I just watched the movie last night for the 2nd time, thinking that I was in for a completely fictionalized story, because I had uncritically accepted sensational blog titles like the one you linked to.
Turns out, the movie is a rather good depiction of the struggles that Nash went through. He published a groundbreaking paper as a grad student, married Alicia, suffered from schizophrenia, and learned how to manage it, eventually going back to Princeton as a damaged but wiser man, and worthy of a Nobel prize in economics. All of these major points were covered in the movie.
Nash himself found the movie to be close to reality, except that it may have suggested that he went back on newer antipsychotics--see the interview he gave to a Nobel reporter 10 years ago[1]. In fact, the movie was much more fair to his point of view than he admitted in the interview.
Some details of his life were left out, but his reputation as the "Ghost of Fine Hall" was preserved. I see the film as a fair presentation of his life, especially compared to the Hollywood standard for "true stories"--see The Hurricane, American Gangster, JFK, etc.
Interesting article but I don't think the movie is bad. It's just romanticised. In my view it doesn't distort the real story in a meaningful way for the audience.
