I am so schizophrenic when it comes to my opinions about films based on real people or events. They're almost always a frustrating experience for me.
Stories about real events don't normally fit into a nice "three act" structure. So, I will often criticize bio-pics for being "uneven" or not coming to nice and neat conclusions. Even movies that I realize are technically
great (that is, made with great cinematographic, directorial, and acting skill), I just cannot get fully behind. Raging Bull is normally my classic example. While the acting in that movie was fantastic and look and feel (direction and cinematography) were perfect, I just didn't find Jake LaMotta that interesting of a subject. I felt that the movie meandered between highs and low, much like real life. But I just didn't find it an interesting story, which, for me, is the most important part of a movie.
On the other, just last night I watched Finding Neverland, the bio-pic about J.M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan. This was a wonderful little film about innocence and creativity, which used real events to tell a story. Except, for the sake of the story, some pretty important events were changed. Most notably, in the movie Barrie became enthralled with a widow and her children. But in real life, the woman wasn't a widow. This changes the real Barrie's actions from charitable to kind of creepy. But, that wouldn't have made as good a story. Even though I understand this, I still can't help but criticize the movie for altering facts, which detracts from my enjoyment of it.
So a story about real life is uneven, and real life manipulated to tell a story is untruthful. I know that there is a line in between the two which can be walked, and many movies have done so successfully. But one step to either side of the line will always frustrate me.