not that he could continue to do so. "Presumably" he could do anything, like robbing a bank. Gambling is not a secure source of income, even with knowledge of the odds and every tell, he could also lose a lot of money.

Continuity mistake: When Eddie is hiding with the golf club, there is a blue chair which got knocked over during the murder. But a few minutes later when Eddie is peeking round the corner to check for intruders, the blue chair is magically standing upright again.

Continuity mistake: When Eddie is eating breakfast and waiting for Van Loon, his hands and the food he is holding change position repeatedly between shots; sometimes his hands are down, sometimes they are holding up some food, and the amount of food he his holding changes too.


Factual error: Immediately after Eddie surfaces following his dive, he rests with his head well above the water. Had he actually been in water deep enough for the dive, he would have floated with his chin about even with the surface.

Factual error: Eddie claims it takes 30s for the drug to take effect. Tablets/capsules do not work within 30 seconds after ingestion. At most, 15mins is the time a drug can be absorbed into the body. This is also noted in the movie reviews.

Character mistake: In the Italian restaurant, Eddie is speaking jibberish, not Italian at all.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: He is speaking Italian.

I am Italian. He is speaking gibberish.

Factual error: During the shootout in the apartment, the blinded henchman fires his handgun 24 times before reloading (and about the same afterwards). Only small-calibre pistols would have that capacity, and the gun he's using isn't one (either to look at and from the bullet holes it causes).

Jon Sandys

Continuity mistake: At the beginning of the movie, when the shot pans up the front of Eddie's building from street level, there is a balcony a few levels before we reach the top. When Eddie looks down from where he is standing and we see the front of the building from his point of view, the balcony is no longer there; the front of the building is now completely flat.

Other mistake: When Eddie leaves his soon-to-be murdered friend's apartment, the apartment door automatically closes behind him. However, when Eddie returns, the door is ajar. It wouldn't be ajar if it were an automatically closing door.

Continuity mistake: When the fight in the apartment occurs Victor is choking Eddie. At the start of the scene the dish sponge he eventually shoved in Victor's mouth is resting beside the sink. When the camera angle changes the sponge is in the sink. When Eddie grabs the sponge it's next to the sink again. (01:20:52)

Continuity mistake: In the restaurant scene at the end of the movie Eddie's flag lapel pin is right side up. The camera cuts to the waiter and when it cuts back to Eddie the flag pin is upside down.

Continuity mistake: Before Eddie dives in to the sea, the sunshine is indicative of midday, but when he is swimming it's more like evening.


Revealing mistake: After Eddie's big dive, as he resurfaces there is a reflection of the water that can be seen above the waterline (on the camera lens).


Carl Van Loon: Your powers are a gift from God, or whoever the hell wrote your life script.

More quotes from Limitless

Question: How does Eddie get away with the apparent murder of the blonde woman in the apartment? I gather that even he doesn't know whether it was him or not but surely the Police would want to at least call him in for questioning at some point? And if it was him, surely, in that situation, it would be difficult to get away without leaving any evidence?

Answer: Although there is no definitive proof, I believe the killer to be Atwood's henchman. During the trip scene we see him following Eddie and the Blonde to their room and although it comes off as an illusion there's no reason it cannot be real. This alone is not enough to say for certain but the main reason I point to the henchman is because of how the story plays out following the murder. Eddie is by an eyewitness (probably someone working for Atwood if not the actual killer) who tells the police about him and as a result he is called into questioning. Because of the inquiry Eddie hires "the best lawyer in the city" who as we know is under Atwood's thumb. It is during this line of questioning the lawyer is able to go into Eddie's jacket and steal his NZT. None of these things would have happened had the Blonde never been killed.


Answer: There was no mention of physical evidence like hairs or fibres, the only evidence the police had was an eye-witness placing Eddie at the scene at the time the murder occurred; the eye-witness failed to I.D. Eddie in the line-up he was called to at the police station so Eddie was released, as the police had no case.


Answer: It was mentioned that the room was wiped clean after the murder. It was probably Atwood who set it all up because he was on NZT and needed some more.

Answer: Did you watch the movie? Lol... Eddie was called in and questioned about the murder. He was able to beat the case because the eyewitness couldn't pick him out of a line-up. Remember, his lawyer arranged to have a line-up full of men that looked just like Eddie.

The point of a line-up is to make everyone look similar to the actual suspect. So, the lawyer didn't do anything shady, and it would have been the police's job to have similar-looking people. A line-up of a mix of people is kind of a movie/TV trope, and the film implying the lawyer rigged the lineup fits into that trope.


More questions & answers from Limitless

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.