Dr. John Nash (or How The Academy Learned to Stop Being Sane And Love This Over-Hyped Piece of Fluff)

Rating: Null/10 (5 March 2002)

You can almost here the voice-over in your head going "Nominated for 8 Academy Awards". You're expecting something pretty good, especially when the nominations cover areas like Best Director, Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Screenplay. You're a bit wary because it smells a bit of "Oscar bait" but you go in still, with hopes up. And find yourself, in the end, disappointed.
Why is this movie #91 in IMDB? On what grounds has it merited it? First of all the plot. Welcome to math club. It's "based" on true events. Well thank you Hollywood for sifting through a man's life and plucking out only those bits you thought I'd be able to stomach. Once again we're having a nice old re-write of history in order to try and boost up cinema audience numbers. S o we're being presented with a pared down version of John Nash, a famous mathematician. What did he do? Well Ron Howard's movie doesn't bother telling us (we're probably too dumb) besides a weak mention towards the end. Instead we're focusing on the man himself and his battle with a mental illness (oh my "Rain Man" flash-backs). Nash, with his brilliant mind, is approached by the government to help them out. And then things go bad for him. Yes we're presented with a "twist" in the story but, unlike some other twist stories such as "Fight Club" or "The Sixth Sense", I was left feeling distinctly underwhelmed. We pop up and down at various moments in Nash's life, seeing how he is currently coping and yet I was left unengaged by the man's fight for health - it's typically wellish-done fluff that has been before. Make a sympathetic character-overcoming-troubles and naturally you can woo audiences over (can you say "Forrest Gump"? Can you say "Rain Man"?).
So is the acting of note? Crowe is competent but his performance here reeked a bit of ham. It's convincing enough but it seems to consist a lot of casting his eyes down, waving his hand about and muttering/talking in a shifting accent. It's easy to play an eccentric it seems. Connolly shows more potential here as the "long suffering wife" but her character is given little to do but wander around after Nash. We never get to see what *she* feels besides the complementary tears. She performed better in "Requiem for a Dream". Considering who they're up against in their respective categories I feel neither merit their awards based on this movie.
Howard's direction is fine. Everything looks nice, and pretty. There's the use of darkness and shadows to complement moods, scenes, etc. The score, by James I-Can't-Forgive-You-For-Titanic Horner, is used to now and then bash us around into realising we're viewing an emotional moment. Yeah, I got it. Certain touches - such as numbers hovering in the air, etc. - are good enough in showing Nash's mind but the direction gives none of the intensity shown in a movie such as "Pi".
Looking at it's awards I would certainly not give this fluff Best Picture or either of the Best Oscars. Best Adapted Screenplay? Not a chance next to "Shrek" and "The Fellowship of the Ring". In fact it doesn't strike me as deserving of any of it's nominations. It's not to say this is a bad movie - I was never bored. But I was never draw in and am dumbfounded as to how this average feel-good-triumph-over- adversity tale is garnering the praise that it has. An alright 6/10.