A happily-married young couple, David Murphy and Diana Murphy 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 Las Vegas to have one shot with their last five thousand dollars at winning the money they need. After losing at the tables, they are approached by a suave billionaire and high-stakes gambler, John Gage, who offers them a million dollars for a night with Diana. Indignant but already seduced, Diana and David reluctantly agree. They say money can't buy love. Though the couple agrees that this is a way out of their financial dilemma, it threatens to destroy their relationship. Can the husband and wife survive John's ultimate test?
The movie was very loosely based on Jack Engelhard's novel. While it does contain the story idea of "a million dollars for one night with a man's wife", most of the book focused on Arab-Israeli intrigue. See more »
When Gage sits at the gambling table with Diana, his chips are in front of him at #12. He slides the chips over to Diana who is sitting in front of #11. When the camera pans back, the chips are still at #12 in front of Gage. See more »
[sitting on a pier]
Losing Diana is like losing a part of me. I thought nothing could change the way we felt about each other. I thought we were invincible.
[riding in a bus]
Someone once said, if you want something very badly, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours forever. If it doesn't, it was never yours to begin with. I knew one thing, I was David's to begin with, and he was mine.
See more »
Adrian Lyne does what he does beautifully, whatever that is. The gorgeous look of his films hide a serious lack of depth and a rather Machiavellian knack for attracting us, the natives, with shiny pretty things. We fall for it every time, or almost, we couldn't swallow Lolita, oh no, he should have left Lolita alone and shouldn't have made that outrageous statement, remember? "James Mason was all wrong in Kubrick's version of the Nabokov novel" Do me a favor Mr. Lyne, stick to "Flashdance" and suffer all the way to the bank. Sorry, I lost myself for a moment. Where was I? Oh yes "Inidecent Proposal" Imagine that premise in the hands of someone with serious intentions. A young happy couple and the devil. The stranger who, incapable of bearing goodness and happiness, decides to destroy it. Aware of their needs, he presents a solution to their problems. He doesn't care for her, he cares about their destruction. Juicy stuff. But, although Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson are great as the perfect foil for the devil's designs, the devil is Robert Redford. Mr. Redford is a personal hero of mine, instead of resting in his laurels, Sundance, the environment, Ordinary People, Quiz Show and so on and so on. But, I heard him say in a Charlie Rose interview that he would like to play different characters, dangerous, dark but nobody offered him that kind of part. What about this one Bob? This was a part that could transform this pretty candy floss into a classic. It needed guts. Where was the darkness? I looked into Redford eyes and I saw Redford. I would have gone with him for much less than a million bucks because in spite of the fact that involved accepting an indecent proposal there was no danger, really. He allows himself to be Redford all the way. The indecency is in the title in the gimmick but not in the spirit. As a result none of the promises are fulfilled and we're left with a pretty inconsequential movie. Oh well, I hope Mr Lyne learned his lesson. One never bad mouths James Mason, okay?
57 of 85 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this