DT
27Apr12
Spot-on.
I wonder when was the first time directors find it super cool to write shit on windows.
Fantastic first half of textbook biopic storytelling until a fatal twist that causes the film to over-indulge in nonsensical "love wins in the end" shit. The fact the latter half isn't even true jeopardized the first half, but really the whole film is jeopardized by the fact everything that happens in the end is predictable, nostalgic mediocrity.
Unbearable mediocrity. Howard sucks, the Skinheaded Gladiator-Like geek of Crowe sucks and the original life of Nash was totally different from this "love-conquers-all" dispicable horse-shit. But this is just a humble opinion.
inner confusion and loss never depicted better in a film. Someone beating a huge barrier and still dealing with it to this very day. There's hope for all us slightly mad people out there.
One of the mediocre best picture winners of the 2000s. Pretty much forgettable. Russell Crowe is now one of the actors I avoid.
One of Ron Howard's more tolerable films. The makeup at the end of the film was so terrible, and I think it may have been Oscar nominated as well.
The actors give respectable performances but I found this film's perspective on Nash's condition to be over-simplified and dare I say, over-romanticized. And I'm sure the real-life challenges of living with him -- undiagnosed, untreated -- weren't as simple as depicted.
As a movie itself, it isn't bad. On the contrary, it's actually one of the better pieces in Ron Howard's long and horrible filmography. My only problem with it was that as a biopic, it fails to truly capture John Nash in his entirety. That much just proves Ron Howard's fear of making a movie that really challenges its viewer to think.