User Reviews (281)

Add a Review

  • Its an OK movie overall. There is no arguing that Russel Crowe has some charisma in this film. And Meg Ryan... is Meg Ryan and really not a good fit. Overall not anything to get that excited about. But the action sequences, both when Peter is captured and the film ending hostage rescue sequence in my opinion are some of the greatest and most accurate in film. Not perfect, this is a movie so some creative/dramatic license was taken, but way above par compared to most any other film I can think of with very rare exception. Its pretty clear that they had a rare combination of fantastic military consultants along with a director and cinematographer willing to listen and make the most of it. Tactics, equipment, effects (with obligatory gasoline added to explosions...), even hand signals, how the guerrilla's operate... Spot on! Quite the rarity and very refreshing.

    Really can't say enough good things about the action sequences. Movie is worth seeing just for this. The rest... meh.
  • According to the director's commentary on the DVD, Meg Ryan demanded (and got) significant rewrites to her character. Maybe Meg should stick to acting because her character is pretty unappealing. When her husband's humanitarian engineering project is unraveling and he's terribly upset, what does she do? She complains about their life traveling around the globe (a very curious scene because one of Meg's rewrites required her character to be rewritten from a country-club wife into a social activist), dredges up her miscarriage which she blames on her husband (apparently because it happened while they were both voluntarily in Africa working on aid projects), and essentially tells him to take her back to America. When he offers to do so, she reverses course and rejects the offer. After the husband is kidnapped, Meg (almost immediately) starts to fall for Russell Crowe though somewhat later she slaps HIM in the face when he's only trying to get her husband back. Finally, when the husband is rescued and returned to Meg, she looks about as thrilled as someone presented with a stinking fish. Yikes! We should be happy at movie's end but I couldn't stop from thinking that the rescued kidnapee had gone from the frying pan into the fire.
  • While I would probably reccomend seeing the epic Gladiator (one of the best films of the year as I now see it) if you want a case of Russell Crowe as a perfectionist actor, if you want to see a movie with him in good form (and in the cinema now), this is good too. With him in the lead, plus 2 other really good performances, it almost (and almost) seems like there are no flaws.

    The plot follows an expert K & R consultant (Crowe in great acting shape), who goes in assistance for a wife (Meg Ryan in one of her better roles) who's husband (David Morse who follows up and tops his Dancer in the Dark performance) has been kidnapped. Then the thrilling tension ensues, as they try and get him back. With the few flaws possibly being not enough tension and not the greatest delivery I expected, it definately hits the mark on It's acting and delivery (and what an ending). By the way, if you are looking for Crowe's famous Australian accent, then this is surely for you. B+
  • Proof of Life might well satisfy those more knowledgeable in real-life military matters. When Terry (Crowe) explains to Alice (Ryan) how he started out in the Australian Army, but left for the British Army because there wasn't enough action...he was stating a very plausible possibility. The British Army does indeed accept recruits from Commonwealth nations. Terry also says he is veteran of the elite British Special Air Service, and again, it is true that a huge proportion of ex-SAS members end up in private security efforts of various kinds. When the big raid is carried off, the costumers took enough care to dress Terry in British DPM fatigues, while the American Dino (Caruso) wears American BDU fatigues. Again, this is plausible as these are the sorts of fatigues both men took with them when they left military service. I've seen a lot of reviewers here criticize the end raid sequence.

    I found the actions scenes very good and a welcome change from most movies. Terry and Dino actually plan for covering fire from higher ground, fields of fire, etc. So many military raids in movies (The Dogs of War is a good example) just have the characters march out in the open and fire from the hip, with no seeming plan of movement other than to run around, destroy stuff, and look dramatic. Terry and his team never stuck around any longer, nor killed any more of the guerrillas, then necessary to rescue the hostages and escape.

    I can see where these details failed to find appreciation with the general viewing public, but I only hope others doing such movies continue to try to be authentic and realistic.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is a great "B Movie" thriller that will hold your attention. Russell Crowe makes a charismatic lead. However, i thought the casting of Meg Ryan was terrible; she was not right for this role at all. She needs to stick to the Tom Hanks rom-coms. The film's climactic rescue sequence will keep you on the edge of your seat with spellbinding suspense. It's worth watching the whole movie just for the end. It makes you appreciate the heroes out there who do this in real life, putting their own lives on the line to save others. Definitely recommend this movie!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Proof Of Life is a satisfactory drama.

    It starts out as a suspense thriller and ends up as an action thriller, taking a little too long to get there. Along the way it winds in a not altogether convincing almost-romance subplot.

    Russell Crowe is excellent, as is David Morse (as always). Meg Ryan comes across as cold, however: even when there are tears and emotional moments, she never made me believe that she was actually feeling anything. A shame, because a warmer performance would have added immeasurably to the movie.

    Most of the supporting players are fine.

    There is an awful lot of un-subtitled Spanish. I suppose that this is to drive home the utter isolation experienced by David Morse's character, but there were times when I would have welcomed knowing what was being said: it wasn't me who was kidnapped, after all.

    A decent enough movie, but without anything to single it out as being special.
  • South American rebels kidnap Peter Bowman (David Morse), a US engineer who works for an oil company. The company calls in negotiator Terry Thorne (Russell Crowe). When the oil company abandons them, Bowman's wife Alice (Meg Ryan) begs Terry to stay.

    First we must address the Russell Crowe - Meg Ryan real life romance. It definitely muddied the movie's reception. But it's eerie how the movie mirrors real life. David Morse plays the husband a little bit too unlikeable. It made the budding romance of the leads uncomfortably too real in both life and movie. That part of the movie is just too creepy. I do like Russell Crowe negotiating with the rebels. The action at the end is worthwhile and the whole story flows very well.
  • I liked this movie, I liked the characters and the pacing and plot, but what's with the gratuitous use of cigarette placement in this film. it seemed crow-bared into the story for no effect. there was no point to its inclusion. Add to that we never see meg Ryan taking a puff, just awkwardly waving her cigarette around. I first say a stray puff of smoke and wondered what the hell it was then later figured out Meg was smoking (or not). Then we get Crow in on the act and the sister. It just rang hollow and confusing and put a corporate edge on an otherwise interesting story.

    Crow's character was cool and for the family breaking wife stealer he managed to pull in the real world with meg his character was certainly worth it.

    Meg looked cool too, pre lip implants.

    The military stuff was precise and focused and the hostage stuff disturbing. A flawed but good movie. I'm glad I watched it.
  • Proof of Life is a good example of how NOT to make a movie.

    Alice (Meg Ryan) and Peter (David Morse) are married and living in a fictional South American country called Tecala. Peter gets kidnapped. Terry (Russell Crowe) is a kidnap and ransom negotiator whose job it is to get Peter released.

    It is possible to make a good movie about a woman whose husband has been kidnapped and the relationship she has with the man who is negotiating to get her husband released. It is possible to make a good movie about a man who has been kidnapped and the ordeal he undergoes while living with terrorists. The point is, you pick one or the other. Proof of Life tries to have it both ways, and it fails. There is no way one movie can do justice to both storylines. The action in Proof of Life keeps jumping back and forth between the two competing storylines, and it is very annoying. The movie has no structure and no focus.

    The other huge problem I have with this movie is the relationship between Alice and Terry. The movie falls all over itself trying to convince us that Alice and Terry are falling in love, but I didn't believe it for a moment. Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe have absolutely no chemistry with each other. You would never suspect these people had an affair in real life.

    When Alice offers Peter's sister Janice (Pamela Reed) a glass of wine and Janice says she doesn't drink, this gives Alice and Terry an excuse to exchange a `meaningful' look. When Alice and Terry take Janice to the airport, after Janice leaves, Alice and Terry stand and stare at each other. When Terry is on the radio talking to the kidnappers, he sees Alice in another room. They stop what they are doing and look at each other. The movie wants us to believe all this gazing is a sign of romantic attraction, but it just looks like Alice and Terry are staring at each other for no apparent reason.

    There is a scene in which Terry's friend Dino (David Caruso) spends some time with Alice and Terry. Alice drinks out of Terry's glass. We see a close-up of Dino reacting to this. Alice and Terry light candles. Dino comments on this. In this scene the movie is hitting us over the head telling us to find tremendous significance in Alice and Terry's innocent behavior. So what if Alice drinks out of Terry's glass and they light candles? That doesn't mean they're falling in love!

    When Dino asks Terry if he is in love with Alice, the question makes no sense because all he has to go on is the behavior described above. When Terry kisses Alice, it comes out of nowhere.

    I think Meg Ryan is miscast in this movie. I just never found her performance convincing. Alice needs to wear a bra, and her hair is always a mess. Alice never actually smokes her cigarettes but merely waves them around and gestures with them.

    Russell Crowe looks good and gives a good performance.
  • 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.
  • blee35 May 2005
    In a mountainous South American country where drugs are the major crop of the economy, kidnapping is more of a lucrative investment opportunity than a punishable felony. The government is in the business of trying to stop the drug trade and allocating resources for more respectable economic ventures. In response to this, anti government Marxist guerrilla groups frequently block off traffic and raid the streets, kidnapping citizens and tourist alike, freeing the poor ones and keeping the ones who can fetch a high ransom price. Soon they realize this can bring in even more money than the drug trade, and change into a professional kidnapping operation. When they kidnap and idealistic American engineer, Peter Bowman (David Moorse), who is in South America attempting to build a dam that he believes will help the locals grow crops, the guerrilla group finds out he is employed by a United States oil company, and believe that the dam is assisting an oil pipeline, robbing South America of this precious national resource. They take him to their camp in the mountains and wait for either his wife, Meg Bowman (Meg Ryan), or the oil company to pay the large ransom set. The oil company sends in a kidnap and rescue specialists, Terry Thorne (Russell Crowe), to negotiate a lower price, however the ransom is still much higher than either his wife has or the oil company is willing to pay.

    While it takes place in a fictional South American country, Tecala, we can infer that Proof of Life was based almost entirely on Columbia because for a variety of reasons. The geography of Tecala resembles that of Columbia, with both flat coastal lowlands and a mountainous region, the Andes. The other clue that gives away that Tecala was based on Columbia is the effect of guerrillas. The guerrilla group in the movie is based on La Violencia, which also has a Marxist orientation. In Columbia guerilla groups control almost forty percent of the countryside, just as in Proof of Life. This film does a great job showing the imprint that guerilla groups have left on the local populace. Many Columbian citizens live in fear that every day something bad will happen to them or their families due to the great amount of daily violence in the country.

    The film snaps back and forth between three story lines, a harrowing escape effort from the mountain camp by Peter Bowman, the intense negotiations to lower the ransom price by Terry Thorne, and Alice Bowman's emotional roller coaster between her budding feelings for Terry Thorne and feelings of loss and despair for her husband. This triplet of story lines can get quite confusing and annoying at times because its prevents us from getting truly engaged in a storyline. Many of the characters actions and emotions are unbelievable, which leads to a distancing of oneself from the characters. Proof of Life overall however, was an entertaining movie, and a movies goal is simply to entertain. While it could have used more action sequences, it succeeded in getting the blood and adrenaline flowing. I would rate it a 6.5 out of 10.
  • With a talented cast, an experienced director in Taylor Hackford, a creative writer in Tony Gilroy and featuring some stunning Ecuadorian locations, you'd be forgiven for thinking Proof of Life should have been a winner, both critically and commercially. Instead it failed, for one major reason. At two and a quarter hours, the film is at least 30 minutes too long.

    The story content isn't strong enough to sustain such a long movie, which ends up being filled with padded out, pointless scenes that have little to do with the main story.

    Russell Crowe watches his son play rugby. British character actor Alun Armstrong pops up as an old friend of both Crowe's and David Caruso's characters ... and then is never seen or heard from again. Pamela Reed and Meg Ryan play similar characters (sisters-in-law) but just seem to clutter up the screen and get in each other's way. Did the film need them both? So much of David Morse's hostage character is just repeated ad nauseam. We really didn't need about 15 minutes of screen time devoted to us being shown Peter being moved to different places amongst the mountains. The Alice and Terry "forbidden love story" sub-thread is so drawn out with their characters completely lacking any chemistry, that it just becomes a big yawn (which is kind of strange given the nature and publicity of Meg's and Russell's off-screen affair at the time),

    Speaking of Alice, it's hard to believe Meg Ryan was supposedly paid $15 million for this unlikeable wife role, which I feel could just about have been played by any one. Alice, as mentioned before isn't even a really important character. She could have been interchanged with Janis, Peter's sister.

    The storyline becomes so dragged out, I almost burst out laughing, before cheering David Caruso's Dino, when he demands of Terry, late in the film, that they finally spring into action. (Ironically Dino is one character I would have liked to have seen more of in the movie.)

    I don't know if more judicious editing of Proof of Life would have made it a better film. But I'm sure a 90 - 105 minute product would have been a more enjoyable experience.
  • 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.
  • buiger29 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?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    David Morse is an engineer captured and held hostage for ransom by a corrupt group of revolutionaries in the fictional South American country of Tecada or Tecate or San Placebo or someplace. Morse is taken to a remote camp where a few other captives are being held for the same purpose. Man, are these revolutionaries a bunch of barbaric slobs. They lock Morse up in a hut made of reeds and give him a rubber boot saying, "Here ees your toilet." They use the most foul language. They booze it up and smoke dope, and if they take a dislike to you they give you a taste of the old bastinado. On top of that, the weather on this mountaintop is lousy -- cold and wet. After a while it all began to remind me of my marriage.

    Back at the ranch, Morse's anguished wife, Meg Ryan, is at a loss for what to do. There is a call for ransom and, after a few skirmishes with the local negotiating team, which seems about as corrupt as the revolutionaries, there appears a business-like and knowledgeable professional hostage rescuer in the form of Russell Crowe, he of the mighty latissimus dorsi, along with half a dozen of his buddies led by David Caruso. They're a sensitive but macho bunch. They address each other as ladies in the local saloons.

    Interesting and convincing material on negotiating with bandits follows. It's a little like a course in Hostage Negotiations 101. While the movie stays on this course, it's informative and pretty good.

    The months pass by as Crowe and the rebels haggle over the price for Morse's life. Many viewers might find this aggravating, especially Americans. We are a "can do" nation, not a "can wait" nation. "If you're gonna do it, then do it now." Mercifully, and to their commercial advantage, the writers scarcely have Morse penned up in that airy hut before there's a cut to a title: DAY 44. See, that way you don't have to wait. Let Meg Ryan do the waiting.

    In the end, it develops that Morse already knows too much about the coca crops and the organization of the bandidos and all that, so there's no way they're going to let him out alive. The money no longer matters. This precipitates a raid by Crowe and Caruso and their half dozen compañeros. They follow the usual routine, dressing in camos and greasing up their faces with black and olive drab paint that doesn't do a THING for them. And there is the ritual laying out of weapons, two smoke grenades, two stun grenades, and two HE. The assault by helicopter.

    Now, these half dozen highly trained pros are up against a hundred well armed and slightly insane dudes. But what's that to Crowe and his gang? All it means is a higher body count. (Cf., the raid on the camp in "Predator".) The climax is a guignol scene in which none of our guys misses and all the bad guys do nothing BUT miss. None of the rescuers dies, the hostages are rescued, Morse goes back to his wife, their marriage renewed, and Crowe leaves her behind in a gentlemanly way although he's fallen for her. And who wouldn't? She's cute as hell. She looks like the girl in your high school class that all the boys dreamed about before they went to sleep. Not the sultry slut but the virginal cheerleader. Her troublingly blue eyes have circumferences of black. The actors playing the rebels put in as good a performance as anyone else in the film. There's an unexploited pool of talent for you. They have actors, we have Keanu Reeves.

    I kind of enjoyed it. The location photography is magnificent and the characterizations convincing. The confrontation between Crowe and the local team of corrupt negotiators is as tense as any other scene in the movie. It was also a good idea to individuate the bandidos. They're not all scuzz bags. There's a more or less helpless young woman who scolds the men for their rudeness, and there's a younger rebel who isn't entirely unfeeling.
  • Terry Thorne (played by Russell Crowe-Gladiator) is an ex-SAS soldier who now earns a living as a hostage negotiator in the dangerous world of kidnap and rescue insurance. Peter (David Morse-12 Monkeys) and Alice Bowman (Meg Ryan) have been living in a politically unstable part of South America for five months, when Peter is kidnapped by rebels. Thorne is flown in to negotiate, but decides to go it alone when his company orders him away from the assignment.

    Great suspense thriller, with gripping action and strong performances from Crowe, Ryan and Morse. Well worth a watch.
  • edinger19 March 2001
    As a big Meg Ryan fan I'm not at all too happy to report that this movie didn't live up to its potential… or my expectations. The problem isn't the story, though. What seems a bit phoney is the developing on-screen romance between Meg and Russell. At least Meg seems very distant and fails terribly in conveying a sense of a affection for Crowe's character. One, inevitably, wonders if the real life romance between the two actors made it difficult for them to PLAY each other's love interests. Anyway, go see the movie for yourself and make your own judgement.

    IMDb rating: 7
  • When I knew Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe in it, i was really exciting. But the movie didn't do well, they put Crowe quite much on fighting and normal talk; and Meg Ryan didn't expose so much with her internal feelings, though her eyes are always somehow incredible. Anyway, the plot is quite good; and Crowe's appearance in this movie really reminded me of his movie after this one, A Beautiful Mind, one of my favorite characters of him. Definitely NOT a bad movie!
  • The publicity about Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe having an affair during the filming overshadowed this movie, and many people -- who went to see Crowe and Ryan -- were disappointed by their total lack of chemistry on screen. Meanwhile, the real heart of the movie was ignored by reviewers.

    The real hero of this movie is the kidnapped husband who never gives up and who is the engineer of his own fate. David Morse, who is one of the most under-appreciated actors around, makes this man's struggle to stay alive and escape poignant and real. Don't waste your attention on the relationship between the wife and the negotiator; it isn't what this movie is about.
  • this movie was so bad, I still remember it, even now. It left an indelible mark on my brain - the bad acting, the overwhelming length that almost drew me to tears. How did I sit through this movie??? Oh yeah, my friend who really really wanted to see it, convinced me to stay...

    Was there any redeeming feature to this film for me? The landscape. That was about the only thing that gave the movie any substance at all.

    Morse and Crowe were wooden, Meg sucks as a serious actress, the plot laughable, the script beyond bad. No wonder Crowe when doing the press junkets for the flick didn't seem to gung-ho about the whole thing. It was awful. Definitely one of the worst of 2000 if you ask me. It rates right up there on the ick factor right along with Moulin Rouge.
  • What happens in real life will inevitably have an effect on the reel one. Tom Cruise learnt that with his strange antics in real life - his screen one suffered with a less than expected stellar box office for M:I:3 despite positive critical reviews. Way back in 2000, Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan learnt that too, with their rumoured romance while shooting this movie, one of the many reasons resulting in this becoming a box office bomb.

    I felt that it was not a bad movie actually, given the story which I found interesting in the first place, for its extremely distant relation to what I'm doing, and being an action adventure movie, it works with its fair share of big action sequences.

    Russell Crowe plays Terry Thorne, a consultant in the Security and Crisis Response Unit of Luthan Risk International. His job is to negotiate the safe return of Kidnap and Ransom (K&R) victims around the world, and of course, this brings him frequently to where the action is, during the payment of ransoms and the extraction of hostages. He yearns for a management role, but as always, if you're an excellent field operative, you're played to your strengths out there.

    Which brings him to his latest client, Meg Ryan's Alice Bowman, whose husband Peter Bowman (David Morse), an employee with the biggest international oil firmed, gets kidnapped by chance during a raid in Ecuador. There are numerous scenes in the movie to perk your interest in this much behind-the-scenes industry of K&R, the terrorist(?) groups' motivation, and how the entire business is conducted, with the engagement of peers as well as the involvement of shady government personnel.

    There are many fine touches that might go unnoticed, like how network of contacts and peers are milked, cooperation extended, the wheelings and dealings of large multinational corporations, and politics in general. But the focus moves quickly towards a micro one, that between Thorne and Alice Bowman, as he accomplishes to build her trust in him that he's the best in the business and knows what he's doing.

    Perhaps this is one of the rare movies that allowed Crowe to be an Australian (and keep the accent) in a Hollywood production. His Thorne is oozes enough machismo to carry the action through and is credible enough to be believed as a veteran in the business. Meg Ryan this time round has a more serious character to play, albeit at times a weepie one, steering well clear of the pretty ditzy blonde comedic roles she has become accustomed to. They had probably shot some love scenes for this movie, but I suppose the bad press resulted in those scenes ending up on the cutting room floor. The romance between the character was also almost squashed out, save for the out of place suggestion of a strong physical attraction which rears its ugly head in the second half of the movie, slowing the pace down a little without much mature development. I thought that should it had been removed entirely, it'll probably end up a stronger movie, with Thorne more in character as a mission driven individual.

    The first David, David Caruso, is finding a new lease of life back in television with CSI, since branching off to movies after NYPD Blue didn't augur too well for him. I thought his performance here was nothing much to shout about though. However David Morse, who usually plays supporting roles, put up an adequately engaging Peter Bowman as an executive caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and examines the fear and desperation of a man kidnapped and constantly at the wrong end of a gun barrel.

    The theme song by Danny Elfman is addictive (time to hunt it down), and the end credits was played over a helicopter view of the entire Ecuadorian landscape, just beautiful to look at. Clocking at just over 2 hours, it provided some good entertainment for a lazy Sunday afternoon.

    Code 3 DVD contains the behind the scenes making-of documentary (13" 40'), the theatrical trailer, and the feature length audio commentary by director Taylor Hackford.
  • filmbuff197014 April 2002
    First off i like the movie but what could of been a great movie turns out to be just average.Ryan is the chief flaw shes far too lightweight for this and is hopelessy miscast.Pamela Reed as the sister is far closer to a real portrayal.as for david morse he must be the first ever captive to look fatter after his ordeal than before.Im sure Dennis Quaid would of been perfect in this role.On the plus side Crowe is in good form.Taylor Hackford does well he should do a bond movie.And David Caruso is a Real scene Stealer.6 out of 10
  • Set in the volatile political climate of Ecuador, 'Proof of Life' is basically a film about an engineer, Peter Bowman (David Morse, The Rock, The Negotiator) who is kidnapped by a ruthless gang of guerrillas. Enter former SAS man, Terry Thorne (Russell Crowe), a specialist in K&R (kidnap and ransom) to negotiate the terms of his release, whilst comforting and gaining the trust of Bowman's wife Alice (Meg Ryan). The ransom demands are extreme, and as Bowman and his company are uninsured it comes down to the family and Alice to provide the money, except they do not have the requisite amount, being able to accrue a mere $650 000.

    This is a long and rambling film that fails on almost every level. Considering that Ryan and Crowe were having a sizzling and passionate romance, it is incredible that none of this is transferred to screen. Their chemistry is simply none existent, and although the film moves throughout at a horribly boorish pace, their inevitable romance seems contrived, hurried and without any foundation whatsoever. Prolonged eye contact does not suddenly equate to earth shattering, deep, romantic love. Crowe is an undoubted talent with tremendous and markedly different performances in films like 'Gladiator', 'The Insider' and 'LA Confidential'. There is no doubt that action films suit his acting style, and Crowe can pull off a good performance even when he is given very little to play with. 'Proof of Life' is supposed to demonstrate his more sensitive side, whilst maintaining the rugged charm and hardness that has made him successful, but this is without doubt his worst film to date.

    Meg Ryan, seems to have built her career out of one film ('When Harry Met Sally') and more importantly one scene (the faked orgasm scene), and she is frankly awful in this film. She seems to be typecast, forever playing an emotional and tearful woman, and in 'Proof of Life' she is no different. Such repeated sentimentality in her characters make her performances much less effective than they might be in isolation, so when the tears come in this film, they are much less potent or moving than they ought to be.

    'Proof of Life' is completely lifeless, and the only scene that saves it is towards the end where the film gets some 'Predator' like action scenes, and we realise why we have come to watch Crowe, viz. to see him fire his gun. The star of the film is Thorne's close friend, and fellow K&R specialist, Dino (David Caruso, 'NYPD Blue'), but he is in too few scenes to really save the film.

    The premise of the film is a good one, as kidnapping has gone up massively throughout the world in the last ten years, especially in England, but there is so little that can be said that is positive about the film, although the ever reliable David Morse plays his hostage role particularly well. The usually sound Pamela Reed ('Kindergarten Cop'), plays Bowman's older sister, but her character could easily have been left out of the film altogether. In one scene she leaves for the airport to collect the ransom money and we never see or hear from her again.

    Director Taylor Hackford ('Devil's Advocate') can do a lot better than this, although I am sure that the film will be a box-office success simply because Crowe is one of Hollywood's biggest actors, despite the fact that it is dull and unentertaining.

    Overall 2/10
An error has occured. Please try again.