Too much of everything

Excellent adaptation.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Based on a true story the thin lines of genius and madness, make this film an intriguing watch.A great performance from Crowe which came across well in the complexities of the role he plays. For all the beautiful minds!

John Nash's story is without a doubt interesting and certainly not easy to translate into a movie format. But that cannot be an excuse. We get a movie that is a bit of a heartbreaking drama, a bit of a spy action flick and a bit of a biographical picture (with many fictionalized parts). But it does nothing really exceptionally well. What it does well is to dumb everything down for a broad audience and to make it as little offending as possible.*SPOILERS*First, it would have been nice to see what makes John Nash actually a genius. We see him being awkward and weird, highly intelligent and constantly scribbling math on some surfaces. To the average movie audience it's clear: This man must be some sort of genius! Come on, don't treat your audience like that, Ron Howard! If you really must dumb it down, include maybe at least a reference to why he actually won the Nobel price and why his work was important. Well, at least we got the scene with the women in the bar.Secondly, many details of Nash's life are just wrong or fictionalized, which does not have to be a bad thing per se. For example, in "Amadeus" the writer's allowed themselves a lot of freedom with Mozart's life in order to tell a greater, romanticised story about art. But here a story that was not always very "clean" in reality is told in a fashion for maximum Oscars chances. It wants to be a story full of heart (and even sacrifices intelligence for that), but if you take a closer look, it is a calculated movie. Anything that could be offensive is left out. Just google Nash's real biography if you don't believe me.And this sugarcoating includes the depiction of schizophrenia. I don't have much insight into this mental illness but I'm sure it doesn't work in the way the movie shows us. Nash sees the same three imaginary people over and over again until we as an audience learn they are not real. Or are they? Initially, this state of confusion gave the movie interesting touch of mystery, that I actually enjoyed. I had no idea if this movie would stick to the sort-of-biopic-format or turn into an Alfred Hitchcock thriller.It's really hard to find anything else to compliment. The cinematography looks kind of flat? And I can't even say I'm a fan of Connelly's slightly expressionless acting. Ironically, she won an Oscar instead of Crowe, who actually was quite convincing.

For those who don't know, the poor rating will not make sense. For those who've heard but think its no big deal, I disagree with you. For those who know and care, please help stand up with me.It is fact, not speculation, that John Nash was at very least bisexual, and the tendency to suppress this fact only adds to the stigma of shame thrust upon those of us who are not happily heterosexual. The people who write the scripts insist on changing facts to make the movie more mainstream and profitable, to make it more palatable for those whom share distaste for people who don't fit into how their egos require. It is a shame, because this movie could have been groundbreaking beyond its intriguing portrayal of a brilliant man's inner turmoil, done so well otherwise. You cannot use an excuse that revealing a complex man's complex natures would only give the story too much distraction.I would have enjoyed the movie otherwise but found the omission disgusting. Much like 'The Martian Child' by David Gerrald that was successfully translated to bigscreen, but because it would be 'unacceptable' to have characters 'marred' by so-called character-defects that would reduce their likability, well we certainly can't allow children to have such role models, can we?I am fortunate to be well-educated and well-read, to have known that gay or bisexual men can be awesome and powerful, not just amusing. There are plenty who need the truth more than the majority demand placation.

As others have pointed out, Nash did not have any visual hallucinations; so the entire business with the imaginary people he kept "seeing" was made up by screenwriters. I've known a lot of schizophrenics in my years as a physician, and none of them had visual hallucinations- such visions are very rare. Almost all of them had paranoid delusions of conspiracies against them, and almost all heard voices, which is what Nash experienced. Usually the voices are condemnatory and frightening. It's hard to show that visually, so the screenwriters make up completely bogus "symptoms" that are a false depiction of what schizophrenics actually suffer. No sense arguing back and forth about whether the movie's depiction of Nash's ordeal is believable. It isn't what actually happened to him.