Typical Hollywood. (1st paragraph is spoiler free)

Rating: 3/10 (25 July 2017)

This film was something I legitimately tried to like. Really. Going into it, I had average expectations, hearing the hyper over it over the years, and I've always had a tangible interest in conditions such as schizophrenia. Though the movie does do some things that I like, the things that I find wrong are all the more troubling, to the point where I never want to watch it ever again.
So, here are the things I liked, at least at first:

Russel Crowe's performance: believable. He did his job and did it well. I also enjoyed Ed Harris and Paul Bettany's performances.

(SPOILER) - Subtlety. At least, when it comes to the schizophrenia aspect... in the middle of the movie. I think the subject was handled okay, up until the end when it began to feel a little forced (although I would honestly need to comb through that again, of which I am not interested in doing). There's one part in which a desk ends up being thrown out the window. In the next shot(s), something happens in the background that hints to the instability of the protagonist's perspective, that you later understand as the viewer.
These are the things that bugged the hell out of me:

This is a sappy and contrived Hollywood picture, that instead of bringing issues that catalyzes honesty emotion, the events set in motion feel false, redundant, and overdramatic. I perfectly understand the weight of some of the situations (or the plot as a whole), but at the same time it felt like the movie didn't take the subject itself seriously and was following a paradigm to try and be "one of those good movies."

The mother effing romance. It was the most lackluster, flaky, force-fed, quickie-style romance I've seen in a movie this hyped. It felt artificial, it had no foundation or groundedness to it, nor chemistry, and worst of all, it was based on a real relationship that turned out much differently than what was shown in the film, and I feel is incredibly misleading and even PROPAGANDIC towards the whole relationship, which I feel is a disservice to the audience. It probably pisses me off more than most, but the romance in the film is so annoyingly recycled from every single film made in Hollywood. It was eye-rolling, and I simply can't stand it. In actuality, John Nash had an illegitimate son and had actually divorced from his wife and got back with her many years later. Why not include that? It simply didn't feel like it came from nonfiction source material. It felt like the oily, perverted hands of Hollywood.

The material it was based on. This felt like fiction - "based on true events" is correct, but I feel like these aren't real people, life doesn't go exactly this way. This is based on a certain reality - not the reality in which it's ADMITTEDLY AND PURPOSEFULLY based upon, which makes it worse when a film like this turns out to be so run of the mill. If the tone and details are going to be changed, why not make it a completely DIFFERENT story altogether? What if this film wasn't based on a REAL MAN and his LIFE? The sins of this film would be much more forgivable, I think. But it's not. It's about "John Nash" and his "life."

Ultamitely, I would advise not to take the events of the film incredibly seriously, and judge by your own discretion if you have any interest in it.