pbhowmick

I am usually too lazy to put in my review comments. But when I read some of the negative comments about this movie, I ad to make a stand. I came across this movie accidentally and I'm glad I did. I think it is one of the unsung great films on music and musicians. Based on the true life of Jerry Lee Lewis, the somewhat eccentric rock and roll genius from the 50s this movie has got soul. Most of the movies about artists end up portraying them as somewhat crazy, egomaniacs, always on the edge of a break down. But this movie has a very warm and light hearted take on Jerry's life. Throughout his ups and down his character comes out as a likable one whom you want to fall in love with. There's not a moment in the film where you would feel sad or annoyed by Jerry. And for this the kudos go to both Dennis Quaid and the director. For the reviewers who have labeled Dennis's portrayal as over the top, you guys don't have a clue who and what Jerry was. Dennis has nailed the spirited and buoyant soul that Jerry Lee Lewis was. I think the people who didn't like this film wanted to see a more serious and toned down film. But this is a film about rock and roll, and there's no better way to make it then it has been donw here. I give it a 9 out of 10. Go watch this immensely entertaining film!

I saw 'Beautiful Mind' because 'Vanilla Ice' was sold out. I had heard a great deal about this movie, and Russel Crowe's performance. So expectations were high. I had some idea about the story, and I know how hollywood deals with the real life stories of great/extraordinary personalities. And thats why I didn't like the first half of the film. It was so conventional, and Russel's character has been built up in such a stereotypical way. He's the typical absent minded, aloof but highly intelligent and witty mathematician, surrounded by equally talented but more worldy friends and foes. He lives in own world, and his fascination is breaking codes, playing with numbers. He jots down complex equations on the walls, on the window panes, anyplace you can think of. In one of the scenes he's show trying the formulate the pattern of pigeons' movement in the park! Balooni!! There's only so much I could take about his eccentricity. I mean c'mon, mathematicians and scientists normal people like you and me. I hate it when they try to create a larger than life picture of someone just to establish the story line. Instead they can show his actual contribution to the world of mathematics in general and economic in particular. But they assume that the person sitting in the audience lacks the intelligence to understand the technical stuff, so lets just simplify it for them by showing them wierd equation on the board and the walls and the window panes.

Anyway, so thats the first half of the film. Hollywoodization of the life and works of John Nash the mathematician. But all this changes in the second half when you realize that its not that this film is not just about the life of a great mathematician, but there's something more mysterious going one. I got hooked up into the movie only when it was revealed that Russel's character is a schizophrenic, and the movie gets better and better from this point. If only the story could have been told in a better way, like keeping the audience guessing from the first scene whether whatever John is going through is real or just his imagination, this could have been a much more engrossing film. This film could have been turned into a complex visual saga by going into Russel's imaginary world and the real world. Towards the end of the movie there are a few samplers of it, but not enough.

Russels Crowe's performance keeps improving throughout the course of the movie. In the beginning his actions look animated. At times he's confident, and at others he acts like a retarded fellow. Everybody else did a ok job, nothing noteworthy. Ed Harris's character hardly generates any impact. Ron Howard I believe makes movie which try to cross over from purely commercial arena to meaningful domain. Its very difficult to keep a balance, and thats why this movie lacks the punch.

I probably had too much expectations from this movie. I had heard a lot about the Pulitzer winning book by Frank McNormak, and admired most of Alan Parker's other works inlcluding the heartwarming 'The Commitments'. I knew Alan Parker has the pulse of the Irish life and irish people, being Irish born himself. But this movie somehow didn't touch me the way 'The commitments' did. I found the story-telling lacked its sting and the characters lacked depth. Specially the character of the father played by Robert Caryle, has been developed on surface level. He has been shown to be a good-at-heart, proud of his irish self, bit irresponsible father. but thats all to it, there's hardly any character transition. and no analysis into the reasons why he shies away from his duties. i had issues with the completeness of the story also. i would want to know more about how the family got to NY in the first place, how did Frankies parents who were from different parts of Ireland meet each other, while Frankie's father was jobless how did such a big family survive? The worst part about narrative story is that you know that Frankie is going to get out of all the mess finally to tell us the story, this is a hurdle in the development of real drama. Inspite of all this, this movie gives a very good portrayal of the Ireland during WW-II. The wet, dripping alleys and houses, the poverty and filth, unemployment and destitution, and the hate for the british. its a good insight for anybody who doesn't know much about Irish People.

The photography and music are brilliant. I liked the use of pale colors, and tones of blue and white, which gives it a documentary and old feel. I would rate it 7/10.