Rating: 
Summary: This is a terrible movie
Review: Although I admit to being sick of Meg Ryan and her "acting," I thought I might be swayed by Russell Crowe's performance. Nope. I didn't think either actor acted very well and the story line was terrible. I felt very unsatisfied leaving the movie theater.
Rating:
Summary: Nice but
Review: I saw this movie about four times on a transatlantic flight yesterday (well I really watched it only once...) and I found it somewhat entertaining but not really exciting. Maybe that's a good thing. The drama side was refreshingly life-like (too bad it doesn't cater for today's scandal-hungry soap opera audience).On the other hand, the action side was a disappointment. Sure there was thrilling suspense and bullets and fire and blood, but the outcome was not very realistic. It was almost as bad as "The Saint." It was nice entertainment though -- I wish they could rig every war and other sports event the same way.
Rating:
Summary: Half a movie should have been no movie at all!
Review: This film is very uneven and plays on the public's intelligence. The film was supposed to tell the story of Crowe falling into a deep affair with Ryan's character after her husband (Morse) is kidnapped. But due to test audiences hating the chemistry and idea of an affair between the Crowe and Ryan characters it was edited out! And the film seems half made, they had two options to redeem themselves; focus the action on Morse and Crowe's characters, as Crowe's character tries to rescue him, which would have made a truly great conflict film or focus on the affair and turn the film into a story of moral inbalance between Ryan's character wanting lust or the loyality she should feel for her husband and the abscence of a structured relationship. But instead we get odd dialogue and weird glares between Crowe and Ryan which feels only half complete. It leaves the concept of what happens in your mind should and deservedly so, should happen on screen. A good film it is not! It's a chop job on film and to the viewing audiences intelligence, forcely acted and badly scripted.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't even bother with this one
Review: It it wern't for Russell Crowe, this would have been a complete failure. The plot takes place in a fictional country in Latin America. The main conflict of the movie is that Meg Ryan's husband gets kidnapped by gorillas. Throughout the movie he is abused, denied of a shave or a shower, and is put to rotten work. Russell Crowe is the man in charge of working out a deal with the gorillas to free Ryan's husband. At the same time there is a sexual tension brewing between Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe. In my opinion, it is pretty pathetic that Meg Ryan would show interest in another man while her husband is in captivity by hostile gorillas. The whole movie is really bad, Meg Ryan is a just terrible, the only good part is the action seen at the end, but it doesn't quite save the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: GREAT MOVIE!!!!
Review: I actually have "THE SCREENING PURPOSE" VHS of this movie, I got it when the movie was in theaters. I was disapointed to see that the "Love Scene" between Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe was cut out in the movie. (maybe it was cut for the best) Over rall I thought the movie was great, Meg Ryan's acting was Wonderful (she wasn't the usual PERKY, Loud, Funny Meg) David Caruso was the best.... Russell Crowe is himself with his Aussie accent. In Tayor's interview he states why the love scene was cut, there is the trailer of the movie on the DVD. One of the best action films I have seen in years.
Rating: 
Summary: A Near Miss
Review: Luckily, the movie has enough intense action to make up for the lack of cohesiveness. The argument between husband and wife characters Peter (Morse) and Alice (Ryan) near the beginning comes from nowhere as does the attraction between Alice and Terry (Crowe). One can only assume that either the screenplay lacked the subtler relationship elements or that much dialogue landed on the cutting room floor. However, Russell Crowe turns in another magnetic performance and proves again that he is one of the most watchable movie actors working today. He displays intelligence, a definite ability for action and an undercurrent of sexuality. While Ryan's chain-smoking performance is not exactly exciting, the on-screen kiss between Ryan and Crowe is. David Morse plays Peter with sensitivity, which keeps us hoping he will be rescued in spite of wishing for more romance between Alice and Terry. This could have been an excellent triangle, but somehow misses the mark. All in all, this is worth seeing, but not with high expectations.
Rating:
Summary: Proof of life, true to life.
Review: At last a movie that is not affraid of being too real or too 'hollywood-ized', and as a result is as entertaining and on-the-edge-of-your-seat-without-realising-it as is possible. From the slow pace of the film during the negotiating, that helps to add to the atmosphere of frustration among the cast, to the bullet thumping, down towning realism of the rescue at the end. If you like Bravo two zero realism and dual speed action movies you will love Proof of life. Movie makers watch and learn!
Rating:
Summary: Made Me Want To Tear Out My Eyes!
Review: I recall that a critic called "Proof Of Life" a modern day "Casablanca." I really hope that critic has had his publishing rights taken away for a good long time. To compare this poorly made movie to one of the greatest of all time is an insult. After having seen this snoozefest, I truly believe that the whole "triangle love thing" around the set was created just to generate buzz for this movie that even the studio knew was completely lame. What happened with this movie is that someone signed Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe to the deal and said "this movie will make itself," but found out that movies need a story and character developement to make them successful. So, what the viewing audience got was a thrown together sloppy romance movie advertised as an action thriller. I can't recall the last time I wanted something massive to blow up at the end of a movie and take out the main characters. Not even an Adam Sandler movie makes me want the main characters to be finished off by terrorists. That's really bad. The worst part of the film: Meg Ryan's husband has been kidnapped for 200-some odd days, which they announce with subtitles. At that point of the movie, it really, truly feels like you've been watching it for 200-some odd days. Avoid this movie like a plague.
Rating:
Summary: Why is this offered at a grocery store before ... ?
Review: I was looking forward to this movie before I heard about the triangle with Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan. If we understood the depth of the relationship between the two characters in the movie, the rest might have made more sense. The scenes between Ryan and her husband were so disjointed that I almost thought the movie was not worth seeing to completion. Forgive me for not remembering the other prisoner involved, but David Morse, David Caruso, and Russell Crowe made the movie. But, without the David Morse, David Caruose and the other prisoner, there would have been no reason, other than Russell Crowe to watch the movie. As a die hard Meg Ryan fan, I thought she did the best with what she had to work with. I guess, bottom line, the editing of the movie may have been terrible. Or, maybe it just didn't come together. The premise and the actors were the best. The finished product was disappointing. Here's hoping the out takes, etc., will help explain what was left out of the movie. I'm still, as a Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe fan will purchase the movie to, hopefully, see the takes that were left out. Why is this offered at the local Albertson's store prior to being released on ...?
Rating:
Summary: Derailed.
Review: Hostage drama involving an American scientist employed by an oil company who gets kidnapped by Commie thugs in a made-up South American country. Meg Ryan derails the whole enterprise. First of all, what up with that hair? Is it Medusa, as reinterpreted by Paul Mitchell? And the clothes -- if Hell has a factory outlet, then it would be filled with these ghastly Bennetton-inspired outfits. As for her acting, there is none. It's a totally fraudulent performace from an overpaid actress whose first concern is looking good on camera. She's not convincing for one second as a wife of a man who's been kidnapped. Even when sniffling from the stress, the mascara is firmly spackled on. However (staying on the female end of things), Pamela Reed is a fresh breeze as the sister-in-law, but, the filmmakers perhaps sensing that Reed is moving the rug out from under Ryan's feet, she ends up banished from the proceedings, on the unrealistic pretext of co-ordinating a ransom-collecting effort. Another positive note is Crowe's interpretation of the hostage negotiator as a modest, business-like man. Also, the too-long-delayed action sequences involving the rescue of the hostage in the last part of the film are a clinic on how to film action. Director Taylor Hackford firmly repudiates the currently trendy Hong Kong-cinema school: our rescuing heroes don't fly in the air and deliver 13 jujitsu kicks before landing; doves don't fly from exploding wreckage with comic-book symbolism. The action here is realistic and exciting. Too bad it's too little, too late.
| 
