Rating: 
Summary: Listen Up!
Review: Another great movie with great acting, and another review from dvdowner showcasing once again how he doesn't know acting, talent, and is just trashing good stuff for the heck of it. Pathetic.
Rating:
Summary: The more I watch it the more I like it!
Review: At first I thought this movie was complete crap. Later I realized I had hatred for it because it won the Oscar for Best Picture over two works that probably deserved it more(Fellowship of the Ring and Moulin Rouge). But after repeated viewing I started to really like the film. First I loved the acting. Russell was great, but Jennifer Connelly (WOW!). And the dialouge gets better with every view. Especially when Nash tries to charm a girl with talks of bodily fluids and he gets a normal reaction of any girl who has dealt with a jerk(That part always amuses me). The movie shows that Nash at times is such a jerk. But at other times he has heart and you kinda like him despite the fact that he thought of himself a little too much. One thing that I really still don't like is the ending. But the speech was something to admire especially after all that Alicia and John Nash had been through. Anyway watch with an open mind.
Rating: 
Summary: They hand out awards for terrible work in film...
Review: When I saw this movie, I laughed out loud because it was so bad. Nothing that I saw made me belive that this was taken from real history. All I see is that Crowe can not act. Not now, and maybe never. Ron Howard's direction and casting choices were terrible, must Ed Harris appear in all of Howard's films.? The James Horner recycled music is really getting boring and the Academey should have their votong on the oscars checked over because no one in their right mind would award this filmed piece of garbage anything but being shown the door.
Rating: 
Summary: Russel Crowe and Jennifer Conelly really make a great couple
Review: Well in this drama this mathimitician John Nash (Russel Crowe) is a always focused on his work type of person was having a great life until Charles Herman his imaginary roomate and William Parcher (Ed Harris) an imaginary russian spy comes into mind.And when he met Alicia (Jennifer Conelly) a very nice and attractivewomen came and took him out to dinner and she also decided to marry him and then alot of things changed they had a baby, and then Dr. Rosen the psychaitrist comes and explains to him that Charles and William Parcher are not real and so he has to find out who he'd going to believe Dr. Rosen or William Parcher so it's a beautiful mystery. Winner of 4 academy awards.One for best direcror Ron Howard and Best Actress Jennifer Connely, best picture and best actor Russel Crowe. A Beautiful Miund is a very good moovie
Rating: 
Summary: Great body covering weak mind=A Beautiful MInd
Review: A Beautiful Mind is not a great movie, certainly not 2001's best film, but it's a respectable effort from director Ron Howard, and especially writer Akiva Goldsman, who was partially responsible for the travesty that was Batman and Robin. This biographical drama focuses on the life of John Nash, the genius who developed a radical concept on game theory. I'd rather not say further about the story, since there's a big plot twist halfway through that definitely puts a spin on much of the material that came before it.As most have heard, A Beautiful Mind is largely inaccurate in its depiction of John Nash's life. Did I really care? Not particularly. I'd be a fool to expect a film based on facts to adhere entirely to the truth. Rather, I'm basing my opinion on how well-crafted the movie is, and how well it succeeded on what it was trying to be, that is, a film meant to inspire with its theme of love (and besides, I seriously doubt all the indiscretions of Nash's life would mesh well with that, so I'm wondering if the film's detractors really want to see all of Nash's odd behavior portrayed or if they're just looking for something to complain about). So how does this film come across as a feel good drama? Not bad. First off, I'd like to mention that Ron Howard's direction and Goldsman's screenwriting are easily the film's weakest points, and not deserving of the Oscars they received. As has been evident in previous works, Howard is not a master of subtlety, and as best as he tries, he obviously doesn't have a firm grasp of what's genuinely good drama. A lot of the film's emotional moments are overdone and pure Hollywood; there's typical shouting, crying, and glass-breaking, nothing I haven't seen before. While I have a lot to complain about Howard's direction, he's fine when it comes to pacing and style, and yes, the film itself does look very lovely and polished. Definitely by far the film's weakest segment is in the last ten or so minutes, when we witness Nash age and receive his nobel prize. That alone doesn't sound so awful, but unfortunately, we get a speech that lamely hammers home the movie's message, that of how we must rely on emotion and love over cold intellect to solve our problems and survive in this world. It had already seemed obvious that was what the film had been striving to say throughout its rather lengthy running time, and I sure as hell didn't need Howard to blindly forcefeed the theme in such a manner. Since I've done nothing but complain up to this point, you might wonder why it is I didn't give this film a lower rating. The answer's simple. This all works thanks to Russell Crowe as John Nash and Jennifer Connelly as his wife, particularly the latter, who delivers a magnificent performance worthy of far more screen time (it's all the more disappointing to see that we never even find out what she does for a living, considering she was the one supporting Nash in his later, troubled years). Crowe is in fine form in the lead, both sympathetic and likeable, though some of his tics seem more like obvious attempts at acting rather than genuine eccentric behavior. It's unfortunate the love story between Nash and Alicia isn't even given any sense of build up, she just asks him out without even a hint of a reason for why she finds him attractive (well, Nash here does look like hunky Russell Crowe). Schizophrenia is a disease that's dealt with in the film. I've never studied up much on it, though on my paltry knowledge alone, I probably know far more than most Hollywood (most often, as in the case with Me, Myself, and Irene, filmmakers seem to think schizophrenia is just another term for multiple identity disorder). (moderate spoiler) I don't know how accurate A Beautiful Mind's portrayal of this mental illness is, but the Nash in the movie hardly seems like a true "loony," and the film makes the disease seem a bit easier to handle than it probably is (Nash sees a few people who aren't there, and at one point, even reasons that they can't be there). Much like the rest of the film, the handling of this topic feels Hollywood, but also like the rest of the film, it's handled competently and in an occasionally riveting fasion.
Rating:
Summary: Ron Howard's finest hour.
Review: This is the movie that finally brought Oscar recognition to the hit-film director Ron Howard. His work here is extraordinary in comparison to any of his other films. Many of his other films were perhaps more entertaining (Parenthood, Apollo 13), but his technical filmmaking prowess here has reached a level I would never have imagined. His cast is also first-rate. Jennifer Connely won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, Russell Crowe is so astoundingly believable he could have won as well. He was honored with the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Lead Actor but ultimately lost the Oscar to Denzel Washignton in "Training Day." All the supporting actors fill in any and all potential down spots in the film. Christopher Plummer and Ed Harris bring professional veteran performances, and all the other smaller character parts are well-rounded and admirable. However, and here comes the negativity, the script, while exceptionally adapted from the novel of the same name, is oftentimes too cerebral and mathematically mechanical. This leaves a feeling of detached coldness with an audience predominantly unfamiliar with higher mathematics. Jennifer Connelly's character provides the movie with much needed spirituality and love, which is undeniably helpful, providing the film's buoyancy. Otherwise, this film comes off as technically impressive, with dynamic writing covering the fragility of the human mind, and I'm left wondering "Am I going to be tested on this?" Overall, I own the movie for the impressive acting, solid script, and the pinnacle of Ron Howard's directoral career. This is a unique film in the Ron Howard canon.
Rating:
Summary: Solid Entertainment
Review: More than anything else, this movie made me want to read the book to see how much was true and how much was Hollywood. On the plus side, A Beautiful Mind didn't drag, it was interesting throughout, if not totally believable. Everything looked great, the Princeton and MIT campuses, and especially the makeup (I thought the older Nash looked very convincing). On the minus side, Crowe looked rather muscular to be someone who sat in an office all day thinking. And I suspected that there was a lot more to this story. But you know, those are minor quibbles and to be fair, the movie was entertaining and it made you think, if you wanted to, about the nature of reality, and what we perceive it to be. If you didn't want to get philosophical about it, it was a fine story on a strictly superficial level. And when it comes to entertainment, what more could you ask for?
Rating: 
Summary: Obvious, unimaginative interpretation of a fascinating story
Review: Unfortunately 'A Beautiful Mind' sums up all that is wrong with Hollywood. Director Ron Howard takes the true story of Nobel laureate John Nash (played by Russell Crowe) and retells it in mawkishly sentimental and unconvincing fashion. That mathematical genius Nash overcame acute schizophrenia to win the respect of the academic world is undisputedly a story worth telling. But it is handled so clumsily, that it really does make you laugh out loud sometimes. The cinematic device Howard uses to explain how Nash 'sees' numbers - they mysteriously light up and lift off the page - really could have been a little more complex and imaginative. How the awkward, anti-social, charmless Crowe manages to woo a stunner like Jennifer Connolly (I assume the real Mrs Nash was a little more ordinary looking...) - apparently because he was a numbers genius, which is clearly what all women look for in a man - is again wholly unconvincing. And the make-up artists responsible for ageing Connolly thirty years should be fired immediately! There are some good element to the film. The scene where Nash uses a mathematical hypothesis to maximise his and his friends chances of 'scoring' with some ladies, is amusing. Crowe is actually pretty good in the role, and none of the actors deliver bad performances. The responsibility for such an obvious, cliched interpretation lies squarely on Howard's shoulders, and the fact that he won the best director gong at the Academy Awards says all there is to say about the Academy. Commercialism and sentimentality win out over originality and imagination. Again.
Rating:
Summary: Remarkable performances
Review: This film takes the high road while relating the incredible story of John Nash. The attempt to take the viewer inside of his schizophrenic dellusions is very effective and the empathy aroused by Russell Crowe's masterful performance contributes to the power of this movie. In addition to Crowe, Jennifer Connelly is brilliant and the supporting cast all contribute fine work. This film is far above the standard Hollywood fare and even if portions of it contain innaccuracies it is a film well worth your time.
Rating:
Summary: Must See for Families of Schizophrenics
Review: I watched this film the first time because of it's Academy Award. I bought a copy because this is by far the best portrayal of schizophrenia I have ever encountered. It has become a frame of reference, a tool for communicating with family and friends; they have a means of understanding what I could never explain.
|
