Lawbolisted Powerful

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Pluskylang Great Film overall

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

gridoon2018 Provocative premise receives stylish treatment from director Adrian Lyne; this film has a luxurious, almost sensuous texture, part of which comes from the ultra-glossy cinematography, and part from Demi Moore, who was at the time at the peak of her beauty and at the top of the world in her career (her hairstyle is amazing in this film). Oliver Platt, as the comic relief, gets in some funny lines. But the movie is not all surface - there is plenty of food for discussion in its themes, if one is so inclined. *** out of 4.

burggr I believe that the theme of Indecent Proposal is that it is not worth even one million dollars to have an affair on your spouse as everyone involved suffers major emotional, financial, and spiritual consequences as they did in this film. The plot involves three main characters. Woody Harrelson plays David Murphy, Demi Moore plays Diana Murphy, and Robert Redford plays John Gage.David and Diana are a young married couple who are very much in love. They both have promising careers as David is a talented architect and Diana is are a real estate broker. However, they run into some financial hardships and decide to try to win money in Las Vegas. They end up meeting John Gage who happens to be a billionaire. He offers a large sum of money to be with Diana for one night. Without giving away the ending, I'll just say that it becomes complicated as there are emotional and relational consequences for David, Diana, and David's decisions. The story unfolds in a somewhat unpredictable manner and takes us through the struggles of money troubles and relationship conflicts with all three characters. The film points out in an indirect manner the mistakes that all three characters make. There is betrayal in an emotional sense and the movie makes us ask ourselves what I can do in my relationships so I don't have any regrets.Other plot points include the moral dilemma they both encounter. David and Diana are in a loving, faithful marriage but are faced with a proposal that is difficult to refuse. They both understand that they could really use $1 million right now. At first they both say that they don't want to do it but Diana says that she would do it for him and their future. She says to David that it would be just sex and that they would have they money for a lifetime. It is an especially tough decision as their mortgage payments are behind and they find themselves financially desperate. In the movie Basic Instinct which stars Michael Douglas as detective Nick Curran and Sharon Stone who plays Catherine Tramell, there is a similar theme as Indecent Proposal. This is because while Curran is investigating a murder, he becomes involved in a passionate and emotional relationship with Catherine who happens to be the prime suspect. This passionate affair is similar to the one that John and Diana had in Indecent Proposal.The lighting in the film Indecent Proposal was dimly light and sometimes even seemed as though there was smoke in the room. This can equate to the confusion or mysterious man behind the proposal who happened to be John Gage the billionaire. It can also symbolize the indecisiveness of this major decision that David and Diana needed to make and also illustrate the mess that resulted in their decision. The camera angles in Indecent Proposal made John Gage's character seem to be larger than life. They did this by not having a lot of empty space when they shoot him and used close-ups to make him seem powerful which he was. He had this position of power because he had a great deal of money and also power over David and Diana. The angles that they used to shoot David were just the opposite. It seemed as though they wanted to diminish David's character because there were not as many close- ups nor were there many shoots to make him look important or powerful. This is because of the position he was in with Gage having power over him and Diana. This was a movie that is for adults as there are sex scenes and foul language used. The film shows us how a decision about accepting money can change the nature of a healthy relationship. It also shows that money is not more important than remaining faithful to your spouse. This movie points out how the idea of how having money can be detrimental in many ways. This includes finances, relationships, trust and betrayal.

Howlin Wolf (This is an extension of an earlier review that has been resubmitted)This film takes important questions such as "What constitutes love for your partner?" and "How important is sex in a relationship?", and treats them as glibly as if they were teledrama fodder. We never get the sense that director Lyne has pondered the issues inherent in his material; he has just gathered some nice shots and spliced them together in the hope that they will create an absorbing movie. It's not without entertainment on a superficial level, but this is generated more by how appallingly cliché the characters are than by any serious thematic exploration.The loving couple played by Harrelson and Moore never convince. Of the 3 principles, only Redford escapes from this with any credit; but even his performance lapses into something vaguely reminiscent of "Swiss Tony" from "The Fast Show" ("Gambling is like making love to a beautiful woman for a price of 1 million dollars...")I wanted so much to like the movie, since I'm very interested in the sexual conventions of society, and how we each trade off with one another in order to find and cultivate a respectful and invigourating relationship... However, I don't think the movie explores any of that properly, despite providing an ideal launching pad for doing so.This is a gimmick movie that wants to ask its audience whether or not they would cheat on their partner with Robert Redford for a cool million bucks? (or Sharon Stone perhaps, to use an equivalent mid 90's sex symbol that would flip the issue... ) When you cast such sexual icons though, it immediately weakens the dilemma that's in play... It's relatively easy to assent to a Robert Redford or a Sharon Stone, because they represent a fantasy - and the film refuses to relinquish the notion of that fantasy for the duration of its entire running time. This has the effect of making it hard to play make-believe, when it comes to embracing the idea that serious ethical considerations are underfoot... Like the lucky coin in the movie, it's indicative of an already-done deal.I feel that, in terms of the story, as much moral importance should have been placed upon the DECISION itself, besides the rendering of its consequences being employed for sentimental manipulation.The route that the makers elected to take means that the project ends up playing out like a glossy, cheesy movie of the week, populated with several big names who were somehow unwittingly roped in... That's what some people like, I suppose, but in my opinion it seriously defaults on the complications that the initial premise should throw up... As I said, not completely without entertainment value, but only if you treat it as exploitative trash.

Mr-Fusion INDECENT PROPOSAL is one of those movies that pretty much spells itself out. You know what kind of provocative early '90s movie you're getting yourself into, and it doesn't take long to put the pieces together as to how things will turn out. Young couple needs money for their dream house, meets really rich guy who wants one night with the pretty wife. Five minutes' worth of deliberation ensues before they accept the offer and then it's the bad news of distrust, infighting and marital implosion from there. What makes this movie tough to swallow is . . . well, it's mostly the script. These aren't very sympathetic characters (c'mon, Harrelson, you have a wife that looks like that and you think you'll be okay after turning her out for a million bucks? Don't be an idiot!), and it makes their choices in the film's 1st act hard to stomach. Really think you're gonna net all the money you need in Vegas? Seriously! But the other reason is Robert Redford. He's all wrong for the part of absurdly rich and sociopathic John Gage, who buys other guys' wives like he does cigars and speedboats. The actions of this guy and the dialogue that comes out of his mouth are deplorable; but that doesn't suit Redford, whose boyish charm and likability runs completely counter to the character we're supposed to despise. Aside from Woody Harrelson's terrifically tortured performance in this movie, INDECENT PROPOSAL doesn't have much (if anything) to offer beyond the water-cooler appeal of its taboo hook: Would you let your wife spend a night with another man so you can pay your bills? It makes for a good five-minute discussion about morals (maybe), but it doesn't support a two-hour movie. It's hard to be mad at this movie when the cards are seemingly all on the table from the get-go, but it's still an aggravating two hours. Not a fan of any of these characters, even though I'm supposed to root for Harrelson and Moore (who looks stunning in this movie), and it just feels so trashy watching this thing. 4/10