IMDb > Indecent Proposal (1993) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Indecent Proposal
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Indecent Proposal More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 12: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 119 reviews in total 

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Uneven but makes good points about jealousy and trust

Author: shmucking from United States
7 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The film is at it's best in the scenes where Woody Harrelson is feeling jealous about Demi Moore's lovemaking with Robert Redford. When he's struggling with his obsessions about it, there is a certain validity that rings true, and he has a great scene near the end where he tells Moore that he was insecure about himself, but isn't anymore. The romance between Harrelson and Moore has a genuine quality that is sweet and sincere.

There are problems, however, with Redford's character and Redford himself. Moore is so obviously not attracted to Redford that their romantic scenes together look uncomfortable. Her character is supposed to be attracted to him, but it isn't convincing. You can tell she's turned off by him, and when she kisses him, she looks like she's kissing her dad. Redford plays the role with his usual mellow likability and smoothness, but it doesn't match the character he's playing. It doesn't seem believable that he'd offer money to sleep with someone's wife. He seems too easy-going and amiable to make such an offer. It seems like Redford is having fun playing the role, and being a good sport about it, but not really connecting with the darker side of the character. Overall, an interesting film with some valid comments about overcoming jealousy and having trust in the love you share with your partner, but it falls short of being truly successful.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A lost opportunity

Author: ecjones1951 from United States
29 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've always had problems with the title. The word "indecent" means immodest, obscene; unfit for society. When used these days, the word is almost invariably followed by "exposure." "Audacious Proposal" would have made more sense.

The premise is well-known by now, and presents opportunities to muse about the relevance of marital fidelity, personal scruples, and the seductive and emotional power of money, but it sidesteps, muddies or ignores every one of them. It could have addressed any or all of them and still be entertaining and a conversation starter.

Billionaire John Gage (Robert Redford) offers one million dollars to a struggling couple, Diana and David Murphy (Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson), if he can sleep with her for one night. The proposal is intrepid, adventurous and bold, but it is not indecent. Diana accepts the offer and follows through with the assignation, all the while reminding David that she is doing it for him, to further his career as an architect. I suppose her oft-repeated declaration is meant to show us that yes Diana does too have scruples. See? she can call upon them whenever she wants to.

Diana's tight-lipped and blithe insouciance once the tryst is history and the money is in the bank drives David out of his mind. Director Adrian Lyne wisely keeps Diana's and Gage's night on the yacht out of camera range. (Seeing the hideous gray dress he asks her to wear is enough.) It's too bad he didn't do the same with David's petulance, self-pity and masochism, which overshadows everything else in the second act. David is supposed to be a bright and promising architect whose marriage to Diana is solid as a rock. Of course, the only way we know this is through a lightning fast exposition of their courtship and marriage, told mostly through photos shot with a lens metaphorically coated in Vaseline. In "Love Story," Jenny reminded Oliver many times that "love means never having to say you're sorry." These two like to ask each other the equally inane, "have I ever told you that I love you?"

When Demi Moore gives the best performance in a movie, that's saying something. Although Diana is an underwritten role, the character isn't maddeningly one-note like those of David and Gage. She is two-dimensional, which is as fleshed out as any Lyne character ever gets. Lyne is no more secure in his leading lady's acting abilities than most other directors, so he gives her the expected opportunities to show some skin. Sketchy roles never seem to allow Moore any freedom; she tends to hem herself in. But someone has to restrain themselves in the aftermath of Diana's night on the yacht. As noted, David has gone to pieces with rage and jealousy. Diana cannot deal with his meltdown; his suspicions, leading questions and accusations drive her away.

Meanwhile, John Gage is waiting for Diana around every corner. He is essentially stalking her, but his behavior is supposed to come off as charming. When she, on the other hand -- with good reason -- crashes one of Gage's business luncheons, it's cause for alarm; Diana's behavior is "inappropriate" and unacceptable. This is a double standard Hollywood reinforces over and over again. But soon Diana puts up only token resistance to Gage's pursuit. She didn't when he offered her and David that lifetime of financial security with but one little catch.

Diana eventually caves in, and she and Gage get busy making the social rounds. What they find to talk about is anyone's guess, but Moore and Redford do make for an attractive couple. The passage of time is indicated by David and Diana's both getting teaching jobs. He teaches architecture and suggests bricks are blessed with self-determination. I told you he went nuts after Diana slept with Gage. For her part, Diana teaches U.S. citizenship. Her pupils, all well into adulthood, giggle like 8-year-olds when Gage crashes the class to declare he's crazy about Diana. Even though she has divorced David, her days with Gage as an item at gala openings and silly charity functions are numbered. The time comes for Diana to go back to David, having learned what, exactly? "Have I ever told you I loved you?" "Would we have been able to handle the million bucks any better if we'd earned it?" The credits roll before they begin to figure this out.

I want scriptwriters to STOP recycling Mr. Bernstein's anecdote about the girl on the Jersey ferry from "Citizen Kane." Gage gets to give that little speech here, adapted for modern times. The problem is, the conclusion he wants Diana to draw from it is exactly the opposite of what he says.

"Indecent" describes the amount of money the picture took in at the box office -- about $199,000.000 more worldwide than Gage offers the Murphys. If this is Lyne's idea of a "message picture," as they used to call them, he should have used FedEx.

It's much more fun to write about a middling movie than a great one or even a very bad one.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

No Great Surprises

Author: gcd70 from Melbourne, Australia
11 November 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Adrian Lyne, who so successfully chilled us with "Fatal Attraction", has this time come to challenge us with "Indecent Proposal".

Robert Redford is John Gage, the multi-millionaire who offers David Murphy (Woody Harrelson) one million dollars for one night with the latter's wife (Demi Moore). The question is, what will they do? Suffice to say the young couple show little morality (and even less sense) as they allow money to spoil their wonderful relationship. Although I was disappointed with the character's respective actions and reactions, the film does teach an all too obvious lesson on the perils of mixing love and money.

No great surprises, and cynics won't appreciate the ending, but the cast are competent in a fairly good movie.

Friday, May 14, 1993 - Knox District Centre

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Revolting concept, more revolting reactions

Author: Dewhistle from United States
23 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It wasn't that this was a poorly made movie, or that the acting was bad. It could have certainly made a good point but all it seems to have done is stir the entire film-watching community into an unfathomable dilemma. To wonder whether you would do such a thing in such circumstances and not be sure you would not is appalling.

The idea of the husband agreeing to it is sickening and hard to grasp, but his later inability to cope with the thought of it brings it back down to earth. If a man managed to persuade himself of the insignificance of his wife's having sex just once with another man, he's a fool and either doesn't care or must realize later he was wrong. This guy felt it come home to him as he surely must.

And she was made to appear a sweet little self-sacrificing angel, which brings mixed feelings. He agreed to it initially and in theory had no business treating her like a criminal. And yet, she went and carried it out, with no apparent suffering. Anyone with any real integrity, honesty, and well... morals, would surely have some trouble with this, unless they indeed found it alluring enough to overcome their scruples.

That rich dude was also well-acted, but how creepy! Sexy he wasn't. He was a stalker, creeping around her everywhere she went and smugly buying her life piece by piece as if it were all part of buying her. I agree with those who said that the idea of his giving her up in the end was a crock. That kind of narcissist doesn't let go once he has what he wants. But I also think he did need to be attractive (on the surface anyhow) because that was pivotal to the jealously of the idiot husband and the uncertainty of the tart wife.

This is on my list of movies that never should have been made. It was one long "eew" moment for me and never once raised the question of whether I would. Believe it or not, there are some folks in the world who can see that it could never be worth it. Money can't buy back a filthy act. It's sad to see the morals of so many degraded to the point that they could even consider it.

The rating of 5 stars is for the acting and the film quality.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

re: Indecent Proposal

Author: syl_dug from Canada
31 October 2005

I saw this movie years a g o and thought the acting was great.... as far as the moral side it was despicable. MONEY, is MONEY... LOVE is LOVE... no amount of money could ever replace or come close to the meaning of love whether the person is: divorced, separated, married, annulled, atheist, lunatic. The movie brought out the question, would you? I always replied, no (without hesitation) I would go on welfare first. Money is not evil (it can be if you let it.) Robert Redford was great! but no thanks! my heart belongs to someone else. sylvia THEY TELL ME I HAVE TO WRITE AT LEAST 10 LINES... IF YOU LOVE SOMEONE TELL THEM NOT THRU OTHER PEOPLE

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Don't Know Much About Chemistry.

Author: tfrizzell from United States
7 June 2004

A married yuppie couple (Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore) gets hit hard by recession. So now what? Las Vegas anyone? Naturally that idea is not the best in the world, but things look up (kind of) when rich businessman Robert Redford wants to borrow Moore for a weekend (and pay $1,000,000). We all know that Redford has not made this proposition to just sit and talk with Moore though. And of course therein lies "Indecent Proposal". Director Adrian Lyne (who hit gold with "Fatal Attraction" in 1987) tries to create another adult pot-boiler, but really this film is a major bore. It is way too talkative, too long and too silly to engross. The three leads just do not play well together (no pun intended) and the chemistry lab never does open. 2 stars out of 5.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Yea, ok

Author: Shari ( from United States
25 March 2004

The odds of this happening? Eh, how about 1 in a million? Since that's the favorite number in this movie. It did make you question your significant other though. If you're smart, you'll say heck no honey, not me, lol. I could seriously say no cuz a million bucks ain't a lot of money to day. And Redford's just old. It was suspenseful that they wouldn't go into the details of that night. Guess the director wanted to leave it to our little imaginations, but I'd rather just know what's going on. I hate having to make it up myself. The downward spiral of the relationship was inevitable and it was played well by Woody. The plot got a little stale as she went on to be with Redford. It just was a little contrived and not at all natural anything between them. You sensed there should be, but there wasn't any. Was that the point? To say she had better chemistry with her husband? That if it ain't broke, don't fix it? Well, it could be analyzed a 1000 ways. I liked how Redford's character pretended to have done this before to let her go back to her husband. It connects to other parts of society really when you think about it. Poor women are forced or compelled to do similar things just to have some money and be independent or out of debt. Here, a married couple trying to get money for a house have decided that the wife can sleep with a millionaire to buy their "dream home"? Talk about a new way to achieve the American Dream, lol. As ridiculous as it seems, the movie still makes you think. If I had no money and was desperate, what would I do? The cinematography was very beautiful. Even the carwash looked nice. It just came together visually throughout the entire movie. Demi looked flawless and elegant. She wasn't overdone which fit her character well. I liked that they had regular jobs that some other people would, but owning a home ain't easy in this country. Trying to live a simple dream isn't easy in this country. The film touches on many issues. Get a good watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: Didier (Didier-Becu) from Gent, Belgium
20 August 2003

This 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

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: Computer_Stud from United States
16 August 2003

Nice 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A pleasent film and funny

Author: AslaugRuotsalainen from Denmark
30 June 2003

First time I saw this film I was somehow a bit suspicious since the plot seemed to be somewhat stupid. However, when I then watched it I changed my mind very fast.

With three great people playing the mainroles it is a great film and although it's, what I call a "sunday-cosy film" it does indeed also contain some depth.

Furthermore I personally feel that the three mainroles are played in a most great way; they're convincing in their roles and - Demi Moore is of course always a pleasure to watch as is also Robert Redford.

All in all I like the plot, the acting and it is, I feel, a film one can watch more than one time so rent it and you'll hopefully not be dissapointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 12: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history