Living Proof

This is a wonderful movie that is based on the true story of one doctor, who refused to give up. He battled a greedy drug company for over a decade and made it through FDA clinical trials to get a groundbreaking drug approved that changed cancer treatment as we know it. This man is a national treasure.

FILE THIS ONE UNDER.... "TRUTH IS OFTEN STRANGER THEN FICTION"!

BUT BEFORE DIVING IN: Let us FOCUS on the Title's Content & Context:

It's usually best to try to be somewhat objective when writing a review. This simply wasn't possible in the case of "Living Proof". It's hard to be objective about death. My mother-in-law succumbed to Lung Cancer on February 24, almost 6 months ago to the day of posting this review. "MUST SEE" is a phrase you won't find in ANY of my 50 reviews...until today.

For those of us who have had someone dear struck down by cancer, this is one film you owe it to yourself to see. As is frequently the case with true stories, the old "Truth IS Stranger than Fiction" adage inescapably comes to mind after viewing. With health care a hot-button issue that has figured prominently in the news, almost on a daily basis, in recent months, "Living Proof" should appeal to anyone and everyone who has an interest in this pivotal issue. The central thread of the story focuses on Dr. Dennis Slamon's heroic and arduous 12 year marathon research campaign to acquire FDA approval for his tumor-shrinking drug, Hercepton. Dr. Slamon, almost single-handedly, eventually triumphs over a seemingly endless and insurmountable array of bureaucratic and administrative hurdles. Both Living Proof's true story itself and the ensemble acting merit 10*!

Considering it's made for TV origin, it is rather unusual to see three name actresses appear in the same film. Regina King, Swoosie Kurtz and Bernadette Peters all turn in Emmy nomination caliber performances. Harry Connick Jr., who portrays Dr. Slamon, does a commendable job, albeit not quite at the level of the 3 aforementioned actors.

The following is an unresearched comment: Owing to the subject matter of this movie, I don't think it's much of a leap to assume that for many of the actors and crew involved, Living Proof was a labor of love. Of course, it is difficult to watch at times, because watching people who are inconsolable, begging for medication that is their only viable hope for staying alive, isn't easy. It brought me to tears several times. The maudlin music was unoriginal and too prominent at times, for example.

9********* STARS.

Not being a woman perhaps some of it may have escaped me. Having seen this on TV at lunch time I was a little prejudiced with the association of midday movies which often are just that... However the topic interested me especially since our daughter is in research so I am a little familiar with the difficulty researchers encounter that often is not related to the value of their work. Instead it seems to be more generated with political and administrative agenda. Or simply something to do with the flavour of the year.... However the fact it was inspired directly by a very courageous effort to help those caught in a final page of their lives was worth the watching. . I don't seem to see negative reviews about this movie. However despite my interest in wanting to see it through I did found it quite melodramatic. I do understand for those affected it is a highly emotional situation. As such the little humour added here and there is also a real way to help to cope..

A surprisingly good movie. Surprising, partly because it was Harry Connick Jnr, partly because of the low budget, partly because the subject matter could have so easily lent itself to schmaltz.

Harry Connick Jr turned it a great performance. He somehow added the right amount of nerd to give a realistic feeling performance. The director triumphed over the budget, creating a compelling movie. Particularly striking was the effective deployment of a disused cliché, the white fadeout. The treatment was sensitive, with a true feel for the complexities involved in such a life and death area.

The film is not easy to watch in places, the ending is somewhat patronizing, but overall, an enjoyable and enriching experience.

Oh Living Proof. How horrendously terrible you are, although, I still enjoyed watching you immensely. This is one of the best unintentional comedies I think I've ever seen. I mean it's up there with The Room and Troll 2. Now, I am going to rate this movie objectively. I'm not giving it a 6/10 simply because it made me laugh, oh no. I'll tell you right now, this movie is getting a 1/10, no question about it. Just keep that in mind. Okay, where to start with the problems in this movie? It's actually extremely difficult since literally everything is wrong with this movie. Hmm… lets start with acting, why not? To say it is not good would be an understatement. Our man guy Dr. Slamon (not salmon thank you very much) is played by someone who has probably never acted in anything before ever. Judging from this performance anyway. The only character traits he seems to have is getting hilariously angry at people and running in slow motion (seriously, I'm not kidding. I think there is a total of like 5 minutes of running. It's worse than a Tom Cruise movie.) Now to be perfectly honest, I don't remember a single side character's name. All I do remember is, they all sucked at acting and Amanda Bynes played one of the characters (who also really can't act). Moving on to writing! The writing is both the best thing about this movie and the worst. Best, because it's really funny, but worst, because from a film making perspective, it is some of the most clunkiest, most awkward writing I've ever heard. None of it sounds slightly realistic. It sounds like something that belongs on Days of Our Lives or something of the sort. I can properly describe it, you really need to hear it yourself. The pacing is all over the place as well. Maybe like 4 or 5 times, the movie will jump forward to a year later. Now, I realize this is about hopefully getting a cancer drug approved, which takes many years, but that doesn't excuse lazy pacing. Simply jumping forward in time just doesn't work. If you haven't realized by this point, these filmmakers had no clue what they were doing, even if they had good intentions. Those things are like the main problems, but trust me, there are countless miscellaneous problems that didn't really fit any of these main categories. For example, whenever they cut to another scene, they'll use a blank, white screen to transition, and it looks so cheap. Stuff like that. Now, you may say "oh, this is obviously a joke." "They knew exactly what they were doing when they made this." And I'm calling them out on their crap. They were serious about this movie. You can tell. There are several, serious toned emotional scenes where you are actually supposed to care about the situations unfolding on screen. They even have a "this film is dedicated to Dr. Slamon" (the real life guy) at the end. They clearly thought it was good enough for them to dedicate it to this guy. I sincerely hope he hasn't seen, or heard of it. It would be a shame for his legacy to have been told is this garbage pile of a movie. That about covers this movie really. Now, this movie is awful. 1/10, like I said. But, I still highly recommend you watch this movie. It's just too freaking enjoyable to miss. It is not quality film making, but you don't watch it for that. You watch it for the same reasons you watch The Room, or Troll 2, or Birdemic, or any other "so bad it's good" movie. Too die laughing. Have fun! (Also take a shot every time his drug might not make it to the next stage or whatever. You'll be dead in like 30 minutes.)