correcamino

(2012-04-30 10:53:19)

Fatal Attraction for the Juvie Set

A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinemacan be seen in a film I recently watched on television: IndecentProposal.Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are playedWoody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lackof chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should careso much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection,playfulness, attraction – none of these materialized on screen in theirinteractions together.Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clearfrom the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would bethe scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just couldnot muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holdingback, preoccupied with his receding hairline.OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are forthinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No actingfaux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Ofcourse they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. EnterRobert Redford (John Gage in the film) – a romantic, perhapsemotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and thoughnot a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks likeOlivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we theviewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way,trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see thatright?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it'smeant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a RichMan, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain deadaudience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David'snow-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, gettingit together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywoodmovies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses,three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol.Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fiancée now complete, isthere at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insistedthat she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexualtension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. Imean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is:WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the RobertRedford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pullherself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man soeasily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to thegarden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes.That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson.We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyntried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt,or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable publictransportation system that connects far-flung California cities andmunicipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class orworking class life?

anniecat45

(2012-04-29 23:36:27)

Too ridiculous -- MANY SPOILERS IN HERE

This movie was so ridiculous it isn't even offensive. How was it ridiculous? Let me count the ways:S P O I L E R SA P P R O A C H I N G1. the idea that a happy married couple would agree to loaning out thewife, for any sum of money, is silly. The idea that Robert Redfordwould ever have to pay for sex is just laughable (most women I knowwould happily volunteer). Only slightly less of a joke is the idea thatthe wife who had agreed to this would then (1)leave Mr. Redford at all,to (2) return to Woody Harrelson. And, although I do realize that nowoman ever entirely understands what draws a man to a woman, I can'tsee Robert Redford or anyone else paying $1 million for Demi Moore. PutHalle Berry or Sophie Marceau in that role, and I might be able to buyit, but I can't see Ms. Moore as million-dollar material.If you bother with this at all, close your ears and just look atRedford.

Tim

(2012-04-28 18:38:30)

Better than a Book

I just saw this movie on HBO I just came on yahoo to find out who the hell the director was because this movie was so well made with all of the suddle symbolism and imagery used. Nearly every shot was significant in some way to the characters. They took a simple plot here and drew a great amount of meaning from it in a way that did not insult our intelligence as an audience. There was obviously a great amount of attention paid to detail in telling this story in a way that only a movie could tell it as opposed to a novel and you NEVER see that anymore!

Roger

(2012-04-28 07:46:11)

A Pleasant Suprise

This was a much better movie than I expected -- great acting, low-key drama, great screenplay. Watching this marriage unravel before your eyes was painful -- but memorable.

(2012-04-27 16:29:49)

Is it the bad acting, the awful script, or both?

I'll keep it brief. It's trashy, almost physically painful to watch, and embarassing. It's so bad, that I'll even cast it among the ranks of Stargate and Independence Day, which at least had a few pan drippings of "fun," albeit the kind of idiotic fun you feel when you see a movie that should end up in Mystery Science Theater. Save your time and your bucks. Walk away from this dud. Quickly.

anonymous

(2012-04-27 06:16:08)

Shameful waste of talent

Obviously, a number of agents didn't see beyond dollar signs when theysigned up their clients for this 117-minute *omage* to the courtesancomplex.Sure, the film could have been alright, had the $1 million been left outofit. Seriously. The amount of the check doesn't matter,prostitution isstill prostitution and no amount of "love conquers all" can change thefactthat no marriage vows ever meant to imply "for richer for poorer, forpimping as in fidelity". Picture the story otherwise, though: 2 kids,flatbroke, borderline "desperate" and completely stupid. They collide withwealthy business man. Kids' marriage is strained by imperfect times andthefact that the husband is something of a loser. Enter Mr. Tuxedo, oozingcharm and stability -- a virtual magnet for the ticking biologicalclock --and with him the wife's temptation, tensions, suspense. Whom will shechoose?Maybe, under those conditions, I could actually care. As-is, frankly,Redford's selfish and manipulative playboy winds up the sympatheticcharacter.A woman who will sell herself is just about what a guy deserves who willpimp out his wife. The indecent proposition makes the husband a TOTALloser, deficient in every positive male characteristic, and makes the wifeacheap strumpet seduced by money rather than confused by another potentiallove, a woman devoid of moral center and self-respect.All the impressive talent (acting, directing, cinematography) wasted onthisfilm -- and it was an impressive amount -- couldn't save it from itssplashy-but-too-trashy $1 million pitch line. If I see this turkey atonemore bridal shower, I'm going to roast it! (Or maybe cross it withTitanicand pitch the tape in the ocean!)

moonspinner55

(2012-04-16 17:49:43)

Too gentlemanly to be indecent, too sentimental to be much fun

Cotton candy involving a loving couple (bordering on good buddies) wholose their shirts in Las Vegas but get a chance to recoup when aworld-famous billionaire makes a play for the wife--with bootyattached! Great set-up for a story that takes a slow spiral downwardonce the couple returns home (to a rather lovely cottage in SouthernCalifornia). Some sparks from principals Robert Redford and Demi Moore,but Woody Harrelson is out of his league and Adrian Lyne's direction isall visual and nothing much upstairs (and I could've done without thehorse-racing video suddenly morphing into a shot of Demi in "the act").The film is shamefully enjoyable, and capped with teen-romance fever,but aren't these characters a little old for moony-eyed puppy love?**1/2 from ****

tmensamaster-2

(2012-04-16 09:48:04)

An example of how some cliches still have life

Before I viewed this film, I have always considered Adrian Lyne to be asleazeball. He always has to make these, as he calls them, ''relationshipdramas'': I've always just thought he made porn. I howled through '9 1/2Weeks' , especially in the ''slide-show scene'', I think 'FatalAttraction'has a ''kick-in-the-teeth'' ending and 'Flashdance' was pure crap. His'Jacobs Ladder' had promise but also didn't have a satisfactory ending. Ididn't think I'd ever see a good film of his till I watched 'IndecentProposal'.My God is the film a cliche!!! But what an effective one. The film isabouta destitute couple[Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson] who accept a wager fromazillionaire[Played by Robert Redford] that Moore will spend one nightwithRedford for one million dollars. 'Another sleazeball plot from Lyne' Ithought but decided to watch it for laughs. But I was surprised.I was touched by this film. I know its just a cliche from beginning to endbut it has life in it. Redford was the perfect pick for themillionaire[I'vealways considered him to be a bit shifty] and Moore and Harrelson give thebest performances possible given the material. The plot is fairly 'daytimesoap' stuff and it follows that kind of formula. But Lyne somehow infusesitwith life and makes us care. I have to say I was touched by the ending andliked the way it was done[POSSIBLE SPOILER...Moore walking through the fogon a pier, reminding me vividly of 'Requiem for a Dream']. Even theirstupidwhining and moaning is compelling, in a bizarre way. I did have problemswith Moore's relationship with Redford though[does she love him too?] butIdidn't seem to care about it sins against logic. At the end, all I couldthink was ''I actually like an Adrian Lyne film !'. Give its cliches achance and you may like it too............3 out of 4

(2012-04-10 15:17:42)

15 years too late

I still remember seeing the trailer for this movie when I was a kid. It seemed so adult, so provocative. Even at the tender age of ten, I recognized the inherent sexual power and enticement in the single image of Robert Redford leaning over a pool table and offering a man $1 million for a night with his wife. Back then, I was desperate to see how the story ended, but my mother didn't let me go to movies like that.Fast-forward fifteen years to the time when I finally got around to watching the movie. I don't know what took me so long, but in a way I wish I hadn't waited, because if I had seen the movie when I was a kid, I would have appreciated it a lot more. Back then, I wasn't so picky. Back then I didn't notice wooden dialogue that sounded like it came out of a Harlequin romance novel, or stilted, shallow acting. I didn't notice gaping holes in the plot, such as the fact that the couple kept referring to their million dollars even AFTER they paid their lawyer 5% and the point had been belabored again and again that they didn't have $50,000.00 in their own money to bring the figure back up to a cool mil. Back then I wasn't as discerning about screenplays and didn't tend to notice when one was poorly or inadequately written. I never would have noticed the soft focus and lighting designed to keep Robert Redford looking younger than his 57 years, and the lazy soundtrack and tepid score wouldn't have come to my attention at all. And of course predicting the ending was tougher for me back then, so I wouldn't have seen every "twist" in the plot coming from a mile away.Well as they say, that was then and this is now. Obviously I noticed ALL of these things and they failed to impress me. I found the entire thing forgettable. And since I watched it on a film website, I am in no position to comment on the DVD extras. Overall I can only recommend that unless you too are able to overlook these glaring deficiencies, you stay as far away from this disappointing movie as possible.

jamdonahoo

(2012-04-10 05:06:06)

Miscast Redford

This story had the potential of a good film. The difficult choice oflove versus money and the angst and regret of making the wrong one.However the movie was ruined by the horrible miscasting of RobertRedford as the villain who offers $1,000,000 to sleep with Demi Moore.Like Redford has to pay for it. Redford's boyish good looks and AllAmerican charm just don't cut it as an unlikeable, threatening, boor.Redford's acting skillls are insufficient to make his charactermenacing. I can see it now, $1,000,000 to sleep with Robert Redford. OKsays the lady but you will have to give me some time to raise themoney. Jack Nicholson would have been perfect as the sleazeball.

(2012-04-07 17:46:05)

A good start that stranded in the middle of the storm!

The spirit of the tragedy has been slow but progressively demolished and even confiscated since the XVII Century. Since these ages, the tragedy has suffered a visible process of perverse distortion, becoming just a moral lesson to follow. Jean Anouilh, Jean Paul Sartre, Joyce, Selma Lagerloff, Albert Camus, Fedor Dostoievsky, Eugene O Neill, Giovanni Papini, Ionesco, Beckett, William Faulkner, Ernst Hemingway, August Strindberg and Henrik Ibsen are weird exceptions, but in general terms, the cathartic experience derived from the tragic ethos, has vanished. So, if you dissect the tragedy into fragments of moral lessons, you just are telling a fable, but nothing else. You simply have frozen the wrath of Gods into hermeneutic pills, in order to satisfy the great audiences and so guarantee them, a final return to their respective homes. But the soul has not suffered the expected shock, and the spirit has not experienced the sharpness of the contrasts: long life to triviality. In the tragedy there are not good guys or bad guys; there' s no one absolutely innocent; the tragedy is the violation and transgression of a rule related with the cosmic order. It's impossible to understand in its wholeness, the force of its significance if you do not look it under the mythic coordinates. The film starts with an interesting dilemma to solve what if?. The corrosive and nasty feature represented by Redford , may be considered as the Devil' s embodiment. The proposal was made and accepted. But once the dramatic peak has been reached, one can feel how the film precipitates obstreperously, the expected reactions fall in a well know stereotyped cliche; she cries and is in shame; he looks arrogant but then the character becomes a marionette. A false redemption works out as the final launch, that will allow them to understand one each other and the forgiveness will hover about them.This material really did not deserve such predictable final. In hands of Robert van Akeren (The woman in flames), for instance the result would have been absolutely different; there is a lot of self indulgence not only for the characters and the audience in general.

KELLY

(2012-04-07 02:56:11)

This sucked

I'm sorry but this movie was beyond screwed up. Great acting.... decent storyline but my god! In the beginning I thought, "what if i was in their situation...would i do it?" but then when I realize that a great marriage was just about torn apart because of one persistant millionaire who thought he could have whatever he wanted then i thought twice. Money doesn't buy a damn thing in this world except for material things and paying the bills of course. Thats it.

(2012-03-31 06:30:26)

A Masterpiece in Understanding.

What if...? The two words that define almost everyone's life. What if I married so & so instead...What if that job was mine...What if there was a perfect life...? And on & on. Relationships, marriage, in particular, young relationships and marriage are plagued with the question, or the "two words." Indecent Proposal is a masterpiece. An exploration, if you will, into the power of money, trust, love, respect, and above all...What if? The movie casts three of the best stars of their time, Robert Redford, Woody Harrelson, and Demi Moore at the top of their game. It brings us inside the marriage of Diana and David, but also, into the world of wealth, power & deceit. Still, it also sends a shiver to see Redford's character as not being flat, but lonely. His motives, proposal, and pursuit may irritate us, yet we come to understand Mr. Gage and sort of feel sorry for him. As we root for Diana & David to reclaim that lost innocence of love, which in reality & in the movie as well, is unrecoverable, we find a new meaning in forgiveness, faith, and the pitfalls that plague even the best parts of ourselves. This one belongs in your collection and your heart...

Peter Canavese

(2012-03-31 03:34:05)

Would you sell your body for a night, to the tune of a million dollars? What makes for five minutes of interesting conversation, alas, does not make for an interesting two-hour movie. [Blu-ray]

Clint Morris

(2012-03-27 13:44:00)

Solid Filmmaking and Solid Performances

(2012-03-27 07:44:49)

MONEY TALKS...

Now let's be realistic here. This film is kind of unbelievable but to tell you the truth, it is a film that is very original and classy. I remember when it first came out in the movies and the trailer and billboards were everywhere. With Sade's "No Ordinary Love" playing in the background, this filmed looked like a future Oscar nominated film. The film was very intriguing to me despite the fact i was 12 years old back then when the film was released. I never got to see it at the movies but i did buy it on VHS when it came out on video. I was blown away by the script, plot and actors. The film must have been the best film I had ever seen (mind you, i was 12). Still today, i think it is still a very good film. It'll be classic to me and it'll be considered the most vicious film about money, love and power that was ever made. I recommend it to everyone who likes romantic films.

nitratestock35

(2012-03-23 22:26:55)

loose ends

Just saw the movie again and I was surprised to see so many loose ends.Here are just a few:Why is Robert Redford's character gambling so high? It can only beoccasionally - which would make the encounter between him and the bankruptloving couple a coincidence. If he does it on a regular basis: 1)even as abillionaire he will be poor in no time, 2) he is a compulsive gambler - why?Lost love maybe?Why did Redford pick Demi? Late into the movie he tells a story of a lostlove. 1) does he - as a billionaire - have more right to find the rightwoman for his life) 2) How does he think Demi Moore will feel? As areplacement for what he remembers every single day? People who saw the moviewill know what I mean.And last but not least: if you love someone that much, you will never sellher (or him) out - ever. period.The only thing making this movie worthwhile are the actors. Strongperformances from everyone - it just doesn't make the slightest sense sincealmost every single action contradicts itself seconds after.One last comment: the soundtrack (sorry, didn't bother to look up whocomposed it) was really bad. Listen and you will agree.

Nebula

(2012-03-23 17:29:22)

Demi in decent proposed all!

Memorable acting of Demi. She was seemed to have proposed her fans to be spellbound! Excellent! What a beauty! Perhaps the movie world did not so far have more beautiful actress than Demi! Robert Redford was perfect choice. His poised acting raised the movie to a height. Thanks Robert.

kaylznmartin

(2012-03-22 23:26:53)

Romantic film for the girls

I watched this film recently having heard people talk about it foryears. I warmed to both Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore's charactersimmediately and thought there love for each other came across asbeautiful on screen.I think the casting for Robert Redford's character was perfect, unlikemany other people. If the John Gage character was played by aunattractive, mean guy then David Murphy (woody) would have no need tofeel jealous about the night his wife spent with the billionaire. Thereason David felt jealous as he explains at the end is because he cansee how successful, good looking and charming John Gage is and he wasworried his wife would fall in love with him. He was also riddled withhis own insecurities and failings and believed his wife deserved a manlike Gage.Although he came across as a bit of a sleaze ball in the beginning,watching Diana Murphy (demi) across the casino gambling with herhusband in the end it showed he was a lonely man looking forcompanionship. He lives in a world where everything can be bought andhe was proved right when Diana and David agreed to his proposal.However when David visited Diana at the end to sign the divorce papers,although John Gage did not feel sorry for David he simply knew Dianawould never love him the way she loved David and so knew he could notbuy her love.Overall a very romantic film about a young couple, so deeply in lovethat they believe they can cope with the 1million proposal when inreality jealousy is a strong emotion which in the end tears them apart.However in true Hollywood fashion, love conquers all and the couplereunite at the end.A lesson learned also that money does not buy happiness and althoughthe couple were in serious debt, they had each other and not thecomplications of a third man.Loved the film and shed a tear at the end on the pier :)

(2012-03-22 18:07:23)

IT'S EVIL!

I think the point of this movie is how evil it is sell oneself for sex. Demi Moore's character is an evil harlot, her husband isn't very bright & Gage is evil too. But this movie is great at illustrating what happens when people fall for Satan's false promises so it's a very good movie. People like these characters that don't repent are going to hell!