Given a cast that included Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jake Gyllenhaal I fully bought in to the rave reviews I read for the film.  But the "proof" is in the pudding isn't it?  And after watching Proof I can safely say it's somewhat of a disappointment.

I understand why Proof received such positive reviews.  It certainly walked and talked like a duck.  It boasts a cast with impeccable film credentials and contains a high brow intellectual plot that revolves around cerebral math geniuses.  Given those two points, the movie had to be Academy material, right?  Wrong.

The problem is that the movie really has nothing to say.  Hopkins, Paltrow and Gyllenahaal are all fine in their roles.  But none of them has much to do.  Hopkins is a ghost and little more than a static character in his scenes.  Paltrow is bitter, morose, a bit manic depressive and on the whole an unsympathetic character who never really changes much during the course of the film.  Gyllenhaal's role is boiler plate material as that of a twenty-something nerdy yet charismatic math whiz who worships the work of Paltrow's late father (Hopkins).  Gyllenhaal wants to review Hopkin's scribblings in the hopes of finding something important to publish for the math world.  Along the way he falls for Paltrow and she for him.  A great math proof is found and there is ambiguity as to who actually wrote it.  Not much else happens of interest in the film.  The cast plods along and is practically screaming at times for something to do in this relatively uneventful tale.  Proof isn't a bad movie, but nothing really happens in it.  I believe there is a compelling story somewhere in Proof, but when the film ends you are left wondering how it never made it to the screen.
Given a cast that included Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jake Gyllenhaal I fully bought in to the rave reviews I read for the film. But the "proof" is in the pudding isn't it? And after watching Proof I can safely say it's somewhat of a disappointment. I understand why Proof received such positive reviews. It certainly walked and talked like a duck. It boasts a cast with impeccable film credentials and contains a high brow intellectual plot that revolves around cerebral math geniuses. Given those two points, the movie had to be Academy material, right? Wrong. The problem is that the movie really has nothing to say. Hopkins, Paltrow and Gyllenahaal are all fine in their roles. But none of them has much to do. Hopkins is a ghost and little more than a static character in his scenes. Paltrow is bitter, morose, a bit manic depressive and on the whole an unsympathetic character who never really changes much during the course of the film. Gyllenhaal's role is boiler plate material as that of a twenty-something nerdy yet charismatic math whiz who worships the work of Paltrow's late father (Hopkins). Gyllenhaal wants to review Hopkin's scribblings in the hopes of finding something important to publish for the math world. Along the way he falls for Paltrow and she for him. A great math proof is found and there is ambiguity as to who actually wrote it. Not much else happens of interest in the film. The cast plods along and is practically screaming at times for something to do in this relatively uneventful tale. Proof isn't a bad movie, but nothing really happens in it. I believe there is a compelling story somewhere in Proof, but when the film ends you are left wondering how it never made it to the screen.