Proof of Life

I was impressed by Proof of Life and would only make one comment. In most movies, the plot is tightened up to be fast-paced, convincing, make you identify with and care about the characters, and even contain a little moral or have something to say about the human condition.

When a film like Proof of Life is based on a true story, there are limits to this. The worst example I can think of being A Civil Action, which I'm sure is true to the story but the ending was not satisfying and deflated the entire film.

So it's definitely worth seeing, but it's a little slow, and like real life the there is no consistent "tone" to the plot twists. (The film does not fit neatly into one genre throughout.)

Who should see this film:

-- Action buffs who won't mind that only some stuff blows up and the film is a little arty

-- Drama fans who are curious about the topic, but who are not expecting a romance and won't mind a little violence

-- People who'd like some gritty realism concerning Latin American civil uprisings

I give "Proof of Life" a 7 out of 10.

Peter and Alice Bowman are working on a dam in South America in the employment of a large oil company. When Peter is kidnapped the company bring in expert negotiator Terry Thorne. However when the oil company runs out of money due to no insurance, they take Terry off the case and he leaves for another job. However a pang of conscience brings him back to help Alice and he replaces the corrupt locals. As he tries to help get her husband back he also falls for Alice.

As a fan of David Caruso, I was annoyed that I missed this film at the cinema (I blinked and I missed it!) and by the time the video came out it had slipped my mind. Shown of tv last night was the perfect time for me to see it and, despite negative reviews, I actually quite enjoyed it. I think the problem is that the critics struggled to get past the handful of problems (more later) to find that the film was an effective, if talky, drama with a thriller edge. The premise is good and it allows tense scenes where Terry tough talks as well as scenes with Peter with his captors. It's not perfect in this regard as it is a bit talky but for me it was engaging - I got the impression from other comments that people had expected raging gun battles all the way through the film.

However what does damage the film is Alice Bowman. I can see the potential behind Terry and Alice's romance - it could have been another layer of drama. In reality it doesn't work a bit and only serves to take away from the main thrust of the film - their relationship never convinces and nothing of interest is actually done with it. Likewise the character of Alice doesn't really work either - I never believed she was emotionally going through the wringers to the degree the script suggested she would be. A big part of the blame for this must lie with Meg Ryan herself. She is miscast in the first place, but on top of that she is too pristine throughout the film - hair and makeup perfect no matter what and a stupid little hippie-girl personality that stops her being a real person. It is a bad performance and the film would have benefited from a shorter running time which lost the romance subplot and scaled back on Ryan's time.

However she is carried by a real star turn from Crowe. It may not be that clever a role but he does `tough' really well and he helps improve the tension of several scenes. Morse is a good actor and he does well here. The only downside of his performance is that he seemed fit and well outside of his makeup; I was looking for him to look thinner and mentally battered as the film progressed but he didn't - it's not his fault, I guess the film had no time to do this. Caruso gives the same tough performance he does in every thing he ever does so if you like that then you'll like him here - I do!

Overall this is an enjoyable film if you can get past it's major problems surrounding Alice and Terry's relationship. Script-wise this aspect was weak on paper, but a comparatively rubbish turn from the miscast Meg Ryan just makes it all the weaker. Thank god that the basic premise is tense and the male leads' tough talking is good fun.

"Globalization" is one of those catchy buzzwords that shares the stage with the likes of "abortion", and "capital punishment"- while one group of people thinks it is a good thing that just might save the world, another thinks it is on par with the plague. There is however no dispute that with advancements in technology and the search for new capital markets, businesses are expanding abroad at a phenomenal rate into countries with little infrastructure or wealth and the ever-present danger of war. This expansion has also been the catalyst for a lucrative sideline business - kidnapping.

Peter Bowman is a man trying to do the right thing. In order to build a dam to stop the killer floods in the South American country of Teclac he must work under the auspices of a large oil concern. As with any overseas project, Peter has to deal with many problems: lack of supplies, red tape, feelings of isolation, a crumbling marriage and living with the threat of terrorist activity. While on his way to work Terry is stopped at a roadblock and taken hostage by a band of guerrillas who demand a huge ransom for his release. Enter Terry Thorne, an insurance investigator whose specialty is "K and R" - kidnapping and ransom. Terry's job is to negotiate the release of kidnapped foreign nationals. And he is a very busy man.

This movie really piqued my interest and not because of the off-screen romance between Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe: the father of a good friend of mine is an international financial consultant, and he was almost kidnapped while working in SouthEast Asia. The attempt was foiled by the quick actions of the special security detail that intercepted details of the plan and whisked him out of the country. I spoke with him after seeing the trailers for the movie and he said that in country he is currently working in you do not anywhere without heavily armed escorts. The possibility of being kidnapped is viewed as the cost of doing business. I forgot to ask him if they had the appropriate insurance.

"Proof of Life" grew out of a story in Vanity Fair and is loosely based on the kidnapping of an American businessman by Colombian guerillas. Taylor Hackford is a director who eschews the safety of studios, and opts for that extra touch of realism. In keeping with this goal, he took the cast and crew down to Ecuador, where he was met with erupting volcanoes, blizzards, a cast beset with altitude sickness, a coup in Quito, muggings, heart attacks on the set and the death of a stand-in. The final cut is an apt homage to those involved.

Typically cast as the funny, quirky, girlfriend afflicted with endless mini-crises, Meg Ryan has been afforded few opportunities to demonstrate acting abilities. As Alice Bowman, she has the chance to flesh out a multidimensional character that doesn't spend her onscreen time whining, crying or laughing insipidly. And she does so admirably. Russell Crowe, riding high after the success of "Gladiator", once again delivers a solid performance. Crowe draws heavily on his own quiet, severe introspection to create a character conflicted between loyalties, expectations and realities and the feelings he tries to suppress for Ryan's character. Their real life tryst helped to establish the tone for the powerful, yet subtle scenes they share onscreen. David Morse is excellent as Terry, a man trying to hang onto his sanity in an insane situation. As he is marched across country, and endures humiliation, and beatings, he never loses sight of his goal to stay alive and escape. His transformation from clean cut businessman (I've never seen him with such a close shave) to disheveled captive is done slowly and deliberately, and the viewer appreciates what he's experiencing. Finally, it was interesting to see David Caruso - who has floated in the acting netherworld since he left "NYPD Blue" almost six years ago - as a rival K&R specialist who assists Terry with his mission. Caruso reminds us why he has not graced many marquees - he's not very funny, action is not his forte, and he is an average actor at best. The other star of the film is the location.

With most of the film having been shot in the mountains of Ecuador, (the guerrillas camp was literally carved out of the jungle) it is not surprising that the film looks gorgeous: tumbling waterfalls, plunging ravines and flourishing jungles are stock backdrops for the story and you begin to take them for granted. One of my favorite scenes was when the infinite expanse of greenery is broken by a band of camouflaged rebels who were totally invisible only moments earlier. I was surprised how tight the cinematography was given the expansive vistas, but nothing is sacrificed in the process. In addition to a well-written script that avoids most cliches, and contains palpable suspense, I was impressed with the way the relationship between Alice and Terry was handled. Rather than have the characters jumping into bed for a sweatfest the writers opted for an undercurrent of subtle tension with the characters exchanging occasional confused glances and moments of awkward silence when their hands brush.

The first entertaining intelligent film to come out of Tinseltown in a long while - maybe it bodes well for the Christmas rush.

Maureen O'Hara stars in a movie where her husband gets kidnapped those damn commies in South East Asia so she hires tough and dashing soldier of fortune Clark Gable to save the day

That's not the cast or the location of PROOF OF LIFE but it does have a very similar plot . Did someone mention this was a 1940s matinée blockbuster ? Just curious because while I was watching the movie I was struck by how old fashioned everything felt . Russell Crowe plays an Aussie who served in the SAS and saves a Frenchman from the Chechens in the opening sequence , but you could have had Gable playing an American paratrooper saving someone from the Red Army on the River Elbe in May 1945 . Different actor , different period of history , different enemy but still the same basic story with the action switching from Europe to say South East Asia in 1950

That's not to say PROOF OF LIFE is a bad film . It's not and I found it mainly entertaining though perhaps a little too long . It's just that it is so old fashioned that you can see where the predictable story threads are going to begin and end . You can't deny that both the cast and action scenes are good , it's just that you also can't stop thinking it would have been better if it'd been filmed in monochrome and directed by Michael Curtiz with no bad language or sexual references

I like this film. I must admit that a part of me was hoping for the typical chick flic ending, but if I'd actually gotten it I'm sure I wouldn't have liked the movie as much. The movie was more believable than I've come to expect from action films, with the possible exception of the bravado of the captive husband. I find it hard to believe that someone in that situation would be so constantly antagonistic to their captors. Sure, you might have a moment or two where you'd just had enough and had to push back, but I find it hard to believe that you'd be that way ALL the time.

But the negotiations were believable for the most part, and the growing attraction between the leads was done nicely.