Forrest Gump gets the Nobel Prize! MINOR SPOILERS

Rating: Null/10 (25 November 2003)

In this movie I found a brilliant idea and an almost deadly sin. The brilliant idea: The viewers watch the story from the viewpoint of a man who sees the world differently than the "normal" average person. We believe with John Nash that he is the only man capable of averting the mortal danger which is imminently threatening the USA. We share his doubts long after the first signs have appeared that John Nash is wrong and the average people around him are right. We also share John Nash's confusion and despair. It is wonderful and moving how well this strategy of the screenplay worked out in the actual movie.
The almost deadly sin is the love story. How could they do this to the viewers? It is as corny and stupid as it can possibly get, honestly. This is how it starts: The 1950s on a University Campus, in summer. A stuffy classroom, all windows open. Outside a gang of working men noisily drilling and hammering on the sidewalk. Enters the brilliant genius. Closes all windows. Students protest. Genius is adamant. A girl gets up, a very beautiful girl (looks like a model of the 1990s), walks provocatively, lasciviously (like a model of the 1990s) over to the window. Opens the window, shouts down to the working men in a nasty, drawn voice: "Excuuuuuse me, we got an important class here. Couldn't you work somewhere else?" And guess what? Not only do the working men immediately hear and understand her, no. "Yes ma'am," they shout back. Then they pack up and move away double quick! And, of course, the seasoned watcher knows now: That's the girl he's gonna marry. Frankly, I can hardly get over it, it's so annoying!
Naturally, Nash's wife is (almost) as brilliant a scientist as he is. Yet according to the movie she sacrifices any job prospect just to care for her husband who endangers the life not only of himself but of the whole family. No question of sending him to an asylum! I detected a political message there which appears to be openly sexist. It displeased me.
In the second part of the movie the performance of Russel Crowe resembles more and more the one Tom Hanks delivered in Forrest Gump. The complexity of Nashs character is glossed over with the image of the bumbling, benevolent idiot many viewers seem to expect in this case. It's a minor complaint, but still it is somehow a pity if you know of Russel Crowe's acting capacities. Christopher Plummer is brilliant as Dr Rosen, the man who must try to bring Nash to his senses. It proves to me once again that a good supporting cast is essential for the success of a movie.
I wonder if Albert Einstein also got his pen collection when he was at Princeton and what he did with it. (Put it nicely assorted in a frame, like tacked down butterflies? Or just giving it to a charity for needy scholars?)