Talk:Proof of Life

Country depicted
The article as currently written indicates that the film is based on Ecuador, though no citation is given. Though Colombia is mentioned in the film as being not Tecala, the film shares more in common with Colombia than any other South American country. The rebel army in the film is called the ELT, a clear parallel to Colombia's ELN--which also began as a Marxist group that shifted into coca and ransom. Though the flag shown in the film is that of Ecuador, this is probably due to the filming location and not the intent of the filmmakers (Ecuador is commonly used due to the real security situation in Colombia; Maria, Full of Grace was also filmed in Ecuador but meant to represent Colombia). Unless there is some sort of evidence supporting this, it'll probably be better to just drop the sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hwonder (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

So? Its a fictional movie, and if the country is not mentioned, then its not supposed to be known. Speculating on a movie... pssh...

_this is a sig_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.85 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Chechen wars films?
Why is this article tagged with the 'Chechen wars films' category? Natebailey (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree NATE. I don't know how long it's been there.  I've been editing/watchlist the film for a while.  Clearly, it's wrong and I have deleted it.  After all it was only a brief moment in the film. Best--  ♦ Luigibob ♦  "Talk to Luigi!"  23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Military Advisor
In the credits it says that Adam Bohling was the Military Advisor, but according to Taylor Hackford the person who played the Light Machine Gunner in the rescue mission was the one, with a prior history of being a US Army Captain, and the other two Latin American-looking operators were actually commandos in real life from the Equador Special Forces. Anyone care to comment or confirm that? 58.168.85.216 (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you can change the info: however please cite your source and do it correctly. I can correct your citation note, but provide A MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE (seriously)-- best-- Luigibob (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was watching the commentary on Proof Of Life and, yes, Mr Hackford does state it as he talked though the final rescue scene. Signal Buster (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rip-off of Master Keaton
There is a Japanese comic and animation series known as Master Keaton whose main character is essentially what this movie is based on. I could list more, but it was rather disturbing that a Hollywood movie would ripoff of something else and call it its own. (Psychoneko (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC))
 * 1. Keaton is a former British SAS operative, despite his unassuming appearance
 * 2. Keaton works for a London-based insurance company that has a negotiation/hostage-rescue division
 * It's more disturbing that someone can look at an article that clearly shows that this was based on magazine articles of real people and events, but still want to beat the cliched drum of "They ripped off my favorite manga that nobody else has heard of." In fact, the irony here is that the supposed rip-off Hollywood movie paid for the rights and the manga ripped off the real people, if you want to get into silly finger pointing. RoyBatty42 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on WHICH people and WHAT events in real life? None of those were ever mentioned in the article nor in the references section of the article.  The movie itself never mentioned what exactly it was based on other than the whole Columbian-FARC issue and even then it never mentioned which event specifically.  To suddenly have a retired special forces agent deployed by an insurance company to rescue a client seems much too convenient a plot to use especially when the producers never bothered to mention which event specifically it referred to.  Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the manga.  As I see it, the manga is essentially similar to Tom Clancy's novels with the exception that Clancy's works get the proper referencing whereas the manga didn't.  (Psychoneko (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC))


 * No one gives a shit about some nothing manga. Cry about it somewhere else, weeaboo.

Smoking criticism
I consider this trivial. The source names at least 10 different movies in the brief article. This film is mentioned in only 1 sentence. "Reiner, a fierce anti-smoking activist, expressed dismay when an earlier Castle Rock film, "Proof of Life," featured Meg Ryan smoking." That's the entire extent of the films mention in the source. Even then, the blurb put into this article talks about Rob Reiner seeing it as "promoting smoking to children", but that isn't said in the source by Reiner. It is said by Stanton Glantz. Also, the blurb says the film "extensively features Ryan smoking". That isn't said anywhere in the source article. Refer to the single sentence where the film is mentioned and you'll see no mention whatsoever about the amount, frequency or circumstances in which cigarettes are shown. A single sentence in a single article, quoting a single critic a year after the film came out. That sounds trivial to me. Is there any evidence that this was an actual controversy when the film was released or in the theaters? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Thomas Clayton, played by Russell Crowe"
The introduction refers to Thomas Clayton featured in the book used as one source of inspiration for this film, but says "Thomas Clayton, played by Russell Crowe"... Surely this is wrong? --213.104.249.48 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Affairs between leads?
Why is there no mention of this? It affected the film's promotion, and the director blamed it for the film's well-below-expectations earnings. Rabbitador (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above comment - the relationship between the leads overshadowing the film's reception upon release and was mentioned in numerous contemporaneous reviews of the film, as well as post mortems on the film's financial losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:E728:2:0:0:0:F (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)