
PROOF WIDE-SCREEN
6 of 14 people found this review helpful.
There are so much to admire in John Madden directed `Proof' - Gwyneth Paltrow's acting for example - but there are also many flaws in it, the worst being its stagy and talky nature of the film.
At first `Proof' unfolds like a mystery. As many say on the net, the film is based on the critically acclaimed play (which I have not seen). It is about Catherine (Paltrow) and her recently deceased father Robert (Anthony Hopkins). Robert was a genius of mathematics, but his last days, as is suggested in flashbacks, were troubled ones.
Now one interesting thing happens after his death. Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), former student of Robert, finds a notebook, which might or might not contain a brilliant finding of mathematics. Of course, we need a proof as to the authenticity of the writing. But eventually Hal realizes another proof is needed: who really wrote this?
[STAGY (YOU MAY LIKE IT OR NOT)] `Proof' is no more about mathematic theories than `A Beautiful Mind' was. `Proof' is about Catherine and other three characters - her father, Hal, and her domineering sister Claire (Hope Davies). Almost all the dialogues are exchanged between Catherine and one of these three roles, and their exchanged words, which often get emotional, suggest the truths about their relations and the past. The method is notable for its lengthy speech, which reminds us its stage origin, and whether you like it or not, you never forget that you are watching a filmed version of a stage production.
But perhaps that would not be really annoying. Paltrow' shows splendid acting, so does Hopkins. Unfortunately Davies and Gyllenhaal are less compelling than the other two, partly because Davies's character is basically a off-putting one, and Gyllenhaal's unconvincing. His must show enough intelligence to convince us that he can notice the true value of the notebook in his ex-instructor's library. Sorry, but I couldn't see anything like that.
Oscar-winning `Shakespeare in Love' is one of my favorite films, but if the director had been someone else, it could be much better than what we are seeing now. John Madden, who directed both `Shakespeare' and `Proof,' handles the material pretty well here, but the results are far from perfect. The overuse of flashbacks is confusing, and when the film shows the romance, his direction becomes suddenly banal. And it must be admitted that the film gets silly sometimes. Throwing such a precious notebook into a car window? Didn't he think of any better idea?
`Proof' has intelligence, and the academia presented here looks real enough. But I'm afraid that is exactly the reason I was disappointed with the film. The performance is strong and good enough to make us care the characters while the story is convoluting, requiring us too much patience to follow it. The film says the notebook contains a significant discovery of mathematics while they don't even think of the simplest way to prove who wrote it In this way the characters are presented with superb acting, but we are never truly allowed to feel the pains or regrets of them.
Review ID: 10000000000741171

Thank you for voting. If your vote meets our
guidelines, it will be posted within 24 hours.
You cannot vote on the helpfulness of a review you wrote.
Your request cannot be processed at this time. Please try again later.