Proof Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The biggest risk in life is not taking one.
If you don't believe in yourself, who will believe in you?
The daughter of a brilliant but mentally disturbed mathematician (recently deceased) tries to come to grips with her possible inheritance: his insanity. Complicating matters are one of her father's ex-students who wants to search through his papers and her estranged sister who shows up to help settle his affairs.
| Gwyneth Paltrow | Catherine |
| Anthony Hopkins | Robert |
| Jake Gyllenhaal | Hal |
| Hope Davis | Claire |
| Danny McCarthy | Cop |
| Tobiasz Daszkjewicz | Limo Driver |
| Gary Houston | Professor Barrow |
| Leigh Zimmerman | Friend at Party |
| Colin Stinton | Theoretical Physicist |
| Leland Burnett | Band Vocalist |
| C. Gerod Harris | University Friend |
| Roshan Seth | Professor Bhandari |
| John Madden |
7.00 out of 10 (9210 votes)
Visitor Reviews
"A Beautiful Mind" with a sex change
posted on 12 Aug 2009PROOF (2005) *** Gwyneth Paltrow, Anthony Hopkins, Jake Gyllenhaal, Hope Davis. Better than anticipated adaptation of David Auburn's acclaimed Broadway play (with a collaboration by Auburn and Rebecca Miller) about a young woman (Paltrow in a slightly mannered performance) who fears she may have inherited her father (Hopkins)'s gifts for mathematical genius with the price being his mental illness. Director John Madden does little in expanding the stage-to-screen overview but allows his actors some nice scenes to chew on with aplomb. Hope continues her cottage industry of portraying a brittle patrician but allows some moments of her character to not be a complete pill.
A mentally ill math teacher dies. His daughter, who cared for him and is also a math whiz endures some of the phoniest situations you will ever watch on video.
posted on 29 Jul 2009I enjoy good movies. I looked forward to renting "Proof" because of the rave reviews and good actors but I was very disappointed. The story could have been good but instead was predictable and stupid. The characters were annoying to the point of being unwatchable, especially the sister. As for the realism, I have been to funerals where the drinking was enthusiastic, but to have the guests set up a rock band and have a party just was too much. I truly hated this movie and could not sit through another viewing for cash money. Save your cash and time and re-rent "Crash" or "Bringing out the Dead", two movies that deserved their good ratings.
Well acted film on mathematics makes fascinating viewing
posted on 25 Jul 2009This is a solidly acted film clearly based on a play. Gwyneth Paltrow does a good job as the daughter of a math genius who suspects she may be prone to the same madness that has affected her father. Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal are both effective in supporting roles though the film is clearly Paltrow's. Hope Davis leaves an impression as the older sister. The film is well researched and gives us an idea of how difficult yet fascinating Mathematics is as a career. The ending is a shade too pat as it attempts to wrap everything up. Still worth watching.Overall 7/10
As Good as Goodwill Hunting
posted on 23 Jul 2009This thought-provoking film allows the viewer to "predict" the outcome many times. Just when you believe you have figured out what will happen, you are surprised. Gwenyth Paltrow is superb as a young woman questioning her sanity and her life. Her issues with her father are both touching and sad. Anthony Hopkins lives up to the reputation he has built for convincing performances as he gets lost in the character of a brilliant mathematician with a need for proof. Some may have trouble following the film due to flashbacks and a non-chronological time line which seems to jump around in a non-traditional manner. This was my only complaint, but it lends to the unpredictability of the film. With elements of Goodwill Hunting and Sixth Sense, I believe this will remain one of my Top 20 films for quite some time.
A convincing study of insecure feminism
posted on 01 Jul 2009Ms Paltrow depicts a twenty-something's inner struggle with hereditary insanity and innate genius, the kind of routine concerns one encounters on an American campus. Unlike screenwriter Aubrey's contrived and implausible 'The Lake House', Proof is convincing, and Ms Paltrow sustains the central performance, even when the script commits the crime of mating the lovers at the end of reel one, thereby defusing most of the relationship's energy. Nor did I personally find it credible that this mixed-up case would melt in the arms of the first man who knocked at her door. Neurotics don't have good spontaneous sex, except in US movies. But Ms Paltrow compensates with a killer plot-twisting line about half-way through the film when a curtain should have dropped so that we could have an ice-cream and discuss it. Adapted from a stage play, this is definitely a talkie, and somewhat shrill at certain points, too. But the tension between the characters is well-handled and makes for a satisfying dramatic experience. You'll never look at a drab, moping blonde in a jean-jacket again without thinking that she might be a latter-day Albert Einstein.
one of the worst
posted on 29 Jun 2009I cant believe how disappointing this sorry excuse for a movie is. Paltrow and Gyllenhaal had nothing together in terms of "on screen" chemistry. As much as I am trying to put my finger on what the problem was with this pitiful film, I have to admit that it was just about everything. The story did not flow at all. The dialogue did not work. Casting was poor. The sister of Paltrow was just ridiculous. It is disappointing, because through my school years, mathematics was my first love. I understand that to be so in depth in one subject can cause an isolation socially. In turn, the circle that feeds off each other creates an even worse situation. It is for this reason that the student must truly love their subject to trade a social life. I love psychiatry as well. I have to say that the only good thing in this movie is the face of Hopkins who has only once before disappointed me in "Hearts in Atlantis". Otherwise, there is NOTHING good to say. Paltrow overacted her scenes for the most part and I found myself falling asleep. This was nothing but crap.
Genius!
posted on 27 Jun 2009Just as I started to think that this film is a bore, I decided to try it and never was sorry. This is a neat story about a late mathematical genius, played by always great Sir Anthony Hopkins, his patient daughter, played by also excellent Gwyneth Paltrow, their strange and still nice relations and finally, about the math problem, a theorem, that was finally decided by her, not him. The most blood-chilling moment comes when we learn that it was her, not him who decided this puzzle. When he reads his notes, we have to see Gwyneth's face, her horrible realization that her daddy is mentally ill, and that what he wrote is a pure nonsense. This is a real treat for all the fan of serious films. A must have!
It reminded me too much of 'A Beautiful Mind'.
posted on 25 Jun 2009'Proof' is about Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow), the daughter of a brilliant mathematician (Anthony Hopkins) who, over the years, has lost his mind. She has spent the last several years taking care of her father. Now that he has died, she does not know what to do. Since putting her own life on hold (to take care of her father), she it out of touch with all the changes going on around her now that he is dead. Should she keep her life on hold or should she start over where she left off? This was a really good movie about a brilliant girl who has spent the best years of her life caring for her failing father. Now that he has past, do she still have it in her to make a life for herself? Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jake Gyllenhaal pull off some stunning performances in this movie. However, I feel that I have seen it before. It reminded me too much of 'A Beautiful Mind'.I don't think the plot is very original. But if you haven't seen 'A Beautiful Mind', you'll probably like it.
A decent film, although it is hard to prove.
posted on 05 Jun 2009The film "Proof," gets all the difficult things right. It has a good screenplay, dialog, and acting. This could have been a great film.Unfortunately, the cinematic part of the film got screwed up. The photography and music are about as bad as anything I've seen in years and the directing is unimaginative.The entire film has a murky look and about 3/4 of the film takes place in dark rooms. This could have been atmospheric, but it ends up looking incompetent.The music is intrusive and often drowns out the dialog. It sounds like a really bad imitation of Phillip Glass and it's way too loud.Gwyneth Paltrow and Jake Gyllenhaal are fine, although they are way too good looking to be believable as mathematicians. Gwyneth has a frumpy personality but always looks way too good. Anthony Hopkins does okay. One of the major plot points is that he is supposed to be crazy, but we never really see him act very crazy.I really appreciated the intelligence of the story and the script. Too bad they couldn't have made this adaptation of a play more cinematic.
A Total GWYNETH PALTROW Show.
posted on 03 Jun 2009This movie is totally a GWYNETH PALTROW show. First of all She performs so well(one of the best prformances of 2005). Secondly the story is totally concentrated on her. Thirdly. she acted so well that the director himself forgot about the supporting cast and totally focused on GWYNETH PALTROW .Despite that we cant posibbly say that she's the only worth shot inthis movie. Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal are VERY GOOD too but we fail to notice them in the presence of Paltrow.As for the direction, i think it's fine. Jake looks too young for Paltrow, and they seem to share no chemistry.The story of the movie is bit too RUSHED and the ending seems so UNSATISFYING. that is the reason why people quite dint like the movie.All in all a fine movie with Splendid Performance BY GWYNETH PALTROW . 6/10
Honorable Attempt at a Difficult Play
posted on 30 May 2009"Proof" was not an easy play and it is not an easy movie. Mass audiences are not likely to be attracted to a film which treads the thin line between genius and madness in the form of a mathematical proof. Pretty abstract staff, difficult to dramatize, wouldn't you think? Sophisticated theatre audiences liked it a lot. But make a movie out of it? Well, I'd have to say I wouldn't have risked it. But John Madden brings it off pretty well thanks to a brilliant performance by Gwyneth Paltrow as the care-giving daughter of the mad mathematician who herself comes up with an ingenious solution of a problem relating to prime numbers. Paltrow's character appears to teeter on the brink of madness herself and it is not at all clear in the end whether she will manage to retain her footing or fall into the abyss. Rounding out the cast are Anthony Hopkins as her father, Hope Davis as the "practical," list-making elder sister and Jake Gyllenhaal as a student of Hopkins who is given Paltrow's proof after a night of love-making and then doubts whether she could possibly have written it. The least probable element of the play and movie is the notion that Gyllenhaal would have studied under Hopkins for his doctorate. The Hopkins character has been mad for decades with a brief interval of lucidity; when would he have taken Gyllenhaal under his wing? Still, it's a pretty good movie -- and apparently it's found its niche. This may be the best work Paltrow has ever done, though her character is a lot less winning than the one she played in "Shakespeare in Love."
Paltrow, Davis and Hopkins barely make Proof an above average film
posted on 22 May 2009Gwyneth Paltrow plays the daughter of a dead mathematician (Anthony Hopkins) who finds a groundbreaking mathematical proof in his office and claims it as her own.Math is something I really hate. I have never enjoyed doing it and I just see it as a big waste of time. However, that didn't keep me from enjoying Proof. Sure it deals with math and it may seem boring on the surface but the film is actually pretty engaging and interesting. To simply view this film as a boring math movie would be inaccurate since the math is just a backdrop for the film's story. The movie is really about the characters and how they're presented. John Madden does a pretty good job at capturing these relationships. He keeps the film at a slow pace but never too slow that it actually becomes dull.The acting is the best part about the movie and most of the cast give good performances. Gwyneth Paltrow is surprisingly mediocre as Catherine. She goes over the top in a lot of scenes and she seems to be yelling for no apparent reason. Still, an average performance from her is a good performance compared to most actresses. Anthony Hopkins gives a very engaging and convincing performance as a crazy mathematician. He doesn't appear in the movie as much as everyone else though. Hope Davis also gives an engaging performance as Catherine's sister. It's weird that she isn't more famous because she is very talented. Jake Gyllenhaal was a bit of a miscast. He just wasn't very convincing as a math geek but he doesn't ruin the film or anything.A problem I had with the movie was with the character Catherine. She was so selfish and cruel sometimes that it was kind of hard to feel sorry for her. I understand that she lost her dad but her actions were kind of mean. Her sister was trying to help her but Catherine kept insulting her for no reason. Her relationship with her father was a lot better and nicer to watch. It was nice to see that she cared so much about him. Her relationship with Hal (Jake) wasn't nearly as interesting since they didn't have a lot of chemistry together but it didn't ruin the film either. In the end, Proof is a very underrated drama that's worth checking out. Rating 8/10
X * Y = Z. No Mathematical Proof, but a Proof nonetheless.
posted on 16 May 2009GWYNETH, GWYNETH, GWYNETH! Not having been overly impressed with any of her previous performances, in Proof, Gwyneth Paltrow brings a highly emotional, nuanced, and so finely-tuned performance, I must say this movie this movie a stand-out.She inhabits her character so fully, I was pulled in and so completely entranced the entire time. In fact, certain words or phrases are reused and have an uncanny allusion to when they were previously said. The effect as that you experience and follow the moments, and the thoughts of the characters, even though they are so deeply imbedded within. I credit Gwyneth and the director with making this work so well. I've never experienced such an organic link between phrases separated in time in a movie before. Wow!This is a movie about how a daughter, her sister, and a grad student deal with the passing of a great mathematician. While there may be similarities with 'A Beautiful Mind' and even 'Good Will Hunting', knowing there are any such links didn't help me with this movie and I think actually does a dis-service. This movie stands on its own. Ignore any such comparisons.Acting-wise, there were strong performances all around with Anthony Hopkins giving a top-notch performance. Jake Gyllenhaal's was strong, but perhaps not to the level of his rather awesome performance in Brokeback Mountain.Good things aside, the one thing that irked me about this film, was that given the strong link to mathematics, how unbelievable some of the dialogue was regarding the 'math. While Gwyneth's and Hopkins' characters pulled off a sense of mathematical intelligence, Jake's character hardly said anything mathematically competent and even came across as flustered in expressing himself mathematically leaving me feeling cheated. In my view, this is chiefly the fault of the screenplay but to a lesser extent in the actor's portrayal. Ignore this rather small point, and this movie passes with flying colours. Q.E.D.
Highly overrated film and a major disappointment.
posted on 28 Apr 2009Proof is one of the most overrated films of the year, along with The Constant Gardener. Although I never saw the play, I can conclude from the film that Proof was meant to stay a play. Many stage to screen adaptations have been successful, such as Neil Labute's In the Company of Men, The Shape of Things, and Your Friends and Neighbors. Proof, though, when turned into a film, is a very poor adaptation. All the characters feel so one sided with no depth to their emotions. One of the biggest problems is the artificial dialogue. It feels as if a play is being viewed instead of a film. Paltrow can be an excellent actress, especially in Sylvia, but in Proof...it seems as if she's trying to search for a sign of character depth and development, but the mediocre script and directing forces her to remain very 2-D. Here is the worst part of Proof: Jake Gyllenhaal!!!! His character is one of the cheesiest, unrealistic characters in any non-mainstream film I've seen recently. He looks like he'll be fantastic in Jarhead and especially Brokeback Mountain, but because of the sickening artificiality of Proof, like Paltrow, he's forced to remain a fake, laughable character.The Constant Gardener was overrated, but should be seen because of Fernando Meirelles's talented directing skills. Proof should be seen for not a single reason. The acting ranges from mediocre to terrible, the story is uninteresting, there are clichés....but I blame the director, and I put fault on the decision to make a play into a movie, when it should've stayed a play for good.
This movie blew my mind away.
posted on 24 Apr 2009The performances were stunning. I'm dead serious. It's an incredible film and the story of Robert is NOTHING like John Nash, I can tell you that. The familial chemistry between Anthony Hopkins and Gwyneth Paltrow is just phenomenal. The chemistry between Jake Gyllenhaal and Gwyneth Paltrow is just phenomenal. Hope Davis' performance as Claire was everything I could have possibly hoped for and still more. As a huge fan of the play I praise this movie so highly. It's probably going to be the best movie of the year and I suggest it to anyone. I do warn people that some may not understand it. I'm only saying this because when I walked out of the theater I saw a number of people with blank looks on their faces.
Brilliant!
posted on 04 Apr 2009Seeing this movie makes one realize how truly dumb and unchallenging most Hollywood movies, aimed at young teenage boys, are. The script was brilliant, and all four actors do a fine job of bringing the story to life. I too saw Mary Louise Parker in the stage version, and though I slightly preferred her to Gwynneth, the latter nonetheless was fine as the gifted and disturbed Catherine. I thought Jake Gyllenhaal was very good in his role, but too good-looking and hunky to play a geeky mathematician. Compared to the play, his relationship with Catherine developed a little too quickly in the movie, considering what a loner Catherine had been up to this time. Hope Davis was great as the more "normal," but controlling sister Claire, her second best performance ever, after the under-appreciated one she gave in "American Splendor" (be sure to rent THAT movie if you haven't seen it), and she manages to be more sympathetic than the actress who played her in the stage version. Hopkins as the brilliant, mentally ill mathematician-father was fine, though not particularly special in the role.I only have two quibbles. One, there was not enough mathematics in the movie OR the play. Everyone has studied advanced math, so why not challenge the audience a little more and let us in on what the proof is actually about. It is kind of like watching a movie about a musician and not letting the audience hear any of the music! Two, it is not believable that in a crucial scene towards the end of the movie, that neither Catherine and especially the more materialistic Claire would not care what ultimately happens to the proof, especially when being told of its possible value.Aside from these flaws, if you are looking for intelligent fare and a break from mindless action films and the mostly unfunny comedies of the past summer, you owe it to yourself to see this film. The theater I saw it in was almost empty, so I fear it is not doing too well. Remember that every ticket you buy is a vote for more of that kind of film being made. Let's hear it for more stimulating and mature films like this one!
Mathematics For Dummies
posted on 02 Apr 2009Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the 27 year-old daughter of a recently deceased mathematician, played by Anthony Hopkins. Catherine grieves for her father who suffered from insanity before he died. Now, she must confront the possibility that she may have inherited some of her father's mental tendencies. One of her father's students, a young man named Herald, as well as Claire, Catherine's scheming sister, make Catherine's life even more difficult. It's been at least a year since I have watched a film so annoying as "Proof".You would think that for a film wherein mathematics is a central focus of characters' lives, there would be dialogue references to "differential equations", or "convergent series", or "double integral", or "binomial expansion", or other math concepts. Nothing doing. There's some minimal babble about "prime numbers". But the film goes out of its way to avoid actual discussion of mathematics.Instead, we have to endure emotional diatribes from Catherine, and her ongoing malaise related to Herald and Claire. Which is itself a contradiction. As a mathematician herself, Catherine's responses should be thoughtful and logical, not emotional. Yet, her reactions are totally emotional and illogical. Clearly, the filmmakers here consider viewers to be mathematical dummies. So they create a phony main character, to enhance verbal conflict, and in so doing evade intellectual dialogue. On the DVD extras, the actors even seem proud that mathematics is not discussed. And that, in turn, made me have an even lower opinion of them.Throughout the film Catherine whines, moans, sulks, and pouts. I absolutely could not stand her. And Gwyneth Paltrow's annoying nasal voice makes her character almost unendurable.A much better movie could have been made if they had dumped Catherine, and zeroed in on the Anthony Hopkins character. Watching him, and listening to him talk about the wonders and mysteries of mathematics with Herald, would have been far more interesting and rewarding.
Wonderfully written, beautifully acted
posted on 27 Mar 2009This movie is a gem. Gwyneth Paltrow once again delivers a brilliant poignant performance, this time as the daughter of a mentally unbalanced but also brilliant mathematician. I saw the play 2 years ago and wondered if the movie could do it justice, and I think the transition from stage to screen was nearly flawless. The small cast of characters is fleshed out, and no scenes or dialog is wasted. My one tiny criticism is the little sex scene (don't remember that from the play & didn't think the movie needed it) and, also the sister was somewhat stereotyped as the over-achiever who's not in touch with what's important. These were minor flaws in an otherwise lovely rendering of the story.
Paltrow's "Proof" of an Oscar Nomination
posted on 15 Mar 2009Based on a play David Auburn, the movie involves a daughter, Catherine(Paltrow), of a recently deceased, brilliant mathematician(Hopkins) who was responsible for major breakthroughs in that field. Catherine's father had intermittent moments in time when he had lost his faculties, insanity, and slowly realized that he may be losing his mind. In his later years he had a block of time that finds him being very lucid, with an energized, young man's mind, heart and soul once again. This is when he embarks on his greatest math proof, with semi-reluctant Catherine helping him. The main story starts off upon the death of her father and his funeral. Catherine fears becoming like her father, losing her mind while at the same time acknowledging to herself that she is a brilliant mathematician.The crux of the story involves Catherine's sister coming to visit her, more to assess her and treat her like a child, and a young ex-student(Jake Gyllenhaal) who sees Catherine as a human being, someone to be loved and nurtured. Paltrow gives an excellent performance in this movie. She balances many emotions all at once, and we empathize with her plight throughout. She has cocooned herself into a shell, and she is coaxed out of it during the course of her sister's visit, which may involve ulterior motives, and Catherine's involvement with the ex-student, Hal(Gyllenhaal). Catherine believes that if she acknowledges to the world that she has inherited her father's brilliance, then she will also inherit his torment, his bouts with psychotic episodes and a deteriorating mind. The culmination of her character's design and ideology is a unique state of mind for the audience to behold. There are many factors and issues rolling around in her head, and an intelligent audience can understand her reluctance and fears, while at the same time feel compelled to help nudge her along in her life's journey. Can she take the chance of admitting that she's brilliant, which could by default wrap her up in the dark evolution of her father's hysteria? Does part of her fear of breaking out of her shell have to do with trying to shun away her identity, as if she is willing herself to be someone else? The movie never missteps, and it is an amazing intellectual experience. I see an Oscar nomination for Paltrow, for sure, and so will you. 10/10
You don't need to prove it is a bad movie. It is a given.
posted on 22 Aug 2009The biggest problem that I had with this movie was that I was always unsure exactly where the movie was going, and what the point of it was. It seemed to have no point for the longest time and when it was finished I was amazed at what little content the movie actually had. Surprisingly there is not much math directly used in the movie, and it is always just mentioned rather than explained or applied. There were a couple of lines and math jokes that were funny, but those were the only good parts of the movie. If you are looking for a movie that will entertain you for a while then find another movie, because this is not it. This is the kind of movie that you should only watch if you actually have NOTHING good to do with your time. I wish I could get back the time it took me to watch this movie because it was so disappointing. If you are going to watch this movie, don't expect much.