User reviews

Greetings again from the darkness. Rarely do we get to see a film based on a Pulitzer Prize and Tony award winning story (by David Auburn). It does tend to jump the expectations a bit! There are facets of this story that we have seen on screen before in such fine films as "A Beautiful Mind", "Shine" and "Good Will Hunting". The topics of brilliance and insanity often overlap, in fact, the line is often so blurry as to prevent accurate diagnosis. Gwyneth Paltrow is spectacular in her gut-wrenching, emotional roller coaster of a role. I feel very cheated having read recently that she is contemplating giving up acting to enjoy her life and family. This would be a shame as she is only scratching the surface of her talents and artistry. Teaming again with director John Madden ("Shakespeare in Love"), Paltrow delivers an Oscar worthy performance that is emotionally deep and profound. Thank goodness she was selected over the bitter Mary Louise Parker.

The assembled supporting cast is impressive in name; however, Sir Anthony Hopkins is solid, but not great in the relatively small, but crucial role as Paltrow's once genius, then insane, now dead father. His influence on her life is beyond question and how she deals is the heart of the story. Jake Gyllenhaal, although a fine actor, is totally miscast as Hopkins' former student who tries to secure the legacy. Hope Davis is perfect as the irritating sister of Paltrow who has "been working 14 hour days" for 5 years while Paltrow cared for dear old nutty dad.

What prevents the film from being great is that it never decides what it is about. It is a film about a math genius (or two) but it shows almost no math. Is it a film about genius? Is it about insanity? Is it about caring for an elderly parent? Is it a film of self-discovery? All of these are touched on, but none are hit head-on. It is a fine film, definitely worth seeing, but it will probably leave you feeling a bit empty.

"Proof", the excellent play by David Auburn, was one of the best things in the New York stage in recent memory. Part of the attraction was the intelligent subject matter, math science, and how it connected the four characters one got to meet. The casting was an ideal one, Mary Louise Parker, Larry Briggman, Johanna Day and Ben Shenkman, playing Cahterine, Robert, Claire and Hal, respectively.

Mr. Auburn and Rebecca Miller, a movie director, herself, took the task of adapting "Proof" for the screen. The result, directed by John Madden, opens the play in cinematic terms, no small undertaking in presenting the movie to a wider audience who might not be interested in science, and much less in the advanced math that plays an important role in the proceedings.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading here.

Catherine, the 27 year old, at the center of the film, is a woman who has stayed behind to take care of her aging father, a man much esteemed in academic circles, who is suffering from, perhaps, a neurological illness that is killing him slowly. Catherine has, in a way, sacrificed her life in order to see that Robert spends his last days at home instead of at an institution.

The death of the father brings Claire home. This woman, who lives in New York, wants to get rid of everything connected with her father. She even has made plans for Catherine to move from Chicago to be near each other in New York, where things are much better. To complicate things, Harold, the nerdy math student, finds a hidden notebook that might contain a discovery that will revolutionize math. The only problem is the proof might not have been the dead man's own creation.

"Proof" works as a film because of Mr. Madden's direction. We are kept involved in what is going on because we have been won by Catherine, the wounded woman trying to live her life without having to tend to a sick man. Catherine love for math, in a way, makes her realize her place is in the same institution where her father made mathematical discoveries as she will be following his steps.

Gwyneth Paltrow makes an excellent Catherine, a role she had played on the London stage. Ms. Paltrow is a welcome presence in the movie because of the intelligence she projects when working with a good director like John Madden. In fact, it has been a while since we saw this actress in a film.

Hope Davis, another excellent actress, plays Claire, the materialistic sister who has arrived and who wants to transform the frumpy Catherine and mold her to her own taste. Ms. Davis has accustomed us to expect a valuable contribution to any film in which she plays. As Claire, she clearly understand who this character she is portraying really is.

Anthony Hopkins has only a few good moments on the screen. Jake Gyllenhaal's character Harold is not as effective as Ben Shenkman's was on the stage. In fact, Mr. Gyllenhaal, with his dark good looks, seems to be someone who would not be interested in math at all.

"Proof" is an immensely rewarding film thanks to what John Madden's vision.

GWYNETH, GWYNETH, GWYNETH! Not having been overly impressed with any of her previous performances, in Proof, Gwyneth Paltrow brings a highly emotional, nuanced, and so finely-tuned performance, I must say this movie this movie a stand-out.

She inhabits her character so fully, I was pulled in and so completely entranced the entire time. In fact, certain words or phrases are reused and have an uncanny allusion to when they were previously said. The effect as that you experience and follow the moments, and the thoughts of the characters, even though they are so deeply imbedded within. I credit Gwyneth and the director with making this work so well. I've never experienced such an organic link between phrases separated in time in a movie before. Wow!

This is a movie about how a daughter, her sister, and a grad student deal with the passing of a great mathematician. While there may be similarities with 'A Beautiful Mind' and even 'Good Will Hunting', knowing there are any such links didn't help me with this movie and I think actually does a dis-service. This movie stands on its own. Ignore any such comparisons.

Acting-wise, there were strong performances all around with Anthony Hopkins giving a top-notch performance. Jake Gyllenhaal's was strong, but perhaps not to the level of his rather awesome performance in Brokeback Mountain.

Good things aside, the one thing that irked me about this film, was that given the strong link to mathematics, how unbelievable some of the dialogue was regarding the 'math. While Gwyneth's and Hopkins' characters pulled off a sense of mathematical intelligence, Jake's character hardly said anything mathematically competent and even came across as flustered in expressing himself mathematically leaving me feeling cheated. In my view, this is chiefly the fault of the screenplay but to a lesser extent in the actor's portrayal. Ignore this rather small point, and this movie passes with flying colours. Q.E.D.

"Proof" hones in on the emotional relationships in the play. With Rebecca Miller jointly credited with David Auburn on adapting his play, this is less coy about who did what to whom when in reality or delusion than it is about connections between people.

The flashbacks cut effectively back and forth and smooth out where each character is coming from.

"Catherine," the daughter of a brilliant mathematician who is somewhat modeled on John Nash's struggles with madness which were portrayed in "A Beautiful Mind," is still the focal point of attention. But with the other characters fleshed out more Gwyneth Paltrow has more to naturalistically react to than the stage actresses (I saw it on Broadway with a mercurial Anne Heche). Paltrow brings unexpected fragility to the role and makes her sarcastic accusations to her sister come out of personal pain and not just spitefulness. You really see that she is emotionally ravaged from putting her life and mind on hold for a father with a very strong personality.

Anthony Hopkins is unusually paternal as the father and you understand her attractions and fear of him, as well as why the sister had to flee how insecure she felt there, as Hope Davis manages to breathe some life into a strident character. We see very clearly the demands of being a caregiver to a legend. Unlike in "Iris" at the end of careers, we do ache at the sacrifices the young caregiver has made and how this claustrophobic existence has led to her own crippling doubts about her work, her life and her sanity.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the hunkiest, most adorable, rock 'n' rollin' math graduate student since Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting" and could help increase math enrollments around the country. But as irresistible as he is, and their relationship is literally more believably fleshed out as young people than in the play, we also can share Paltrow's suspicion of him. But we see more of his activities, as the film opens up the play, so we too clearly know before she that he has regained in our credibility as he seeks his proof. I don't mind that the film adds to the romantic aspects and drawn out coda as I thought the play tempted unfulfillingly in that direction and it is a means to help her regain the multiple meanings of proof -- as evidence, as trust, as confidence.

Director John Madden keeps the camera moving actively during long dialog interchanges, reflecting "Catherine"s agitated state of mind. The house and academic setting well establish the atmosphere, particularly when there's more people around, though some of the outdoor shots seemed like filler.

The score is occasionally intrusive, but the concluding voice-over is even more annoying and unnecessary.

Catherine Llewellyn (Gwyneth Paltrow) is struggling to deal with the death of her genius math professor father Robert (Anthony Hopkins). He deteriorated mentally in his last years which forced her to quit school and take care of him. His former student Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal) is working through a mountain of Robert's incoherent notebooks to find anything worth saving. Catherine's sister Claire (Hope Davis) arrives for the funeral and seeks to bring Catherine back to New York for treatment. When Hal discovers a notebook filled with a ground-breaking math proof, Catherine claims it to be written by her.

This is a compelling portrayal of the mathematical obsession. It's not as flashy or romantic as cinema tries to dress up math sometimes. It is a bit sad. Paltrow does great work following Hopkins. She shows that she's not simply a romantic lead. It's a compelling character study.

Not every novel that won a Pulitzer can be transformed into a good film screenplay, that what happened in this movie, nonetheless the acting was extraordinary.

Gwyneth Paltrow is shining like a star in every single moment of the film, this is absolutely Oscar i don't know what on earth could she have done better to earn the nomination.

Anthony Hopkins,Jake Gyllenhaal and even Hope Davis did not disappoint me, no comment about Hopkins one of the greatest of his time,Gyllenhaal is a very talented and emotional actor the chemistry between him and Paltrow was fantastic, thanks to the good direction.

beautifully acted, smartly directed, a very good film.

I love a movie in which every moment of it feels authentic, and "Proof" is that kind of movie. Critics have had a fairly mediocre response to the film, so I was somewhat surprised that I liked it so much. But it's easily one of the best movies I've seen this year.

I didn't see the David Auburn play on which the movie is based, and maybe many of the film's detractors have: screen adaptations of favorite plays often seem to dilute them to the detriment of the story. But if this movie is worse than its stage counterpart, it must have made one damn fine play.

The acting in this film is its major attribute, and director John Madden is wise enough to realize the talent of his ensemble and stand out of their way. He plays a bit with chronology and lets the pieces of his story click into place much like a math puzzle; I don't know whether or not this is original to the film or borrowed from the play, but either way it works well. But mostly, he lets the actors strut their stuff, and the four principals make the most of meaty roles.

Most of the acclaim has been falling, and rightly so, to Gwyneth Paltrow, who gives a full-bodied, textured and powerful performance as Catherine, who has inherited her genius at math from her father and is deathly afraid that she may have inherited his madness as well. I don't know that Paltrow has yet had a role as substantial as this one, and she flexes her acting chops in a way I have not seen her do outside of her underrated performance in "Sylvia." Hope Davis matches her scene for scene as the astringent older sister; it's refreshing to see Davis break away from the mousy, mealy persona she so frequently adopts and play this crisp, overwhelming character. The male actors have less to do overall, but the roles are perfectly cast. Jake Gyllenhaal is ripe for stardom, and this may be the year that brings it. Anthony Hopkins has been dismissed as hammy here, but I think he does an effective job of portraying mental illness, and creates heartbreaking moments that could have been ruined had they been played differently.

"Proof" feels entirely honest about the dynamics of dysfunctional families; you just know David Auburn is writing from personal experience. Like Robert Redford's "Ordinary People," if you have any exposure to similar family dynamics, you know the team that put the film together got everything just right. "Proof" also creates a parallel between mathematics and the messiness of life that makes one re-evaluate the rigidity of what always appears to be an exact science. As one must accept a level of ambiguity in life, one must also be willing to make leaps of faith in mathematics, because nothing can be 100% proved.

I highly recommend this film. It's satisfying on both an intellectual and emotional level. And any movie that can make math exciting to me gets an automatic thumbs up.

Grade: A

I hate math. I really do. I actually watched the movie for Jake Gyllenhaal but then I was totally drawn into the story because of Gwyneth Paltrow's fine acting. She really amazed me. Since Anthony Hopkins played the cannibalist I'm scared of him. And he also sorta scares me a little in this movie. But this isn't a bad thing in this case. I liked the movie for its intensity of portraying the relationships between father and daughter and sister and sister and girl and boy. Jake Gyllenhaal actually has only a quite small part in the film so if you think of watching it just because of him you might feel disappointed afterwards. If you watch it for Gwyneth Paltrow then you definitely won't be disappointed at all.

Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the 27 year-old daughter of a recently deceased mathematician, played by Anthony Hopkins. Catherine grieves for her father who suffered from insanity before he died. Now, she must confront the possibility that she may have inherited some of her father's mental tendencies. One of her father's students, a young man named Herald, as well as Claire, Catherine's scheming sister, make Catherine's life even more difficult. It's been at least a year since I have watched a film so annoying as "Proof".

You would think that for a film wherein mathematics is a central focus of characters' lives, there would be dialogue references to "differential equations", or "convergent series", or "double integral", or "binomial expansion", or other math concepts. Nothing doing. There's some minimal babble about "prime numbers". But the film goes out of its way to avoid actual discussion of mathematics.

Instead, we have to endure emotional diatribes from Catherine, and her ongoing malaise related to Herald and Claire. Which is itself a contradiction. As a mathematician herself, Catherine's responses should be thoughtful and logical, not emotional. Yet, her reactions are totally emotional and illogical. Clearly, the filmmakers here consider viewers to be mathematical dummies. So they create a phony main character, to enhance verbal conflict, and in so doing evade intellectual dialogue. On the DVD extras, the actors even seem proud that mathematics is not discussed. And that, in turn, made me have an even lower opinion of them.

Throughout the film Catherine whines, moans, sulks, and pouts. I absolutely could not stand her. And Gwyneth Paltrow's annoying nasal voice makes her character almost unendurable.

A much better movie could have been made if they had dumped Catherine, and zeroed in on the Anthony Hopkins character. Watching him, and listening to him talk about the wonders and mysteries of mathematics with Herald, would have been far more interesting and rewarding.

This film is about death, love, and mental incapacity. There are bound to be endless clichés, comparisons, and parallels drawn with Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind", so I won't go there.

In the end, this film is all about Gwyneth Paltrow.

She is on screen at least 80% of this film. Her character dances between mourning, anger, remorse, confusion, fear, vulnerability, sadness, and just a little bit of love. There are very dramatic changes in emotion from moment to moment, and Paltrow pulls it off brilliantly.

Sir Anthony Hopkins role, while relatively small, is crucial to the film. His performance was good, but not great. But it didn't really matter, as Proof is all about Paltrow. Hope Davis and Jake Gyllenhaal also gave solid performances, but their as with Hopkin's role were really nothing more than support Paltrow.

The biggest disappointment for me was the almost total lack of any 'real' mathematics. For a film that revolves around brilliant mathematical proofs, there's an almost painful scarcity of and real math in the film. There are shots of seemingly random equations scrawled across paper or a blackboard, and the odd conversation making reference to some known mathematical law or theorem, but I would have liked more.

IF you want a happy film, go see something else. If you want a mindless film, go see something else. If you want a typical love story, go see something else. If you want an intelligent well written and presented story of substance involving a a character experiencing a roller-coaster of emotions, Proof may be for you.

This film quite succinctly sums up the characteristics of it's principal character. At times it's potent and at others it's a mess. It's all about "Catherine" (Gwyneth Paltrow) who together with her sister "Claire" (Hope Davis) are the daughters of acclaimed mathematician "Robert" (Sir Anthony Hopkins). Now he was borderline obsessed, in a clinical fashion, with his work writing a proof that will profoundly redefine thinking amongst his scientific community. Thing is, he's dead now and seems determined to "haunt" the life of his just as determined daughter (Paltrow) who, herself, treads a very thin line between reality and fantasy. Matters are exacerbated when one of his star pupils "Hal" (Jake Gyllenhaal) asks to look through their late father's papers and discovers something of monumental importance. Who wrote this, though - father or child or both? As the intensity grows for both sisters, their mental stability and their relationship is severely tested whilst the observing "Hal" (now the boyfriend of "Catherine") looks on somewhat dazed and confused as to what to do next as the narrative becomes increasingly peppered with historical familial flashbacks. Paltrow manages quite well with what must have been a difficult part and Davis does likewise as the loving sister who does not/did not share the all-consuming compulsion of her sibling and her dad. Some of the scenes between the two quite compellingly illustrate just how frustrations were growing as 'Catherine" seems bent on a slippery slope to depression. Gyllenhaal hasn't very much to work with and isn't really much more than eye candy and with the odd intervention from Sir Anthony adding little meat to the bones, there's not really enough to hold the film together consistently. It relies too much on the emotionally turbulent aspects of their persona and fails to deliver well on the rationale of their fixation. Just what is this proof and what does it mean to ordinary people - a question frequently asked by "Claire", too.

Getting together a talented cast (Gyllenhaal and the ageless Anthony Hopkins) to create such an insipid and boring movie... what a waste ! And to think that the scenario is adapted from a play, one doesn't want to imagine what it must be like. The script clearly lacks depth, there is not much going on with the characters who are dreadfully superficial and under-exploited. The lines are robotic, the actors are badly directed, the mise-en-scène is flat and the cheap pseudo intellectualism and melodramaticism oozing from this scenario are cringe-worthy. At the end you just feel you've been going in circles and lost 1h30 watching this completely uninteresting movie.

In Chicago, on the day of her twenty-seventh birthday, Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) receives her sister Claire (Hope Davis) from New York for the funeral of their father Robert (Anthony Hopkins), who passed away a couple of days before. Robert was a brilliant mathematician that became bughouse, and Catherine had taken care of him for the last five years, inclusive quitting her studies in the faculty, and she is concerned about the possibility of having inherited his insanity. The mathematician of the University of Chicago, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), is making a research in Robert's notebooks, trying to find any brilliant proof that Robert might have produced in one moment of lucidity. When Hal has one nightstand with Catherine, she gives a notebook to him with the development of a unique mathematics theory that Catherine claims that she developed. Hal and Claire do not believe on her, until the truth is disclosed.

I expected much more of "Proof" after watching its trailer. In spite of having good interpretations and direction, the story is very short and I felt the movie too long. The relationship between Catherine and her father is well explored, but the differences between Catherine and her sister are slightly approached and the screenplay could have contemplated much more about this rancorous relationship. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "A Prova" ("The Proof")

Proof (2005)

By the end, the pieces that worked made up for those that didn't. The movie was simple enough to hold together and subtle enough to make it interesting and, well, enjoyable. A father and daughter pair of math geniuses, and their mental anguish as well as their triumphs of doing good math, make for a heartwarming plot, and a fairly intimate one. It's not blown out of proportion--if anything, it pulls back on the some of the idiosyncrasies these kinds of people would show to each other and to the world.

The premise is a bit limited, in a way, a kind of trap because it has one theme--the possible final amazing proof the father may have left behind in one of his many journals--and the director, John Madden, plays it out with methodical precision. The lead actors have to hold it together, and Gwenyth Paltrow is commanding, for sure, even though more restrained than another actress would have been in the same shoes. Anthony Hopkins, as the father, is equally in control, and if a caricature of sorts, a convincing one. Most impressive, to the point of actual agitation, is the daughter's sister, played by Hope Davis, and when she arrives the movie perks up but also gets under your skin, as it should, and you want to scream at her. The one weakness is the boyfriend in it all, a dull and very un-math-like hunk, Jake Gyllenhaal.

The plot does matter very much, and it takes a couple of beautiful twists that are worth the wait. And the pace is agreeable, to use a mild word--it's not an exciting film, but with all the flashbacks and pretty scenes at night and so on, it's a enjoyable one.

Great story about a young girl who loved her father very much and followed in his footsteps in the world of mathematics in Chicago, Illinois. This girl is Catherine, (Gwyneth Paltrow) who learns that her father is mentally going down hill and she cares for him and goes to college at the same time. Robert is the name of her father, (Anthony Hopkins) who thinks he is writing a proof in mathematics, which is a step further in the mathematician field of science. After Robert dies, Catherine goes to pieces and worries that she will become mentally disturbed like her father and she pulls into herself and just stays at home. Eventually, Catherine's sister who lives in New York City intends to take her sister from her home and bring her into the New York City area. This is a very deep film with plenty of flashbacks, along with great acting between Paltrow & Hopkins. Enjoy.

Superb acting is the chief selling point of "Proof," the generally interesting film version of the David Auburn play, adapted by Auburn and Rebecca Miller and directed by John ("Shakespeare in Love") Madden.

Anthony Hopkins plays an aging math genius whose career was cut tragically short when he fell victim to some form of mental illness in his late 20's. In the years since, he has been little more than a shell of his former self, reduced to shuffling around the house in his bathrobe while filling up endless notebooks - originally intended for brilliant mathematical proofs and formulas - with incoherent messages and doodling. Gwyneth Paltrow, in one of her most demanding roles, portrays Catherine, his equally bright younger daughter, who is firmly convinced that she is succumbing to the same mental illness that has claimed her father. Hope Davis is her older sister, Claire, who left their Chicago home to make a new life for herself in New York, but who, now, on the death of their father, has returned with the express purpose of bringing Catherine back home with her in order to "care" for her. The fourth main character is Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young math professor who admires the work of the once-great Robert and who, as both a friend and potential romantic interest, really doesn't believe that Catherine is losing her mind at all.

In thematic terms, "Proof" makes us ponder where exactly that fine line is that separates sanity from insanity and how we can ever really know if and when we are crossing over it. As embodied by Paltrow, Catherine becomes a fascinatingly complex character, one whom we seem to be looking at as through a shattered mirror or fractured lens, never quite sure whether each image at any given moment is a true reflection of who she is or a mere illusion. Paltrow slides in and out of Catherine's many moods with such precision and conviction that she makes us aware of the scary and literally maddening nature of her character's predicament. As Claire, Hope Davis delivers a beautifully insightful performance as a woman of practicality and reason who apparently has no means of understanding or coping with the insanity of her father and the possible insanity of her sister. In the fairly small but pivotal role of the deceased genius, the always reliable Hopkins appears entirely in flashbacks and in scenes depicting Catherine's imagination. Likewise, Gyllenhaal brings an earnestness and intensity to the part of Hal, a character that could have fallen into callowness in less capable hands.

The filmmakers have certainly "opened up" the play to the point where it never feels theater-based or stage bound. The dialogue is literate and incisive, for the most part, although there are times when the movie comes across more as an intellectual exercise than a fully convincing drama about real people. That's where, lucky for us, the actors step in to perform their magic.

Gwyneth Paltrow gives a haunting portrayal of a daughter whose devotion to a mentally challenged father draws out her own mental edges. As care-giver for an elderly parent I am well aware of our fragile mental world and Paltrow's performance shines with nothing but truth. Her honesty and the emotional territory she portrayals are "proof" of her integrity as an actress. The film is impressively directed -- the script is paced compellingly and draws the viewer into a life situation that most of us simply refuse to acknowledge and try to avoid. Once the "great mind" of our genius is "gone" -- who are we? Hope Davis as Paltrow's sister does a great job of showing how striving for her "normalacy" is the ultimate lunacy. Great ensemble playing by all. I highly recommend this film.

This is one of those films that I've seen before and remember the beginning, but can never remember the ending. Maybe it's because I never got to the end before, but this time I did. This appealed to me because I studied mathematics (amongst other things) at university and thought it might strike a chord. It did, but not in the way I was expecting… But more of that later, here's a brief summary before I give you my thoughts (summary haters please solve a couple of differential equations while I write the next paragraph).

Catherine's father, Robert, has recently died, he was a great mathematician in his day but insanity had plagued his latter years. She had looked after him for the last five years of his life at their home in Chicago and is now coming to terms with his loss. A former student of his, Harold Dobbs (Hal), is looking through his notebooks hoping to find something of note. As the funeral approaches, Catherine's sister, Claire, arrives from New York. She is a successful businesswoman and takes her slightly mentally unstable sister in hand. After the funeral a wake is held back at the house and Catherine gets together with Hal. The following day she gives him the key to her father's desk where he finds just what he's been looking for, a brilliant mathematical proof. The trouble is, Catherine claims she wrote it… there is a lot of doubt though. Has Catherine inherited her father's genius, amongst other things, or did he write it in one of his more lucid periods? Well I guess I'd be giving too much away if I told you here.

First off, really great performances from both Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine and Hope Davis as Claire. Jake Gyllenhaal was adequate as Hal and Anthony Hopkins was as good as ever in the flashbacks of Robert. Now, to the film, it is based on a play by David Auburn, who also co-wrote the screenplay, and I find films based on plays sometimes suffer; they can become a little claustrophobic. This, unfortunately is a case in point. Although an effort is made to broaden the scope of the story by taking parts of it outside, it's still very much a character driven piece which I'm afraid I found a little dry.

The plot I found a little weak, it all boiled down to a small thing that could so easily have been resolved (I'm sorry I don't want to say what it is… spoilers). I feel that too much time was taken to set up the characters and the back story and this didn't quite work on film. So, over all, some great performances in what is essentially a play transferred to the big screen. Although the plot is weak in places and it is pretty slow, I still recommend it (just).

My score: 6.7/10

by the dialogue, you can tell this story began as a very good play. the issue with making a movie from a very good play is that you have to add something impossible to do on stage. i think paltrow does an excellent job. i'm not a big gwyn fan, but the way she portrayed her deep sadness throughout the movie, in closeups you wouldn't see from the balcony section of a theater - the fragility of her grasp on reality, the trauma of watching her father deteriorate before her eyes... this is something beyond "a beautiful mind," which centered more on the hallucinations and surreality of a victim of mental disease. "proof," instead, focuses on the father-daughter relationship and how, even after caring for his deteriorated mind for years, a daughter doesn't think twice about seeking her father's approval - as if he could be coherent for the moment she needed him to be. i thought that was the most poignant part of the movie. there's not a lot to the story of the movie, but the depth in the performances - paltrow, hopkins and hope davis - is worth the ticket. its nice to actually see a very good movie once in a while.

You've got to be kidding. A seven out of ten? I guess it's possible, people do watch Dr. Phil. That's pretty painful as well. But not as painful as watching Paltrow who's about ten years too old for the part. A character that sulks and wallows in self-pity but conveniently stops for five minutes to bed a young male model stud that is also a math genius. This is the only respite. She cries and wines the rest of the movie. The math stud is madly in love with her but we can't understand why. The only explanation is they both have serious personality problems. If you have those same types of problems you might like the movie. I won't bother to go into the "plot", other than to say it's ridicules, boring and utterly predictable. The movie is obviously for women and the only men who will sit through this turkey are doing so just to keep their wives from getting angry and acting like the star of Proof.