Lebenszeichen - Proof of Life

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.

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 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.

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+

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.