Proof of Life:

(Warning: Gives away the ending)

I saw Proof of Life last night at a screening in Los Angeles and it isnât very good. I was hoping for Casablanca, an intense, character-driven drama about human emotion under pressure. What I saw was an action movie. It looks great, but the characters are flat, and so the film is hollow.

We all know the premise: Peter Bowman (David Morse) is kidnapped for ransom and his wife Alice (Ryan) hires Terry Thorne (Crowe) to get him back. Peter, held captive, tries to stay alive and human. Meanwhile Alice and Terry, isolated and under intense stress, are drawn together. The studio has chosen to cut their emotional involvement, and has done a rotten job. What's left is not only ordinary, it's sloppy.

Crowe's character suffers the most. Terry is a professional; part of his job is a poker face. Crowe conveys intelligence and strength without ever changing expression, but any scenes that might suggest tension or emotion are gone. We can see that there's a lot behind Terry's mask, but we never find out what. Terry's relations with Alice are dispassionate and formal. Late in the film, another character asks, "Are you falling in love with this woman?" It feels weird; there's no reason for him to have asked that.

Alice Bowman is supposed to be unconventional (Peter calls her his "little hippie") but we don't see that, either; we don't see much of anything. There's nothing left to suggest why Terry would be attracted to her out of all the family members he deals with. And there's no conflict here for her -- she's the noble wife, one-dimensional.

On the other hand, David Morse shows us what this film could have been. Peter Bowman is a real person, with virtues and flaws and a heart. In the beginning he's decent but stuffy; he loves Alice but neglects her for his job. Then he gets snatched, and we learn (as he does) what really matters to him. We watch while he risks his life standing up to his kidnappers rather than let them break his spirit. We watch him handle pain and suffering and fear. And we watch him rediscover his love for his wife. It's wonderful.

Curse it, this film should have been so much better. I suppose the studio cut the Terry-Alice story line because of the Crowe-Ryan affair, but they've destroyed the village in order to save it. This should have been a powerful story about love and what people will do for it -- including give it up. At the end of the film, Peter says to Alice, "We made it," and he has -- he's made a journey to get back to her. But she hasn't. She should have made her own journey back to him. And Terry should have made her go because he loves her -- proof of life. It isn't here. (starlight scope)

Proof of Life:

I, too, left the theater feeling empty and with questions regarding character development. If I didn't know there was supposed to be an attraction between the two stars, I would have been totally surprised and confused about the lip lock. What could have been a riveting movie-going experience ended up being merely interesting. While I wouldn't say I was disappointed, I will say I wasn't particularly moved.

That said, I could not take my eyes off Russell. What he can convey in the shrug of his shoulders, the arch of his brow -- and you know that thing he does with his chin -- is stunning. As someone who remembers -- and have watched him since -- from a U.S. airing of "Brides of Christ" years back, it's a pleasure to see him grow as an actor. The film truly would have been a different one without his participation. (Kathleen B.)

Proof Of Life has a wonderfully captivating storyline that keeps its viewer in need. Russell Crowe (Terry Thorne) and Meg Ryan (Alice Bowman) struggle, unsuccessfully I might say, to keep their personal relationship from affecting their overall performance. Russell transforms himself flawlessly into his role. Ryan's performance is obscure and quite honestly disappointing. She is the only weak link in this film. (Angela K.)

Proof of Life was intriguing and entertaining... [Russell's] performance equals his masterful work in L.A. Confidential. He engulfs the audience in his emotions, conflictions, and triumphs. Some may say that the movie material, not the actors, seems to drag at points, but the actors' performances more than compensate for it. All in all, I think Mr. Crowe has outdone himself again and he has proven, without a doubt, that he is a superb actor. (Rebecca M.)

I agree with some of your other reviewers, the movie was empty in places. The men in the audience were kind of getting antsy when the movie's action scenes stopped. You could hear a lot of candy wrappers being unwrapped. There was no character development between Alice and Peter. His getting mad at her for dancing when he wasn't paying attention to her was contrived. Pam Reed had more facial expressions in five minutes on screen than Meg Ryan did throughout the whole movie.

It would have been interesting if the movie had a scene where the guerillas' plotted more with each other so we knew exactly who the ring leader was. I sum it up: Action, whine, whine, action, wring hands, action, kiss, action, end. (Holly)

It is action-packed and suspenseful, but lacks a great deal of character and story development. I felt the relationship between Meg Ryan and David Morse wasn't developed enough for us to truly believe this was a husband and wife who REALLY loved each other. Another downfall was the "guessing" game that had to be done regarding the relationship between Meg Ryan and Russell. I could sense that they were falling in love with each other.

After reading the other reviews, I learned that this was an "edited" version of the original, and the love scene between Meg and Russell ended up on the cutting-room floor. Now the vagueness in the movie makes sense. ... Still, with these bits and pieces of weaknesses, I would recommend the movie purely based on the star power of Russell Crowe and David Morse, and the drama, action and suspense that will keep you tense in your seat for over 2 hours! (Diva Rocket)

Leaving the "sex" scene out made for an almost confusing time trying to figure out when they started to have romantic feelings. It is kind of like buying a Twinkie with the filling left out. You know it's supposed to be there, but... (Ivanka)

The film was well crafted, and the jungle visuals were astounding (not worth the loss of a life,* but probably worth the risk -- it helps hold the realism of the story together).

Acting, especially Russell, was superb. Unlike other stars, the camera doesn't love Russell, but what Russell does in front of the camera makes us love him. He is the only actor I can imagine that could pull of a roughly 60-second one-shot, with zero dialogue, but a full reflection of the story. (Ruth K.)

This film was difficult to critique, because like some flavors, it's almost an acquired taste. At first glance, I viewed it with a very critical eye and found, as many have pointed out, there are some glaring continuity issues concerning the romantic aspects of the film. However, within 24 hours of attending the sneak preview, I was hunkering to go back for a second, possibly a third look! Proof of Life grows on you.

For my money, the men stole the show. Alice is there, an obvious major presence in the plot, but the character never ignites within her role the way the three males do, especially Terry Thorne! Russell seems to be able to straddle that fine line between composure and compassion with ease. That's no surprise, considering the diversity of his roles to date. We see exactly what we've come to expect of him this time around -- more of his seemingly effortless expertise, but precisely because he makes it look so easy, we begin to take it for granted. However, it's in reflection that Terry's quiet dynamism becomes far more apparent.

Because the rescue 'team' as a whole were so compelling and simply entertaining, I have an impertinent suggestion for Taylor Hackford -- give us a K & R sequel, PLEASE! (Colleen)

I saw the film at the Toronto premiere, a benefit for Gilda's House for those touched by cancer. I expected a letdown after all the hype, but was engaged by David Morse's performance and by Russell's ability to portray the loneliness of Terry Thorne with a minimum of gestures and words. "I've never seen you nervous before," says Alice. "Yes, you have," says Terry. That's my favourite moment. (Barbara)

Proof of Life delivers a strong warning to Americans traveling abroad without kidnap ransom insurance -- don't leave home without it! Hostage negotiator Russell Crowe undertakes a "mission impossible" in rescuing Meg Ryan's uninsured husband from Colombian kidnappers. The nail-biting suspense never lets up until the final scene, when Russell's brains and brawn overcome obstacles that would make even James Bond proud. So what's next for Russell Crowe? A Beautiful Mind sounds promising. Then why not Russell as Jesus? Or a singing Russell in Sunset Boulevard? Or a verbatim remake of Quo Vadis with Russell as Marcus Vinicius and Joaquin Phoenix as Nero? What dreams may come! (Will Tunstill)

Proof of Life:

I saw Proof of Life at the test screening December 2, 2000, and I know where I will not be next weekend. I do not want to see this movie again without a fast-forward button. The last time I clock-watched a movie was The Firm. (That needed more editing.)

Russell's specialty is letting the audience into his character's head. Gladiator started there and never let go. This movie Terry has distanced himself from everyone including his family and himself. This distance may make Terry better able to do his job, but is does not lend to the audience getting to know him when he does not know himself. We get little moments, but little moments are all they are. Sylvester Stallion would have been fine in this role. Russell is totally wasted here.

Meg Ryan needs to stop playing the aging hippie. We have seen this before. David Caruso was not on enough. The most interesting part of the movie was David Morse's character as he went from idealist going to give people a better future with his dam project to a man who had to face the fact that the people he wanted to help did not want his help. They would be happy to kill him.

The scenery under the end credits was very good, but where they worth the wait? (Patrice)

As the movie was close to the end I leaned over to my friend and said "they cut the love scene." She said "What love scene?" So it obviously wasn't that important. However, not knowing that the two characters really had feelings for each other does tend to make the storyline in the final product a bit stiff to comprehend. They kiss once and Dino mentions that Terry must be falling in love. Other than that there is no real sexual tension other than some forlorn looks by Russell. Meg misses the mark on this completely. Will I see it again? You bet. (Roib’n M.)

Note to Taylor Hackford and Tony Gilroy -- If you decide to make another movie that has an element of sexual tension and a romance love triangle in it, please review the following movies: the classic "Casablanca" and an early Harrison Ford movie," Hanover Street." Because you missed the boat in Proof of Life. How can you not capture sexual tension with Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan? (BD)

(Warning: spoiler!)

I loved it. It was very engrossing and had me riveted from beginning to end. . . . As a fan of Russell's it annoyed me that they had removed love scene. It would have made for a far more complicated climax to the movie and explained the look on Terry's face when Peter points a gun at him at the end. It was a combination of guilt, resolve and acceptance. All in a moment that Russell conveyed perfectly.

I found it disappointing that the producers of this movie lacked the back bone to let the hero not be completely likable by having an affair with Alice. Based on the situation that they were in, how closely they had to work together, it would not have been unheard of that these two people would be drawn to each other.

I find insulting as a member of the movie-going public that the producers of this film chickened out and did not trust that I could possibly enjoy a movie that gave me real, complicated human beings, with all their faults and blemishes, as opposed to the sanitized Hollywood versions of them. (Elena S.)

I love Russell Crowe but Proof of Life was a terrible movie. It was so shallow and most the dialogue was silly! I found myself wondering when it would end. The song at the end was laughable. (by PT)

I loved it! The audience, mostly couples, received it very well and the gasps and laughter were in all the right places. There were strong performances all around. Russell was marvelous and very convincing in his role as a hostage negotiator. You knew he could deliver the goods with his experience and motivation well established. David Morse did a great job and people were cringing in their seats when he was hurt. He really grew in his role. I wish David Caruso had more to do in the film. I have never been a fan of his but he handled his role well and he and Russell had real chemistry in their scenes. You could believe they had a history together.

The real revelation was Meg Ryan. She had a difficult job in treading a tightrope of a role and she came through with flying colors. I have always liked her comedies but she can handle the tough stuff too. The scenes between her and Russell were electric and in their quiet moments together you could have heard a pin drop in the theater. (Mary from Ohio)

I was very disappointed. If any other actor were playing Russell's character, I would have walked out a half-hour into the movie. I really did not care whether the hostage was rescued or not, and there was not enough character development between Meg and Russell's characters for him risk rescuing her husband on his own. The script was not well-written. Whether the love scene worked or not before it was cut . . . the attraction between them was clearly meant to be an important twist to the story. With it cut ... there was little attraction evident between them.

There was certainly no chemistry between them on the screen. Come to think of it . . . all of Russell's incredible range of emotions were restrained. (Jan M.)

I went in with trepidation -- that Proof of Life would not live up to the caliber of Russell's two previous films. I feared it would play like Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn's "Charade," where the suspense was secondary to the star's romantic relationship.

Instead, gratefully, it plays more like Michael Mann's "Heat" or like "Ronin" with Robert DeNiro. It's a muscular thriller, where the emphasis is on the business of K&R, and the Latin American setting is as much a character as the superb supporting actors in the film.

Russell is totally believable as a competent negotiator. David Morse is excellent as the career-centered husband who gets kidnapped and is forced to appreciate the political reality of the country he has chosen to work in, and the measure of love he has for his wife.

Pamela Reed, at times, steals Meg Ryan's place as the second victim and center of sympathy in this kidnapping. But Ryan is better in this film than in anything I've ever seen her in. She's more mature and relies less on the quirky mannerisms she's used in past films (including "When a Man Loves a Woman.")

Proof of Life is a fine film, and I think will bare well under the critical scrutiny of both reviewers and cynical movie-goers. (Jo Ann P.)

(Warning: MAJOR spoilers!)

As a devout Russell Crowe fan, I was a bit disenchanted with "Proof of Life." After seeing Russell in a role like Maximus, one that was bigger than life, this role was disappointing. I felt he did the best he could with what he was given. He always "sinks his teeth" into a role to make it totally believable; he tried here as well. Meg Ryan was not appropriate for a wife who had her husband kidnapped in a strange country for months. She was so busy trying to put the moves on Terry that it made me despise her as a woman. ... David Morse was excellent, as always. I loved his character and strength. (Sharon)