Sick Product of a Sick System

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Great Film overall

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Blind people are normal people like you, me and everybody else. They do not need any kind of extra sympathy which falls in the purview of a politically correct standpoint. It is with some of these key pieces of essential information about visually impaired people that Australian director Jocelyn Moorhouse has managed to create a highly original screenplay which succeeds in revealing inner secrets and hidden motives of visually challenged persons. This is something which Martin discovers when he comes into contact with his caretaker Celia. Their relationship gives birth to a new perspective about the oppressor and the oppressed which is exacerbated to a large extent with the sudden arrival of a shady character named Andy. It is said that the betrayal of trust is not a laughing matter. This is something which is responsible for shattering the lives of all protagonists. Ms. Moorhouse has been able to direct a film which has something for everybody. It includes serious entertainment for audiences and some food for thought for film critics. The world of blind people in "Proof" is seen through Martin whose mannerisms convey an important message that blind people have a clear understanding of self esteem. The idea of doing photography through the eyes of a blind person is one of the key highlights of this highly inventive screenplay.

A very interesting plot idea. Emotionally charged, superb acting some good humour All in all a very creditable effort on what have been a very limited budget. My main criticism of the film is the character development. Celia and Martin seem unresolved and don't quite add up / ring true. For instance, Celia lives in a fairly large house, drives a BMW, spends quite a bit of money on her hobby (photography) and apparently manages to pay for all this on the meagre earnings of a housekeeper. It's much the same with Martin, he doesn't appear to have a regular job; he seems so misogynistic I can't quite visualize him working with the blind. Martin eats out quite a bit and is an avid photographer. So, do we assume Martin balances his budget by collecting a disability cheque from the Australian government? Did he inherit his house? I'm not a details freak, but I find it hard to suspend disbelief when someone lives lavishly on social assistance, or menial housework

I am not a Russell Crow fan...and while I liked Gladiator...I always thought it would have been better without Crow. That said...I have always liked Hugo Weaving and until I caught this fantastic movie on IFC last night, I thought of him as a steadfast character actor with a terrific accent. Whoa! Think A-G-A-I-N !!! "Poof" sure proved me wrong...Weaving's acting was brilliant and I can give nothing but praise and admiration to the director, Jocelyn Moorhouse for her ability to make such a gripping movie on such a small budget. This movie is all about character development and she is an obvious master at turning the written word into emotional reality. This is a B-I-G (like in red wine) movie! Hugo Weaving's character, Martin is so real you want to touch him! As for Crow...he had it all when he was younger...what the devil happened? Moorhouse is keenly adept at maneuvering your sensitivities. Right from the start you are drawn in to the story...honestly empathizing with this unusual triad of desperately lonely individuals. Nothing about this story is contrived and I think that is where it gets it's power. It's a shame this movie did not get more play but a big thank you to IFC for bringing it to my attention!

This film was on cable TV in Los Angeles. It caught my eye because of the contrast of a very young Hugo Weaving and the man we've seen in later films. The relationship he has with his "housekeeper" had me staring at the t.v., then slowly sitting down engrossed in the film. Only later when he appeared on screen did I even know Russell Crowe was in the film. He, too, was quite young and rather a sweet character, although he's apparently supposed to be a troublemaker. He's very easy with Weaving's character, very kind, but real.Juxtaposed with the blind photographer having his life recorded in a series of snapshots (that others have to describe to him), is this story being revealed largely through visuals - because he is blind the dialog often has little to do with the activity that is going on around him. We learn more from the non verbal than the verbal. He doesn't have that luxury.His deadpan (because he has no idea what's going on) is priceless.*Spoiler* - For example, when he is at the housekeeper's house surrounded by photos of himself - We are dumbstruck; he is clueless. His lack of reaction makes the evidence of her obsession all the more creepy.In the end, the movie is about trust, and about the risk we take when we trust other people. And about the isolation that we face when we don't.