Rating: 
Summary: A superb performance by Crowe
Review: From the perspective of the working mathematician, the good news is that a major feature film blockbuster was made about a mathematician. The bad news is that the major reason it was made was due to his mental illness. John Nash is a mathematician whose work in the theory of games won him a Nobel Prize in economics, and yet he suffers from mental illness that was so severe that he sometimes literally lived in another world.
Mathematically speaking, the producers do as good a job as possible of explaining the significance of Nash's work. Using the model of lecherous graduate students cooperating in an attempt to woo the sexual favors of a beautiful woman made for a very funny scene. Some of the scenes are very intense, and there are times when you really do not know what is portraying accurate events and what is simply due to the actions of Nash's mind. Russell Crowe is superb as John Nash, he plays all scenes very well, especially those where he is acting out the fantasies.
As is always the case, the producers use a great deal of poetic license in portraying the actual events of Nash's life. Nevertheless, there are some scenes that are very accurate and that math professors can relate to. The later scenes of him in a classroom and when his colleagues pay tribute to him are very touching and do accurately portray the life of a professor. I feel that all mathematicians should watch this film. Not for the mathematics or the history, but for the realization that the public will appreciate a good story, even if it involves a schizophrenic mathematical genius.Charles Ashbacher, co-editor, Journal of Recreational Mathematics
Rating: 
Summary: A beautiful movie with few flaws.
Review: This is a movie that recieved Academy Awards for a reason, it's much better than I thought it was going to be. The best thing about this movie is the AMAZING acting. You would think that Russell Crowe was really like that and they just filmed him one day. Jennifer Connely was just as good as his wife. It was a great movie, but it was just a little too slow for me. Oh well, the great story made up for that.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Believe the Hype
Review: The praise heaped onto "A Beautiful Mind" befuddles me. This film, who's only redeeming quality is Russell Crowe's marvelous performance(Say what you want about the man's personal life, you cannot deny that he can act), is dull and lifeless. In fact, without that performance, the film is little better than a TV movie of the week. The story, following the life of Mathmatician John Nash, is plagued by the dull pacing and scant charachterization that only Akiva Goldsman, the writer of such classics as "Lost in Space" and "Batman & Robin", can provide. Only the Nash charachter is given any insight, as Jennifer Connelley's charachter, Nash's wife Alicia, is little more than a cipher, her reasons for loving Nash never explained, as Nash appears downright unlovable. I would say that her winning an Oscar for this and Crowe's being passed over is akin to Kim Basinger winning for "LA Confidential" and Crowe not even being nominated, except that "Confidential" was so much better a film, that the comparison would be insulting. The direction is standard Ron Howard, which is to say workmanlike, hetting the job done, with few stylistic flashes, and not much else. He fails to elicit much from any actor besides Crowe, and since Crowe has publicly said that Opie let him "be himself"(read: let him do whatever he wanted), the director deserves little of teh credut he gets. Make no mistake, I like most of Ron Howards movies, but have never considered them Oscar Worthy, with the exception of Apollo 13, which was had a superior script and superior actors. The biggest problem with the story is in how Nash overcomes his mental problems. He goes, in a montage, from being a paranoid to a nobel winner without any explination for his progress besides "love". Cute, but it doesn't wash. There is much to Nash's battle with his demons to be praised, but the movie glosses over the "how" so that it can show you how great what he did was. If only they showed how he did it. In the end, Crowe was the only one worthy of an award for this film. Everything else is plain and uninvolving. It is an average film at best, and without Crowe, wouldn't have won a single award, or have been noticed at all. Too bad he picked the role.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely the years best film
Review: This movie was excellent. I had no idea of the true story behind this movie, so how the producers introduced the characters (both real and imagined) was exceptional. I normally don't watch drama's, however, this is a must own.
Rating:
Summary: Waffling (probably should be 3 1/2 stars) and Straddling
Review: After watching this movie last night, I am somewhere between the "This Movie was Pile of garbage" and the "It Won Best Picture So It Must Be the Best Movie Ever" crowds. . . . I purchased the book several years ago, and it looked absolutely fascinating. It looks even better now. If this movie did nothing else, it inspired and motivated me to put the book by Sylvia Nasar way higher on my reading list for next summer. Nash is/was obviously a tremendously complex man, regardless of his disorder, and to convey those complications in a two-hour movie is virtually impossible. Howard took the easier road and omitted a pile of details regarding their marriage, some of Nash's personal views, etc., probably for the better. Real scholars will read the book and get the "real" story from the biography; the casual moviegoer got a fascinating glimpse into the extraordinary life of a tormented genius. What bumps my review up from three to four stars were the extras on the DVD. Seeing the real footage of Nash accepting his Nobel Prize was a beautiful addition to the film, brief though it was. I'd love to have seen and heard Nash's acceptance speech in that footage. Some of Ron Howard's commentary, particularly as he described the deleted scenes and how/why they were left out, was very interesting. They made the move of the two-disc format by piling on a bunch of extras, more of which I'll be exploring this afternoon and tonight. Did Howard and Crowe manage to portray the "beautiful mind" of John Nash in their limited opportunity? I'll leave that to the more irate and gushing reviewers. Is it a "Pile of garbage"? No. Is it "The Best Movie Ever"? No. It is ambiguously somewhere in between, probably on the higher end of the spectrum--I've seen movies try to achieve more with less success. . . . Bottom Line: This movie kept me intrigued, off-base, guessing, and engaged for its entirety. Not all movies can do that. It also prompted and piqued my interest in the book, wherein I will obviously find a more thorough, detailed, and complete picture of John Nash's life. Take a Hollywood movie for what it is: a Hollywood movie. . . .
Rating: 
Summary: overall, a decent movie...
Review: But, it deviated so much from true events. Ron Howard should have respected Mr. Nash's life, and not attempt to make this a moral story of triumph over mental illness. The biography is much more interesting. I recommend the book.
Rating:
Summary: The best Ron Howard movie to date
Review: Howard's latest movie, and winner of several awards, concerns the genius, home life and mental illness of John Nash (Crowe). Taking us through his college years up to when he won the Nobel Prize, 'A Beautiful Mind' is an assured, open and often very moving film. Crowe proves that his performances in 'Gladiator' and 'The Insider' weren't flukes, with a showy but bravely unsympathetic role. Many decried that playing the madman was an easy option, which maybe would have been the case with any lesser actor, but anyone who watches Crowe in the early scenes, a bumbling, nervous, self-righteous college graduate can testify that this was certainly no easy option. Indeed, shrugging off the action stereotype that might have come with his last role was surely no easy feat but Crowe makes you forget Maximus of Spain completely here. Of course, that isn't wishing to forget the dazzling tour de force that is Jennifer Connelly. Watching her act, the word 'actress of a generation' often springs to mind, and like Crowe she has proven her determination not to be typecast. Her role here is as far removed from her performance as drug-addled Marion Crane in 'Requiem For A Dream' as it could possibly be. A lesser performer may have been tempted to simply allow the script do the work (after all, she could basically have been a mere housewife) but it is in the reflection of Nash's madness in his wife's eyes that makes it so horrific. You get the feeling that the occasionally unrealistic portrayal of schizofrenia have been made more romantic (there is only about one hospital scene) so as to ensure that the movie's rating was kept down. However, through two magnificent performances the audience is allowed a real insight into not just how madness affects one person but the people around him. Whilst Howard's earlier movies such as 'Apollo 13' were assured but ultimately formulaic, he really shows himself to be a very talented director indeed on this which is probably his best film to date. Thankfully rather than wallowing in period detail he wisely chooses to take it slow, injecting a good deal of characterisation and a very honest and therefore moving portrayal of a relationship on the edge. Even if this doesn't quite rank up there with 'Hilary And Jackie', it is still one of the best biopics of recent years and a milestone for all concerned.
Rating:
Summary: Good but Overated Film
Review: This was a good film, but not the great film its been portayed as. The best scene is Jenifer Connley's sexual frustration outburst. While I love Jennifer Connley she seems mis-cast for this part, she seems out of place and not believable in parts of the film, she is just too hot. Russle Crowe was good but neither him or her deserved Oscars consideration for these performances. Don't get me wrong, it is a good film, but it doesn't rise to the level of "great" others seem to think ...
Rating:
Summary: Could have been much more compelling
Review: I didn't hate this film. I have seen plenty that are
much worse, and that were a greater waste of my precious time. However, after seeing all the hype and all the award nominations, I came to this film with high expectations, and it simply did not deliver. What could have been an extremely compelling story ultimately comes off as feel-good fluff much of the time. Plenty of historical fact has been omitted from this movie, but that is no different than any number of movies that are "based on a true story." There is no big crime in this; if you want a faithful, comprehensive picture, go read a book. This is a Hollywood movie, for crying out loud. Trying to cram a person's entire life story into 136 minutes means that lots of details will have to be left out. The problem is that the omitted details make for one hell of an interesting story! Bisexuality, numerous affairs, an abandoned illegitimate child, a marriage that was much rockier than the film implied, rank anti-semitism...it all adds up to an individual who very complex and interesting. The fact that the man has been a complete lout at times does not lessen the heroism of his struggle, or the significance of his achievements. The fact is that just about all of us are equally capable of simultaneously being heroes and cads, but we prefer not to face the dualism of our existence. Here was an opportunity to confront that dualism, in one of its more extreme manifestations, and explore it. Ron Howard could have done that, but he copped out and left us with a sugar-coated, pre-fab,
feel-good movie.
Rating:
Summary: A perfect "Oscar movie" but not much else
Review: Well, it appears that this film made enough academy members weep and decide finally to throw an Oscar Ron Howard's way (which he truly has deserved in the past), but this film is not nearly as remarkable or memorable as these awards would suggest. [Just read what the serious reviewers had to say at rottentomatoes.] In addition to the fact that it is in essence a "fictionalization" of Nash's life, I found the film uneven and, gasp, even boring! And what's worse, much to my friends' horror, I found I didn't even care about the John Nash portrayed in the film. As portrayed he is certainly a tragic figure, but despite Howard's often over-wrought style, Crowe's Nash is not particularly noble, courageous or even likable. I didn't feel much if anything for this man, but I know that I'm supposed to like him because that's Russell Crowe up there on the screen and that's Ron Howard directing him. Well, rather than swallow this bland bait, I'd rather watch something meaningful. I guess that's why I'm not an academy voter... If you want to watch this as a work of fiction, and you can stomach the manipulative tenor of Howard's direction, I guess you'll like "A Beautiful Mind." If, however, you care about legitimate portrayals of historical figures, and you'd rather not have the director play on your emotions without any real substance to back it up, don't bother. There are scores of films that are much more beautiful out there.
|
