Review of Proof of Life

Proof of Life (2000)
7/10
Simply Entertaining...!
29 January 2010
I found this to be a very decent, well made motion picture that did what it was supposed to do: entertain! Now I do agree with the critics that it has some shortfalls, it is certainly not perfect, but sufficiently good to offer more than two hours of suspense, action and basically film-going enjoyment. I disagree with most that the movie is too long, I find the duration to be fine, I did not catch myself being bored for an instant for the duration of the film.

As far as the acting is concerned, I think David Morse put in an excellent performance here as the kidnapped husband. Very good acting indeed. As far as the two starring actors are concerned, I do not find as some say, that Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe were miscast in this picture. On the contrary I think they work well in this type of picture, especially Russel Crowe who does a very good job playing an ex SAS officer. Special forces soldiers do not look or act like Schwarzenegger, they are more or less exactly as Crowe portrayed them. Yes, I agree that Meg Ryan could have been more emotionally involving, more dramatic, but she brings so many other things to the screen that others don't (naivete, believability, charm, etc.). You can't have everything (well you can, but not always...). In other, I found the movie has been well directed, the cinematography and sound are also good. On the flip side, the screenplay could have been a little more 'sophisticated' (Ebert put it very nicely: "Perhaps the screenplay should have been kept simmering until it was reduced a little, and its flavors made stronger").

All in all, not an artistic masterpiece but a good, entertaining motion picture to watch with a beer and a nice packet of popcorn. Isn't this what movies are supposed to be about anyway?
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed