Proof

1991

Action / Drama / Romance

58
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 94%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 82%
IMDb Rating 7.4 10 5489

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 89,148 times
February 23, 2015 at 02:54 AM

Cast

Hugo Weaving as Martin
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
704.05 MB
1280*720
English
R
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 5 / 8
1.25 GB
1920*1080
English
R
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 5 / 4

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Tanuj Poddar 7 / 10

The skeptical blind man

Proof is a subtle drama centered around Martin, a blind man, who has a deep conviction that everyone tries to deceive him, simply because they 'can'. He has built his life around in such a way so as to not allow anyone to hurt him. He doesn't intend to trust anyone. He has a bizarre system of taking pictures and marking them in braille to be convinced that the world is as is being described to him. His maid Celia has strong feeling for him. He in fact, is specially rude to her advances so that despite his handicap, she is the weaker one in the relationship. In midst of all this comes Andy, whom Martin is able to trust and asks him to describe all the pictures he takes so that he can appropriately tag them. Celia who keeps Martin dependent on her, feels vulnerable when she sees Martin's growing trust in Andy. She manipulates Andy into doing something that shakes Martin's trust in him. Will he be able to win the trust back.

It is not overly melodramatic nor is it very fast paced. It is a gripping tale where the director takes his own time to lay down the characters, revealing them only to the extent as needed to justify their actions. The chemistry between the characters is wonderful and all the three actors do a wonderful job of breathing life into their roles. Overall an enjoyable lighthearted drama with some funny moments in between.

Reviewed by Nicole C 7 / 10

Creative story with good acting.

The story of a blind photographer is certainly an interesting one. The film doesn't show us how Martin makes a living, but he does seem to live quite a comfortable life. The reason he photographs is so he can have proof that what he thinks is out there corresponds to what people describe to him from his photos. This is what Andy mainly does at the beginning. Martin gives him photographs, and Andy describes them to him which Martin can then label. However, the flaw about this is how can Martin possible remember each photograph he takes? Either he would forget at least the majority of the pictures he takes at any day, so when he goes to develop them he wouldn't really know where they are from. Or, after he has labelled them and revisits them, how would he remember what the words mean in relation to the photograph? There is no time or place assigned to the feel or words of the label, which is especially hard to achieve without visual aids (unless he has 'photographic memory').

Weaving does a pretty good job at his character, and you can definitely get the sense of his character's dry wit. The tension between him and Celia is one I find very awkward, especially as Celia is always coming on to him. In this way, Picot does a great job with her character, depicting someone whose whole world is centred on this one person. I also enjoy the way she would randomly disrupt furniture pieces so that Martin would bump into them later. It's just so unnecessary and done out of spite that makes it laugh out loud worthy. Crowe as well does great, and his relationship with Weaving is well elaborated and depicted. There are essentially the three characters of this film, and they all interweave in each other's life in drastic ways, producing sound character development.

However, the film moves at quite a slow pace, and there are countless scenes in which the characters just stare at each other in silence- or in Martin's case, sit in silence. This somewhat adds intensity to the film (dark humour), and at the same time makes it uncomfortable and awkward to watch.

The story is well told, and the editing, cinematography and directing all nicely come together. The set designs - especially of Celia's apartment, tells a lot of the character. I wish there would have been more to Martin's place that could have depicted more of who his character was. His dog is cute, and its disappearance on daily walks for a few minutes is the main mystery Martin wishes to solve.

Overall, the film definitely tells an interesting story, but is a little weird. I wouldn't watch it again, or outright recommend it for others to watch.

Reviewed by Ben Parker 5 / 10

I appreciated that it wasn't terrible, but found such a profound problem with its scenario.

This little movie won AFI awards back in the day, yet I'd never heard of it, its become quite obscure. I found a VHS copy at my local good will and was pleased to find that it was not in any way terrible. Russell Crowe stands out, supremely likable; Hugo Weaving is kind of odd, a bit more creepy than perhaps he needed to be. Maybe a bit too much of the old Agent Smith, and not enough of the Priscilla Queen of the Desert. It is not, however, a great slice of life, and that comes down to the plot: allow me...

Hugo Weaving plays a blind man with a penchant for taking photos and having people describe them to him. Now, he uses the photos as "proof" that what he sensed in the room was really there. Yet, he can't see the photos, so he's relying on the accuracy of people's descriptions of them. The concept is a bit fiddly. It reminds me a lot of Memento, I believe that character used polaroids as mementos, because he had a short-term memory problem. Its kind of strange here, because the photos I guess are some kind of weird truth contract for this guy. My issue is that there is never any way for Hugo Weaving's character to verify what is in the photos, so what is the point of them?

This kind of far-fetched concept reminds me of a lot of the old arty novels I used to read about lonely people who find some strange way to connect with one special friend, in this case a lovable rascal played by Russell Crowe. The production style of the film has aged fairly well, and it contains some well written scenes, but I just think the basic concept is pretty flawed and silly. I guess if it was released with a descriptive audio track and rang true for blind audiences I'd be happy to admit I was wrong, but it rang fairly false to me, in a logical sense. As mentioned, I also found Hugo Weaving to be unnecessarily creepy.

A strange one. I appreciated that it wasn't terrible, but found such a profound problem with its scenario. I don't know, 5/10?

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment