A fine and typical Ron Howard movie only remotely about Nash

Rating: Null/10 (19 February 2002)

I did enjoy this movie but do not think it should win Best Picture. It was a typical Ron Howard film (feel good, no cursing, Americana). I typically enjoy his films. In comparison to the "bio" of John Nash, written by Nash himself, this film is only very remotely about Nash and more about Schizophrenia. I think adding about 1/2 hour more to the film and showing more of what really happened in Nash's life would have made it better. Read the "bio" of Nash to see what I mean. I thought "Memento" was a much better picture and much more difficult for the director to make. I didn't really find the acting to be any better than many other films I saw this year, either. Sure it was good, and maybe it was the best out of what was nominated. Basically, I feel that the film should not have been about a real character (Nash) if it was not going to be an accurate depiction of his life, outside of his mental problems. I realize that may not have been the point of the film. In which case, it should have been about a fictional person. The direction was good and the story came together well I admit. But should it win Best Picture than it will be one of the least dynamic Best Pictures on the list.