Decent. But not much more.

Rating: 5/10 (25 July 2002)

This is a fair movie, made much better if you don't let yourself think about how far from the truth important plot elements were. That's really the curse of doing quasi-historical movies, I suppose. In any case, everything about Ron Howard's direction screamed BLAND. I thought Russell Crowe was decent in spite of Howard, and that Jennifer Connelly turned some dopey lines into a decent role. But despite all the polish, and a few enjoyable scenes, the story was hopelessly flawed. The work that got him the Nobel got barely a nod early on in the film, the love story which supposedly drives this was developed inadequately, etc. Perhaps Howard couldn't get any subtlety or depth because he was hamstrung by a merely adequate screenplay. I think, though, that subtlety, depth, and passion are beyond his reach.
As bland as it was, it was still decent, and I'd probably give it a 7 out of 10 if I were in a good mood, but it was not really worthy of that Oscar, especially in a year when an achievement as magnificent as LOTR was up against it.