As with fellow Oscar-winner Monster, this biopic has received criticism for a few inaccuracies regarding the real life of the subject. Those in A Beautiful Mind are more worthy of criticism, or of clarification at the very least.

From what I gather, the portrayal of schizophrenia is not accurate. John Nash did not visualise people, he merely heard their voices and interpreted them his own way. This limits the film's worth on an educational side, but does allow the film to take on more drama for those unfamiliar with Nash's life.

Which leads me to the other big issue, the inaccuracies as to his romantic life. Not only is Nash's older son ignored, Alicia being from El Salvador originally is also overlooked, and their divorce and remarriage is not mentioned either.

Worse to some, Nash's past rumoured bisexual relationships are airbrushed away. I don't feel the writers should however be blamed for this, for two reasons. Firstly, Nash claims that he had a level of identity crisis during his schizophrenic times, and attributes any dalliances with men to these. Hardly a view likely to be well-received by gay viewers, much less Hollywood's large gay presence. Secondly, homosexuality is almost entirely ignored in mainstream cinema, unless it is integral to a true story (such as Monster), and this might not be the best film to break it thought.

When I first watched the film, I loved the ending - the whole 'triumph over adversity' feel combined with the touching 'I did so much wrong, but now I've found truth' speech seemed to justify everything. With the reality being somewhat different, it may instead have been phony Hollywood schmaltz. I don't know whether Nash's acceptance speech was similar to what was used in the film - if not, this is a major flaw if the film is to be viewed as a biopic.

For all these flaws, we are still looking at an entertaining piece of work. Nash's mathematical achievements are largely simplified or overlooked, but this is fair enough - to most people it's an over-complex or boring field. Many will have left the cinema keen to research Nash's real work, and there are many places where that can be done easily enough. The same goes for the anti-Communism hysteria and status of the Nobel Prize for Economics which are mentioned by other reviewers.

Above all, this is a human interest piece. A complex, flawed but gifted man struggles with complex demons and somehow comes out on top. He loses what could have been his best years, but enjoys a later-life renaissance and is accepted by the very people he once had (mutual) distrust of. Russell Crowe is superb throughout, Ed Harris is truly awesome, while Paul Bettany is perhaps best of all as Charles, who in many ways is what Nash deep down wishes he was but is convinced he is not - sociable, suave and popular with the ladies. He takes centre stage in the comic chat-up attempt in particular. If you're open-minded, but aware of what you will be viewing, give it a go.