Proof of Life is the second of three movies slated for release at the end of 2000 containing actors that were or are in real-life relationships.  First, there was the “are they or aren’t they” duo of Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow in the surprisingly good Bounce. Later this year, viewers will be treated to Traffic, which, in addition to being one of the year’s best films, features newlyweds Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones.  Sandwiched in the middle of these two strong films is the decidedly lackluster Life, which boasts the presence of current Hollywood cuddle-bunnies Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe.

Life opens in Russia, with a 10-minute, hyper-edited segment that introduces Terry Thorne (Crowe, Gladiator) as the Kidnap and Ransom Specialist (or “K&R,” for the hostage-savvy) for London-based Luthan Risk International.  Basically, he’s a negotiator who excels at bringing home people who have been kidnapped - assuming, of course, that the victim is employed by a business that is insured by Luthan.

Meanwhile, in Tecala, South America (it’s Ecuador, although the film never mentions the name of the country), a young American couple is settling in after bouncing around between various other third-world countries.  Peter Bowman (David Morse, Dancer in the Dark) is building a dam to save villages from being flooded, and his company is being taken over by a large oil company planning to build a pipeline around the dam.  His wife, Alice (Meg Ryan, Hanging Up), is a chain-smoking flower child whose hair is too perfect to even pick out Ecuador on a map, let alone live there.

Long story short, Peter is kidnapped by rebel fighters, and Luthan’s K&R man Terry is called in to save the day.  But Luthan finds out that Peter’s company dropped their kidnapping insurance during their corporate transition, and Terry is forced to give up the job, despite his interest in both the assignment and Alice’s cute button nose.  But will the allure of the case and the nose be too much for Terry to ignore?  What do you think, stupid?

The film follows two stories – one featuring Peter and his painful ordeal (in which he actually turns into Tom Hanks in Cast Away), while the other concentrates on Alice and Terry’s attempts to rescue Peter from the crazy rebels.  The trouble is that neither of the stories is interesting enough to carry the film, although the former is, by far, the more interesting of the two.

Many viewers will be watching Proof closely to see if they can pinpoint the instant Crowe and Ryan fell in love.  I’ll answer that question for those people right now – you can’t.  Not only is the chemistry missing between the two actors, there isn’t any between the two characters, either.  When Terry and Alice finally kiss, it seems as forced as the laughter at a taping of Hollywood Squares.  I almost forgot there was supposed to be a romantic angle to the story, and wondered afterward if it was added at the last minute.  The film’s trailer and poster make it seem like Terry and Alice will be doing a lot of running around together to find Peter, but it never materializes.

The horribly paced Proof was directed by Taylor Hackford (The Devil’s Advocate) and was nicely lensed by Slavomir Idziak (Gattaca).  The script was written by Advocate’s Tony Gilroy, who based the story on two different sources – a Vanity Fair article about K&R men, and an autobiography from the survivor of a Columbian guerilla kidnapping. This would explain the two separate stories, but it doesn’t explain why they were both such a bore.  Proof is as dull, routine and as eventful as a trip to the grocery store.  It’s a taut thriller that is neither taut, nor thrilling, and it’s unnecessarily long, too.

2:20 –

for violence, language and some drug material