Proof

Way too many AMC commercials for me. Only way to watch it is recorded so the always-present commercials don't ruin it(30 minutes of programming, 30 minutes of commercials, every 5 minutes!) A possible "afterlife" is the premise for the show so far, with a billionaire proposing billion of dollars to the surgeon if she can prove it exists as he is dying and "wants to know". Everything else that happens is subservient to that premise and as such, is mostly filler.

Beals is tops as a no-nonsense hospital surgeon, but it was obvious from the start that she will eventually change her mind about the possibility of an afterlife. You watch, it will happen. Everything that is going to happen in TV these days is telegraphed from miles away, so there is never any mystery about what will follow. Connect the dots. Easy.

Average TV drama, except for the powerful and dynamic presence of Beals. Without her, the show would not be worth it.

I wasn't expecting too much from Proof as there are many new shows each season that start out good and fall apart fairly quickly. I have to say that this series just seems to be getting better and better and I find myself looking forward to each new episode. So far it doesn't seem to be getting wrapped up in supernatural ridiculousness, just the search for truth and for me, it keeps the show more real. As long as the writers don't veer off into the Twilight Zone, I think this show could be around for the long haul. Also, there are some outstanding performances, particularly by Jennifer Beals, Matthew Modine, and Edi Gathegi.

I don't know what happens when we die. I am intrigued by it, given my own experiences and after having seen the series Beyond and Back..., where real people told their stories, which were breathtaking. It really wasn't about NDEs because all the people in it had been pronounced dead and flatlined. It was an amazing show.

Proof takes a slightly different stance. A wealthy man, Ivan Turing (Matthew Modine), who has terminal cancer, wants to know what happens when we die, and asks a brilliant doctor, Carolyn Tyler (Jennifer Beals), to investigate the phenomenon. Tyler herself had an NDE when her son died, but has pushed it away and doesn't talk about it. Tyler asks a young doctor, Zed (Edi Gathegi) to join her, and she works with him and with members of Turing's staff.

Carolyn remains skeptical and attempts to handle things in a scientific manner, which is good, and because of that, the show doesn't go into la-la land. I wouldn't mind it, but I'm sure some would.

I have always liked the beautiful, intelligent Jennifer Beals, but she was misguided initially. Her character was unlikeable and annoying. An actress playing this kind of role can choose parts of a script where she can show some vulnerability or warmth -- and it was up to the director to guide her in that, which he obviously didn't do.

It sort of reminded me of Vivien Leigh begging that a line remain in the Gone with the Wind script where Scarlet says she wanted to be kind like her mother etc. -- because she felt without that line, Scarlet was an impossibly awful character. The character of Dr Tyler was in the same boat but with no paddle.

I noticed a change in her personality around the fourth episode and realized the director was different. The change was enough to make her a nicer character.

The story veers out of the hospital covering Carolyn's home life - she has a teenage daughter and is separated from her husband. Also, Zed has his own problems -- he's expected back in his home country, and a marriage has been arranged for him. It isn't what he wants.

The subject of NDEs is a fascinating one but in order for it to play to the masses, it has to be presented in a clinical way, and the episodes have been solid. I hope it continues with Beals' adjustment in character.

O.k. I tried to wrote this review in Spanish but the system does not let me. So I will try to write it in English, so forget me if I make grammar mistakes. Although the pilot was projected on t.v just yesterday in my country, on TNT Series, I want to say... I am dying to wathc the next episode, even if the plot is not to different, and the psychology of the characters are to similar at the common people whose had to loose someone they loved experience. I am curious about the view from the creators and the guionist, they want to make us believe, or they have more evidence or proof to show us. I want to watch more episodes because the theme about life after life is just interesting and wonderful. After that, the plot, actors and escenography were convincing for me. Thanks everyone!

I agree with blanche-2's review for the most part. I am a physician/surgeon licensed in California for more than 20 years so I have a slightly different 'take' on this show than some reviewers. First of all, if I were sitting at the table when the direction of the show was discussed, I would have a different opinion on several things. However, I would eventually vote in favor of everything the series has done from a 'general public' viewpoint. Where I would differ, and I would readily accept, the direction of the show, are some things that I know from training and working in many medical centers in several different states. First of all, in California, a physician who pushed anyone would be in deep do do and it simply would not happen. I am sure that somewhere there is a physician who has lost their 'cool' in an operating room, but I have no idea where that happened, certainly not in my experience of 10's of thousands of operations. Beals needs to calm down a little bit. Female physicians do not need to prove they are as 'good' as male doctors. Those days ended some time ago, although I know there are still some 'old school' doctors who hold certain positions in certain hospitals that can make it more difficult for female physicians. Good riddance for those old jerks. My personal physician is a female, not because I think she is any better than any other physician, but because I like having a 'female perspective' on health issues. Not better, maybe, but different and I can assure you the more, different opinions you have at the table, the better the outcome will be. Now a major concern of mine that I would be resistant to change: the issue of the scientist's sister overruling how the data that was collected at the time of his death was handled. I always respect the wishes of the family, of course, however, when the patient has given his/(her?) SPECIFIC/KNOWN wishes (while 100% competent) for whatever is to happen after death, I believe that should be honored to the TOTAL exclusion of any family member's opinions/demands. This scientist obviously gave years of his(her?) life to a belief in a certain field of study. His (her?) data absolutely should not be deleted by anyone (a court or person) and should be used EXACTLY the way that scientist would have wanted.

I should add that I do not believe in a 'life after death' (at least not life as we know it). I think we are all made up of atoms and those atoms will not be destroyed (they may be converted to energy and back to atoms) and memories are all made of chemicals in the brain. I would like to see this explored. Maybe those chemicals can be analyzed and the composition can be turned to data and even converted back to chemicals (by a 3D printer?) and put into an android? There are several TV shows that are exploring this now (Extant?) and, who knows, they could drive future research?