Proof (2005)
29th January 2007
Do not watch the “Proof”, unless you like long, boring, pseudo-scientific movies.
Yes, it was boring. Why? Because there was no math, actually. The most math-rich moment was when Catherine told her father his “proof” of the theorem, which was nothing more than some gibberish uttering about cold and the numbers of months, enriched with math-like terms.
It was also boring because the story doesn’t have any visible suspense. The intertwined past and current moments didn’t add anything sensible to suspense – only vagueness and disputes over what is actually being proved.
As for the emotional part, I didn’t feel anything of what the actors were playing. It all seemed artificial, most frequently – just over-reacting emotionally. It might be that possible madness of Catherine forced her hyper-behavior, and that it was specially played like that; even if so, it could have been done better – so that I wouldn’t have to guess what was it intended to tell me.
There was a single moment I liked: thinking of brains as of a house- locked, forgotten, with curtains down. This was somewhat simple, but nevertheless pleasant and vivid metaphor. Again, the problem is that if there’s only one bright and vivid moment in the movie – then it’s generally weak, because good movies either have lots of memorable moments, or are comprehended as a whole integral piece of art. The Proof is neither, in my opinion.
You may like this movie if you feel that watching anything will make you happier. But after – don’t say I didn’t warn you.
