About me
Bookshop

Get new posts by email.

About me

A Beautiful Mind

Hold up!

See that little date above?

This post was published years ago.

My opinions have changed over time: I think it's quite fun to keep old posts online so that you can see how that has happened. The downside is that there are posts on this site that express views that I now find offensive, or use language in ways I'd never dream of using it today.

I don't believe in airbrushing history, but I do believe that it's important to acknowledge the obvious: some of what I've written in the past has been crap. Some of it was offensive. Some of it was offensively bad. And there's may be some brass among the muck (you can make up your own mind on that).

Some of what I've presented as my own views has been me—wittingly or unwittingly—posturing without having considered all the facts. In a few years, I'll probably think the same about what I'm writing today, and I'm fine with that. Things change. People grow. Society moves forward.

The internet moves on too, which means there might be broken links or embedded content that fails to load. If you're unlucky, that might mean that this post makes no sense at all.

So please consider yourself duly warned: this post is an historical artefact. It's not an exposition of my current views nor a piece of 'content' than necessarily 'works'.

You may now read on... and in most cases, the post you're about to read is considerably shorter than this warning box, so brace for disappointment.

I was disappointed by this film, not because it was bad, but because it was nowhere near as good as it could have been. This was far too much a straight story of a man with schizophrenia, when it could have been a much greater and deeper exploration of the nature of reality. Essentially, I was disappointed because I was expecting something of the calibre of Closer, and got something more like Wimbledon. And I didn’t think Russell Crowe played his part particularly well, though Jennifer Connelly was amazing.

The schizophrenia was played very well, and from my medical knowledge of the condition, it seemed fairly accurate for a particularly severe case (generally, people just ‘hear voices’ – they tend not to see hallucinations. Though, as a point of interest, people deaf from birth tend to see patches of colour instead of hearing voices), and in the sense that it is accurately portraying a taboo medical condition, then it’s an excellent film.

Overall, it’s a worthwhile, thought-provoking, and enjoyable movie, but it could have been so much better. You really wouldn’t want to see this more than once, and it’s not really worth all the fuss that’s been made about it.

This post was filed under: Reviews.

Recently published posts

Weeknotes 2022.02 / 16 January 2022

Weeknotes 2022.01 / 09 January 2022

Five links worth clicking / 07 January 2022

31 things I learned in December 2020 / 31 December 2021

What I’ve been reading this month / 27 December 2021

30 things I learned in November 2020 / 30 November 2021




Random posts from the archive

Doctors and men / 12 May 2006

Little Moor / 28 January 2019

Government waste: Uncut / 25 August 2006

No election TV debate, says Blair / 06 January 2005

FactCheck’s back / 21 June 2006

BBC News parody / 28 September 2005





The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. Information about cookies and the handling of emails submitted for the 'new posts by email' service can be found in the privacy policy. This site uses affiliate links: if you buy something via a link on this site, I might get a small percentage in commission. Here's hoping.