Watch Proof For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Reading through the reviews of 'Proof', it seems most of the better reviews are from 2006 or earlier. Maybe its taking this long for the movie-going public as well as Hollywood casting agents to realize how mediocre Ms Palthrow is. Gwen isn't terrible is this role, she's just average, while the role calls for a better actress. I certain many were available.With what we now know about what occurred on the casting couch at Miramax, it begs the question, what did Gwennie have to do to get this role?Aside from, that, the premise of the film is just silly. Are we really to believe the most advanced mathematicians on the planet look like Gwyneth Palthrow or Jake Gyllenhaal? Its a lot like 'Good Will Hunting', its a laughable premise.I give this 2 stars because of the fine performances (as usual) for Hope Davis and Anthony Hopkins. Their talents were wasted on this stinker.

Don't expect this to be uplifting. It has a kind of romance involved with it - one that's even a bit touching in some ways - and it has a few scenes that cause you to chuckle, but by and large this is a pretty sombre, downcast movie that deals mostly with mental illness (not a happy subject) and mathematics (not an exciting subject - at least not to me.) But what it has going for it is Gwyneth Paltrow, and even if you find the movie a bit of a downer (as I admit I did) you can't ever let your eyes wander off the screen because of Paltrow's performance. She was brilliant. I can't say that I've been a devoted follower of hers. I liked her in "Shakespeare In Love" and to be perfectly honest nothing else she's done really stands out for me. But I can't imagine she's offered a better performance in anything than she did in "Proof." She was called upon to portray a whole range of emotions and she did so with complete authenticity. In fact, if there's a word that could be applied to this, it might be just that - authentic. It felt real.As Catherine, Paltrow has been the caregiver to her mentally ill father, played by Anthony Hopkins, who in his past had been a brilliant mathematician. The question we have right from the start - and it follows through the whole movie - is how much of her father Catherine has inherited - both in terms of his brilliance and in terms of his mental illness. Catherine does come across as a bit unbalanced to be honest. She's isolated and withdrawn; she's unhappy; she has no friends. There are various scenes in the movie that cause you to wonder if she's really in touch with reality. But does that mean she's mentally ill? Not necessarily. It might actually be expected of someone who's literally had no life beyond caring for her father. But there comes a point (and we don't reach it until near the movie's end) when we start to wonder if she's ill, if she's normal - or if she's brilliant. And in the midst of it all she has to deal with the aftermath of her father's death, the attempt by her sister (Hope Davis) to take control of her life, and a budding if apprehensive romance with one of her father's former students (Jake Gyllenhaal.) It was a powerful performance, and the main supporting cast, who I've mentioned, did a fine job as well. But they were the supporting cast. This was Paltrow's movie. And it was a good thing she was brilliant.The movie itself didn't do a lot for me. As I said, it was sombre and downcast and even in the end it was hard to really tell if Catherine had achieved redemption. At best, there was the possibility of redemption. And there is the satisfaction of seeing Catherine choose to escape her sister's clutches, but - again - it's left as an open question whether that decision led to any happiness for her. But Paltrow's performance carries this, and if she can't make this a great movie, she can make it a movie worth watching. (6/10)

Proof (2005): Dir: John Madden / Cast: Gwyneth Paltrow, Anthony Hopkins, Jake Gyllenhaal, Hope Davis, Leigh Zimmerman: Intense yet provocative film about state of being. Anthony Hopkins plays a mathematical genius who gradually slips into insanity while under the care of his daughter, played by Gwyneth Paltrow. After his death she questions her own state of mind as a student researches her father's journals in order to understand their meaning. Engaging premise that become a series of arguments. Director John Madden worked with Paltrow in the engaging yet overrated Shakespeare in Love. This time he switches gears and receives a much more defined performance from Paltrow who struggles to maintain a sense of identity. Hopkins is commanding in flashbacks showcasing his madness. Jake Gyllenhaal tries to unscramble Hopkins's journals but he also falls within the film's one central weakness and that is its hinted innuendo between he and Paltrow. Hope Davis plays Paltrow's protective sister who begins to question her sanity and the chance that she may follow in her father's footsteps. Outside the leads there is minor characters that occupy very little screen time until it gets to the plot points. Very well made drama with strong casting and a reason for being. It regards how heredity can shape our lifestyle less we break the cycle. Score: 6 ½ / 10

It has a great cast, Hopkins especially. However ....I kept waiting to see the characters break out of their middle class academic cocoon and touch the real world. But instead the film droned out through a silo of white privileged dullards who all seemed to have their heads up their Pi hole. I feel asleep twice and had to rewind and saw Paltrow ( skinny blonde) yelling about vegetarianism and jojoba etc. then I was sorry I had rewound. The kind of bland text continued with a series of first world problems and concerns that don't seem to connect with reality. Paltows concerns about her mental health seem quite justified as her behaviour is inexplicable but it's hard to tell when the character only interacts with people who are all rather academic and mathematicians who apparently (according to Jake) live on drugs because they are ( warning, another first world problem alert) afraid that their creativity peas at age 23. Boo hoo. I couldn't help wondering if this play featured peeps who had real jobs and lives would their concerns not be more real worldly.