Reviews

The film has an intriguing premise and some great acting, but it sort of collapses in on itself about an hour through. Fellowes has chosen *not* to show some of the most potentially dramatic moments in the story, so you feel like scenes were accidentally left on the cutting room floor. Watson and Wilkinson are both fine in their roles, but they never really seem to connect together. Moreover, they just don't have any chemistry. Everett gives a very mannered performance which seems ludicrously out of place. He has one hospital scene which is so badly done it was outright embarrassing. This film was not up to the level of Fellowes' phenomenal "Gosford Park."

I have experienced schizophrenia first-hand: I have a brother suffering from the disease.

I have also read Sylvia Nasar's brilliant biography of John Nash.

Against that background, I have to say that the film "A Beautiful Mind" is a reprehensible example of filmmaking.

It's a complete fabrication of the real story of John Nash. And it's also an irresponsible and grossly inaccurate picture of mental illness and its devastating effect on the family.

This movie has taken a very sad story of a man with mental illness and turned it into an absurd fairy tale.

That this film would be showered with awards is only more disgraceful. It shows how the elite in Hollywood are completely out of touch with reality.

The true story of John Nash is not told in this film. Nor is it any way an accurate depiction of mental illness.

It's nothing short of revisionist trash.

This is a very funny, almost flawless movie. It's brilliantly written and acted.

I would definitely recommend you go out of your way to see it.

I had only some minor criticisms. I thought Lyle Lovett's acting was very weak, particularly in comparison to the rest of the excellent cast. I also thought some of the plot developments were a bit "victorian," i.e. some critical information is learned on several occasions by people evesdropping outside windows. But these are small flaws in what otherwise is an excellent film. I can't wait to see writer/director Roos' next flick!

Anyone who goes into a froth praising this movie is certainly victim of "the emperor's new clothes" syndrome--they're simply lauding it because of the hype; they think they must rave about it to show their intelligence.

The acting is great, but the story is terribly weak. The film is hampered by an excessive amount of "telling" exposition, where "showing" would have been so much better. And, it has utterly no sense of cloture.

Miramax ridiculously overhyped this movie because they had so much money to spend, having paid virtually nothing for the rights. They clearly know how to sell a film, but this is a case of suffering fools gladly, because the public was duped into thinking this was something fabulous. Most people, I suspect, were rather bored with this film, but didn't want to pan it out of fear of not seeming "smart." When someone raves about this film, you'll find they really have very little to say, other than some breathy adjectives. That's because the movie, in the end, has no real substance.

No doubt about it, this movie has some of the best acting of late. The film suffers, however, because it feels very "stagey"--it seems like a play on film. It could have been opened up so much, with great texture and layering, while keeping everything wonderful about the play. It's not even 90 minutes and set mostly on the same soundstage--so much more could have been done. The ending, also, while strong in the play, really feels weak here--there's just no real sense of cloture. Overall, the director clearly doesn't know how to use the camera, editing, or a soundtrack to enhance a film and engage the audience.

I'm also perplexed why Pacino was nominated for an Oscar and not Jack Lemmon, when it should have been the other way around.

Don't miss this film if you want to see some superb acting--Lemmon, Pacino, Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Arken are terrific. Spacey's role is underused by the director, which is unfortunate.