Proof of Life (2000)

A Disappointing, Mediocre Movie with just Enough Hollywood Professionalism to get buy on its Looks and Lamenting about Third World Gangsterism and First World Corporate Influence and Indifference.There are Scenes that are Interesting in Tony Gilroy's Script, but like the Film, is Never Consistently Engaging in the Things that make This Type of Thing Interesting to Movie-Goers. Undeniably, the Movie's Biggest Misstep is the Romantic Angle Forced on the Film and it is Lacking, Meg Ryan's Pouting and Sniffling, one more bit of Unneeded Tension. David Caruso's Over-Acting and His Character, at times, Acting so Silly, doesn't help. Perhaps it is a Hollywood Notion that People going to see Russell Crowe and a Cute Semi-Superstar (whose Star faded very fast), expect some Soap Opera Among the Action, Philosophy and Politics. All that Stuff is a Heavy Load to Take On for any Movie and its the One Ingredient that Spoiled this Cinematic Brew.

This is one of those movies that simply...does not work. The three principle actors lack any intensity in what is a life and death situation. Russell Crowe tries hard to be cooler than cool...he finally looks like a live zombie. (far, far away). Meg Ryan looks very happy ...even after her husband has been kidnapped for many months. I do know this is the movie where Meg and the Crowe started there love affair...perhaps its true what they say about the Crowe. (anyway Meg sure looks happy). David Morse as Megs husband is never convincing in his role. The jumpy direction certainly does not help....and the continual instant changing of locations is not good. Its a movie with high ambitions ..it is also a bomb

There are many horrid events which pervade the major News services of the modern world. One kidnapping incident eventually became the inspiration for William Prochnau to write a noteworthy article on it. When it hit the silver screen, Taylor Hackford directed the movie with the flair of a dramatic adventure. In fact, if memory serves, I believe I saw an old Black and White film with a similar formula starring the late Clark Gable. The movie is called " Proof of Life " and stars Russell Crowe as Terry Thorne, an ex-soldier, global adventurer and hostage negotiator. David Morse plays Peter Bowman, a Reknown, dam building engineer who is taken hostage by South American rebels who promise to execute him unless several million dollars in Ransom is paid. With his worried wife (Meg Ryan) at home and Bowman's parent company refusing to pay the money, Thorne must find a way to rescue Bowman with private means. David Caruso is excellent as Dino, an experience friend and former soldier who for a piece of the reward money decides to go along. The film is slow to develop, but when it launches itself, it becomes a touch and go, shoot-em-up exciting caper with an explosive climax. This film will be a Classic in the future with Crowe and Caruso taking bows. Recommended. ****

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?