Very good, but not great

Rating: 6/10 (31 January 2002)

I have to admit that this movie was very good, although I don't think it is as great as the rest of the world, apparently. Nash's sickness was exploited for dramatic purposes (in actuality, he might think he is seeing someone, but would not actually think he is rubbing a little girl's hair or kissing her forehead in thin air). The directing was adequate, but utilitarian. I wonder if most people know what a director actually does, or if they just lump the categories of best movie and best director together. Ron, I think we have seen enough of the shot with the camera revolving around Cameron Crowe's head by the third time you used it. The acting was great all around. The script was also good, but included only selected parts of Nash's life - only those that make him seem like a wonderful man. The writers chose to leave the parts of his real life out like when he got divorced, had illegitimate children, etc. I guess that would have negated the ending (spoiler?) This movie was pretty good - a 7 or 8 out of 10 - but I just don't like watching somebody's tragic life embellished for entertainment purposes.