Living Proof - La ricerca di una vita

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..

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.)

It's 1988. Dr. Dennis Slamon (Harry Connick Jr.) is researching a breast cancer gene treatment at the UCLA Medical Center. Jamie McGrath (Amanda Bynes) is an English Lit student who gets the assistant job that nobody wants. Slamon lacks the funds for research and the time for his family. Lilly Tartikoff (Angie Harmon) insists on fundraising for Slamon. As he works on the treatment, the movie also follows several women who discover they suffer from breast cancer.

This is based on the true story of the struggles to get approval for the breast cancer drug Herceptin. While it provides a few interesting insights into drug trials, the central story isn't actually that dramatic. The most compelling parts of the movie are some of the great actresses doing the cancer patients.

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.

The movie was worth watching and was consciousness-raising in ways. Its depiction of the steps involved in FDA approval of drugs was informative. But the unrealistic parts of the movie made me wonder whether other parts of it were in fact accurate. For example, the cleavage shown on women said to be stage-four breast-cancer victims was laughable. And the scenes involving people undergoing chemotherapy or who had recently undergone chemotherapy were also suspect. Their full heads of hair did not appear to be wigs. My overall impression was that whoever was in charge of the details of the filming knew very little about breast cancer.