Indecent Proposal Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
A husband. A wife. A millionaire. A proposal
A young couple very much in love are married and have started their respective careers, she as a real estate broker, he as an architect. She finds the perfect spot to build his dream house, and they get loans to finance it. When the recession hits, they stand to lose everything they own, so they go to Vegas to have one shot at winning the money they need. After losing at the tables, they are approached by a millionaire who offers them a million dollars for a night with the wife. Though the couple agrees that this is a way out of their financial dilemma, it threatens to destroy their relationship.
| Robert Redford | John Gage |
| Demi Moore | Diana Murphy |
| Woody Harrelson | David Murphy |
| Seymour Cassel | Mr. Shackleford |
| Oliver Platt | Jeremy |
| Billy Bob Thornton | Day Tripper |
| Rip Taylor | Mr. Langford |
| Billy Connolly | Auction M.C. |
| Joel Brooks | Realtor |
| Pierre Epstein | Van Buren |
| Kevin West | Screenwriter |
| Pamela Holt | David's Girlfriend |
| Tommy Bush | David's Father |
| Mariclare Costello | David's Mother |
| Adrian Lyne |
5.30 out of 10 (15093 votes)
Visitor Reviews
"indecent proposal"
posted on 02 Jul 2009THIS IS A ****ING GOOD MOVIE I TELL YOU! OMGL LASJDFL;JSADLDLKFDASFJFLAJFLKDJFLKJJASFSDFJDSFA
i just watched it on TV and i knew i had to have it so i just bought it though amazon.com
if you wanna know what love really is, this is the most precise definition for it!
freshyip
An interesting idea is condensed into a superficial and glossy affair that does nothing of value
posted on 28 Jun 2009David and Diana had been in love since college and married into a dream life where both are happy and able to pursue their dreams together. However they hit upon hard times when Diana's real estate work dries up and soon the pair decide that the only option available to them is a literal last throw of the dice with their last few thousand in Vegas. Despite an early winning streak they end up worse than they started. About to head off, Diana catches the eye of gambling billionaire John Gage who uses her as a lucky charm to win another million or so. Afterwards they get together to play some pool and Gage turns the conversation to the idea of what money can and can't buy – specifically offering the Murphy's a cool $1,000,000 for one night spent with Diana.When this film came out, the basic concept was enough to give it lots of free advertising by getting the nation asking itself "what would I do?" and all the hype over that allowed the producers of the film to avoid people finding out that there really wasn't much worth seeing passed this question. It should have been so different though, because it could have been a classic morality tale that went deep within the characters to see what is there. However it doesn't really do this and instead we are left with a rather vacuous affair that is given plenty of gloss but is essentially lacking in interesting things to say. The tensions between David and Diana never get beyond the level of strops and it never even makes an attempt at moral debate.The fact that the characters are so thin doesn't help either. David and Diana are basic but the real failing is in Gage; he should be a rather sinister figure who plays with people like he plays with his money but instead he is just a twinkling eye and a sly smile – in fact, he is Robert Redford. This is part of the problem because, although the material is weak, the cast cannot do anything to improve the situation. Redford is far too smooth and playboyish to really convince in the main role – he cannot tap into any darkness or complexity and his failing is just one of the film's failings. Moore doesn't help either with a basic role where she doesn't seem to understand what her character is supposed to be feeling and therefore cannot convince in many of her scenes. Meanwhile Harrelson puffs and blows on cue but adds little. The support cast features turns from Platt, Cassel, Connelly and Thornton but aside from being recognisable faces they don't add much. Lyne directs with typical glossy style but he has no clue how to get deeper into the characters and story so instead just throws in lots of exploitative but empty scenes in the hope of somehow emotionally engaging his audience.Overall this is not an awful film but it is so superficial and hollow that it is just bland and glossy. It only is made worse when you think of the potential it had to be a complex and insightful modern morally piece. Those happy with the substance and complexity of a slushy music video will enjoy it but the majority will leave it wondering what all the fuss was about and how such an interesting concept was so completely fouled up.
Did Demi Do It w/ Redford or Not?!?
posted on 02 Jun 2009Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson play a couple in a sudden bind financially. When trying to strike it rich in Las Vegas fails, enter Redford character to the rescue. When Redford proposes them the answer to their problems the end result could spell disastorous. Though the movie never actually shows Moore and Redford sealing the deal, it kinda makes you wonder if it really did happen. One really powerful scene in Indecent Proposal is when Harrelson is having second thoughts and wanting to canel the deal tries looking for Moore realizing that they are already leaving via helecopter on the roof of the building he is frantically trying look for her.
An example of how some cliches still have life
posted on 29 May 2009Before I viewed this film, I have always considered Adrian Lyne to be a sleazeball. He always has to make these, as he calls them, ''relationship dramas'': I've always just thought he made porn. I howled through '9 1/2 Weeks' , especially in the ''slide-show scene'', I think 'Fatal Attraction' 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. I didn't think I'd ever see a good film of his till I watched 'Indecent Proposal'.My God is the film a cliche!!! But what an effective one. The film is about a destitute couple[Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson] who accept a wager from a zillionaire[Played by Robert Redford] that Moore will spend one night with Redford for one million dollars. 'Another sleazeball plot from Lyne' I thought 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 end but it has life in it. Redford was the perfect pick for the millionaire[I've always considered him to be a bit shifty] and Moore and Harrelson give the best performances possible given the material. The plot is fairly 'daytime soap' stuff and it follows that kind of formula. But Lyne somehow infuses it with life and makes us care. I have to say I was touched by the ending and liked the way it was done[POSSIBLE SPOILER...Moore walking through the fog on a pier, reminding me vividly of 'Requiem for a Dream']. Even their stupid whining and moaning is compelling, in a bizarre way. I did have problems with Moore's relationship with Redford though[does she love him too?] but I didn't seem to care about it sins against logic. At the end, all I could think was ''I actually like an Adrian Lyne film !'. Give its cliches a chance and you may like it too............3 out of 4
Unconvincing
posted on 26 May 2009Nice premise but the execution was all wrong. Redford was neither likeable, charming, nor goodlooking enough to sweep Demi's character off her feet. All he had was money. Demi Moore, despite having a nice bod, was neither stunning nor intriguing enough for Redford to be so fixated on. And Harrelson was not insecure enough to be threatened by the Redford character. He goes into a jealous rage in the middle of the movie but there was not even the smallest signs of this jealousy earlier on. Give me a break. The only thing that saved this movie was the chemistry between Moore and Harrelson. You could tell that the characters loved each other, which made it even harder to believe that Moore could fall for the dull rich guy. If they actually showed the lovemaking scene or provided more scenes where the two were building a strong rapport, then maybe the audience could see the sparks. But there was none. Oliver Platt provides some good laughs but they seemed out of place for a movie that was supposed to be taken seriously. Billy Bob's cameo was enough comic relief. 4/10.
Typical 90s Glitzy Soap Operas
posted on 07 Mar 2009Great cast. Imagine getting Robert Redford out of a semi-retirement to headline this predictable soaper. Woody Harleson leaped from "Cheers" barstool to the big screen and was quite effective as the third wheel in what was a financial deal that went wrong emotionally.
Demi Moore is stunning, but was she worth a million bucks for one night? I don't think so. This is a morality play and nothing more. (Or should I say Moore?)
Director Adian Lynne has crossed this area before, but not as interesting. The cast is beautiful, the locations are exciting, the performances are top notch. It's the story that only lasts 30 minutes, and the screenplay doesn't challenge the characters.
Very thought provoking :-)
posted on 10 Nov 2008Would you or wouldn't you?
I really enjoyed this movie (although I found it did drag a little in some places), and it really gets you thinking. Of course, you probably know the story line by now but it's something you have to see. It was done well, and the acting wasn't bad; it was the moral delema that I found interesting. As much as David and Dianna loved each other, when they were backed up against a wall with no money whatsoever, along comes John Gage to 'save the day'. They had to know it wouldn't end well and even though they were fine for a while after the event, before long, the mistrust and regrets started up and eventually led them to go separate ways. I won't give up the ending; I thought it ended well and almost wished it kept going to see how they lived after it all.
A really enjoyable film that I watch every now and then. I really love Woody Harelson in this. He was brilliant I thought and the best actor in this movie. See it for yourself and I hope you enjoy it too.
A good start that stranded in the middle of the storm!
posted on 02 Oct 2008The 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.
General Hospital is better than this
posted on 01 Sep 2008Demi Moore proves once again that she cannot act her way out of a pretty paper bag. It was painful to watch her try to be serious in this movie. Woody Harrelson does a bit more credible job of delivering sappy, unintentionally funny lines with a straight face, but there's not much he could have done with lines that seemed like rejects from a daytime soap opera.The saddest thing about this movie, however, is that the once true film star in the group, Robert Redford, was reduced to accepting such a ridiculous role. It must have been strictly a money thing for him because, if he actually saw any artistic merit in playing this role, then he has truly been out in the sun way too long.The most satisfying aspect of watching this movie was the fact that I didn't waste a dime to see it - just a little time.
horrible
posted on 20 Aug 2008This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.
OK but unrealistic
posted on 30 Jul 2008I'm only writing a review to share the humorist Erma Bombeck's observation.In one of her last columns before her passing, she mentioned that she and her husband had gone to see this movie.As they were driving home, her husband asked "Well? Would you?" "Would I what?" she asked."Would you sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars?" "It depends," she said.Her husband was shocked. "DEPENDS?" he choked. "Depends on WHAT?" "Depends on whether he'd let me make monthly payments..." she replied.I passed root beer through my nose when I read that - had to share.
No word can define
posted on 26 May 2008Have got little to say in addition to the comments of Mr.D. Ehrenworth/Toronto dated 29th Jan. What is the message, what is the aim? Is it ''moral values come first''? Then, why not leave the rich guy to buy as many prostitutes of high society as he pleases at a cost of about one tenth of what he has offered the married woman, and then why not explain the importance of values in serious, reasonable stories? Certainly it would get some respect.
INDECENT PROPOSAL 5DIDIER BECU)
posted on 19 May 2008This is one of the latest movies from director Adrian Lyne who was one of the pioneers of the erotic thrillers (9 1/2 Weeks and of course Fatal Attraction). For this movie he chooses for the weakness of our hearts... The story is so well known.... David (Woody Harrelson) and Diana (Demi Moore) are the perfect couple who promise each other eternal love till the day comes that they're bankrupt. David decides to go to Las Vegas hoping for getting the needed money but all ends in a financial fiasco till multimillionaire John Cage (Robert Redford) proposes the couple to give them one million dollar if he might spend one night with his wife... I am sure that every couple will ask this dilemma ("Would you do it or not?") the moment they saw the film and you can bet your ass that Robert Redford is the focal discussion...for women a dream for men he's just too pretty. If this film is realistic or not is an unnecessary thing, it's just that during the whole movie you feel so bad for Woody Harrelson that you are hoping to punch your fist in Robert Redford's face... The characters aren't bad and Demi Moore plays her role more than well (she's at her beautiest here!) but just the end is a bit too Hollywoodesque... Nice movie that won't annoy anyone, perhaps that it is quite sexist as Robert's words are clear "You can buy everything"...the big problem of course is that he might be right
You'll hate yourself in the morning
posted on 16 May 2008This is the kind of film that you can watch once and forget about it. It tells the
shallow, emotionless story of a financially trouble couple who go to Vegas, only to
have a cocky millionaire(Redford, in a very irritating performance) offer the
husband $1 million for a night with his wife, the silly story just gets sillier and even
more unbelieveable from this point on. You can watch it, but after a while you
relize how silly, and shallow it it. 4 out of 10.
I liked this film
posted on 04 May 2008i thought this film was great. i think it is one of the greatest love stories evermade. woody harrelson does very good but still he won the the worst supporting actor at the razzies. but i thought woody harrelson saved this film. i cant help it but i like love stories and this is one of the best very romantic and a great movie to watch with your woman. A-
That proposal as a concept is more interesting than the movie
posted on 01 May 2008"Lend your wife for one night and take a million in return? Does it sound fair?" I'm sure people will talk more about the proposal itself than the feature film, and that does not really make a favor to the film. This only leads to a conclusion that the film should have been better, and it should perhaps have taught us something more. The couple in the film do consider the proposal, for approving this deal would remove their acute need of money, but neither of the couple doesn't really look too smart to make the best decision.It looks interesting in the beginning but then it does, really nothing. Demi Moore looks gorgeous at least but the point also is lost too quickly, perhaps it is because Robert Redford looks better than the husband who's only angry all the time and doesn't even dress well. There will not happen any great twists in the story, it only gets lame and then dies off before we see the sudden and a bit unexpected mellow ending.
a great idea for a film, but...
posted on 23 Mar 2008Woody Harrelson (White men can't jump) stars as David. He and his wife Diana travel to Las Vegas to win some money to cover their debts. Billionaire John Gage offers the couple one million dollars if he can spend the night with Diana.Based on Jack Engelhard's novel, Indecent Proposal covers the wants and needs of relationships and what couples need to do to survive.This idea of buying people, although quite crude, is well established and portrayed in this romantic drama by director Adrian Lyne.Though Robert Redford's (The Sting) character and acting isn't brilliant he does what he needs to do to dive right into the couple and exploit their problems. Harrelson and Moore (Disclosure) are both brilliant in their roles as the confused but loved up couple.The whole idea of buying people for sex is horrible in my opinion but the film specifically portrays the crisis that the couple are in and the viewers will comprehend the decision which is eventually made.Its quite a hard going film considering the financial obligations and the emotions involved. There are a few clichéd love ideologies thrown in to portray the closeness of the couple.David's whole idea on archaeology was very intriguing and was a cool little sub story to look upon.Its tense and dramatic at various points though fairly predictable and corny at others. Harrelson and Moore succeed along with the whole idea of the film. Redford's character is annoying for the whole film.It's a pretty normal romantic film, with acceptable acting and a good enough plot to keep you entertained till the end.
Sappy and predictable
posted on 25 Feb 2008Indecent Proposal is all premise and no execution. The film exists only to give people something hypothetical to talk about over dinner or drinks once it is over. There is nothing redeeming either in the acting or technical departments to raise the material above the level of soap opera. The plot, as most people know, centers around a wealthy business tycoon (Redford) offering a young couple (Moore and Harrelson) $1,000,000 if she agrees to sleep with him one night. Obviously, they agree to the offer or this film would have never been made.The main problem stems from the fact that there isn't enough story here for an entire movie. Once the bet is agreed to and worked out, where do we go with it? The writers turn the film into a ridiculously sappy flood of emotions and over-acting that can only end in the most predictable way. It doesn't take a genius to see where the script is going to end up.The acting is part of the problem, as well. Redford probably thinks his performance is suave and charming, but a better word would be just "smug". There is nothing about his character that is likable or even interesting. I doubt his character was supposed to be likable, but I'm sure he wasn't supposed to come off as wooden as he does. Demi Moore is fine as the young woman. And physically she's as adorable as ever. What a babe! Harrelson, however, is so unbelievably awful that I feel truly embarrassed for him whenever this film comes on. He's a whining; jealous jerk who should have stopped the whole thing from happening if his wife meant that much to him. His performance is nothing short of "grating".The film made a ton of $$$$, so who am I to criticize it? Just some sap who was duped into taking his girlfriend to it way back in 1993. At least I scored when we got home. So I guess there was one redeeming quality about this sap fest.The Hound will give it 4 of 10 stars. That's more than generous.
Fatal Attraction for the Juvie Set
posted on 03 Aug 2009A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction – none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film) – a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers 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 that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? 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, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden 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 Lyn tried 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 public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?