 "Well, who wouldn't want to sleep with Robert Redford back then" | 2010-01-15 |
| - Reviewed By gastropod from boston, ma |
| before he started looking like a piece of wrinkly burnt toast..he's got so much money,get a face lift, Bob. Anyway, no one brought up the fact that the young yuppy couple already had a house, ok, maybe it wasen't in an upscale, over looking the ocean neighborhood, but, it looked cozy enough for two. But, that's the problem isn't it, not willing to wait and work for something you really want. No, instant gratification's the way to go. Frankly, the young couple didn't deserve any sympathy, not from me anyway. |
| |
 "Author of the Novel Supports the Movie" | 2009-08-02 |
| - Reviewed By jack engelhard |
People keep asking if I'm okay with Paramount's rendering of my novel "Indecent Proposal" (ComteQ Publishing, Paperback). After all, a number of changes took place from my page to Hollywood's screen -- and, it is customary for the novelist to be fashionably upset at Hollywood. But I'm happy with the result.
Liberties were taken. This is true. But the main elements of my novel were kept intact -- temptation, sin, regret, redemption, forgiveness. In other words, Hollywood skimmed the surface, but with glamour.
After all, the billionaire (in the novel) is an Arab sultan, and the couple he tempts and traps, well, the guy is Jewish and his wife is high-class Gentile, somewhat like Grace Kelly. You'd expect Omar Sharif for starters, not Robert Redford.
In her review of the MOVIE for The New York Times, Janet Maslin paid tribute to the theme of the book and the movie as being "powerfully seductive." I'm okay with this and I'm okay with the Times' Sunday review of the BOOK (originally published in 1989), which, in part, runs as follows:
Of a "Jewish writer and gambler, who makes a bargain with the Devil (a handsome oil-rich billionaire.) The struggle between these two embraces a number of primal issues, the sanctity of marriage versus the love of money, the Jew versus significant non-Jews such as shiksas and sheiks, skill versus luck, materialism versus spirituality, Israel versus the Arab countries, the past versus the future, and the religious world versus the secular one."
Times' BOOK revieweer Barbara Raskin goes on to say, "In precise, almost clinical language, Mr. Engelhard tracks the changes Joshua [Kane] and Joan go through after receiving their ungodly offer. Suspicion, jealousy, anger, second guessing, pain and fear begin to torment them as they struggle with his and hers temptations -- It's her body and his soul on the line."
I believe that the movie captures all that, though yes, for the conflicts in politics and culture and for the depths of emotions there is always and still the book. That does not change. A novelist's task is to find the human heart. Hollywood is about box office.
Surely I would have cast it differently and surely I would have been happier if Hollywood had stuck to my novel as is. But Hollywood is seldom completely true to the novel ("Gone With The Wind" a notable exception) and I understand why. One art form is about pictures, the other is about words.
Beethoven would not dare tell Picasso how to paint his Third Symphony. Each artist, in his own medium, must be allowed to find his own vision. This is obvious but it must be said, a movie is a movie and a book is a book and both have their challenges and their merits.
Yes, when I dealt with these "primal issues" I was surprised that the title roles would be taken by Redford, Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson. If I had qualms, these were dispelled at the grand opening when it struck me that all this stardom and a $40 to $50 million budget all happened from words I wrote on the kitchen table.
(I have this notion that we all face temptations every day, some big, some small. This one, on love and money, is big.)
I am always ready for people to knock the movie. People do this for a reason, which I will explain at a later time, perhaps in a blog. I have a theory about this. I was lucky with the reviews of the book. The Times' wrote: "Is this book fun to read? You betcha." The same goes for the movie, now especially in this Blu-Ray format.
Thank you for listening -- Jack Engelhard, the authorIndecent Proposal
|
| |
 "If you ever want something badly, let it go" | 2009-07-06 |
| - Reviewed By Cr@$#!!!! from Bakersfield |
Indecent Proposal is an example of a whole film based on one old joke. The joke is a man asks a woman if she will make love with him for a million dollars.
"OK," she says.
Then he says "how about five bucks and a candy bar?"
"What kind of girl do you think I am," milady protests.
"We've already established that. Now we're haggling over price."
Rim shot.
But seriously, this is another score for director Adrian Lyne. I think this movie is often parodied, but only because it really struck a chord for the viewing public. It has achieved icon status. You could argue that the characters are two dimensional, cardboard cut-outs, but actually, they are fleshed out adequately enough to make this movie work.
I like Demi Moore as Real Estate Agent Diana Murphy in this. She is kind of feisty, but then she can also be vulnerable. She made a very convincing Real Estate Agent, too. Woody Harrelson is a little harder to buy as an architect, but he made it work.
Robert Redford as the millionaire John Gage was very good. He was sort of Trumpesque, but without the bizarre comb over. This role was similar to when he played The Great Gatsby, but instead of Daisy, he is after Diana, or Demi.
When he first makes the Indecent Proposal to David and Diana he brings up an interesting point:
---------------------
John: Suppose... I were to offer you one million dollars for one night with your wife.
David: I'd assume you're kidding.
John: Let's pretend I'm not. What would you say?
Diana: He'd tell you to go to hell.
John: I didn't hear him.
David: I'd tell you to go to hell.
John: That's a reflex answer because you view the question as hypothetical. But let's say that there was real money backing it up. I'm not kidding. A million dollars. The night would come and go but the money could last a lifetime. Think of it. A million dollars. A lifetime of security... for one night. Don't answer right away. Just consider it; seriously?
===============================
Indecent Proposal plays the hypothetical game of What If? well, stacking the deck, making it seem like a great deal, making it seem like an easy way out of all of your money problems.
But just remember Murphy's Law, David Murphy: Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.
Along with all the great architecture and real estate, look for cameos and supporting roles by Oliver Platt, Billy Bob Thornton, Rip Taylor, and Billy Connolly. Rip Taylor is a scream as Diana Moore's broker. John Gage really shows he has a lot of class when you see the pianist he has hired to serenade Diana. None other than Herbie Hancock!
---------------
Diana: If you ever want something badly, let it go. If it comes back to you, then it's yours forever. If it doesn't, then it was never yours to begin with.
========================
A Scanner Darkly (2006) .... Woody Harrelson was Ernie Luckman
Play it to the Bone (1999) .... Woody Harrelson was Vince Boudreau
Striptease (Unrated International Edition) (1996) .... Demi Moore was Erin Grant
The Scarlet Letter (1995) .... Demi Moore was Hester Prynne
Natural Born Killers (1994) .... Woody Harrelson was Mickey Knox
Fatal Attraction (1987).... Directed by Adrian Lyne
9 1/2 Weeks (1986).... Directed by Adrian Lyne
Flashdance (1983).... Directed by Adrian Lyne
The Electric Horseman (1979) .... Robert Redford was Norman 'Sonny' Steele
The Great Gatsby (1974) .... Robert Redford was Jay Gatsby
------------------------
Diana: The dress is for sale. I'm not.
============================= |
| |
| "Flawed but good" | 2009-01-11 |
| - Reviewed By Ana_y_lat from Houston, TX |
A lot has already been said about the flaws of this movie, and I have to agree: Demie Moore is wooden (but then again, I never considered her a good actress, although I do think that she is a stunning natural beauty); Robert Redford just a tad too old (again - love the guy AND the acting, but still...), but above all, the plot has holes, the dialogue is flat and the characters lack dimension.
However, I'd like to come to the defense of two instances, which everyone agreed to hate:
1. Woody Harrelson's role. I do not think he was miscast. Although he is definitely no match for Robert Redford looks-wise, I think he pulls off the role quite well. Yes, he's not the perfect man that Robert Redford is, but then again, few men are... And one does not need to be perfect to be loved.
The scene where he has the change of heart is quite touching, he is convincing throughout (the look he gives the tourist who jokes that his wife might not come back?!), and demonstrates enough emotions even without speaking to render the final scene poignant.
I also did not find his character lazy or whiny (recession, anyone?), nor do I remember him doing too much cursing...
2. The hippo thing. I thought it was one of the best things in the movie and one of its few redeeming features. I loved the line, and I loved the logic behind it: the money gained frivolously could only be spent frivolously (and, in this case, also wonderfully symbolically) to find redemption and forgiveness.
I would definitely not go as far as to call this movie a classic, nor do I think that it's particularly mind-blowing (or immoral, for that matter), but it's an entertaining film, with some good chemistry and nice scenes. Above all, it sets the mood rather well, and if you happen to be in a mood that matches, you'd enjoy the movie at least once. As for owning it - I'd wait to watch it once first... |
| |
 "15 years too late" | 2008-10-24 |
| - Reviewed By kaduzy from Ithaca, NY |
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. |
| |
| "Indecent waste of time" | 2008-10-01 |
| - Reviewed By Steven Mason from California |
This movie came out 15 years ago, and I wasn't impressed back then, even less so now. So why did I watch it again? Because my sister and I had different memories about how it ended. My sister was right, but she's wrong about it being a good movie! But then, she pretty much likes anything with Demi Moore in it. Go figure! The movie is loosely based on the novel by Jack Engelhard.
There are too many huge flaws in the story. Oddly, the word prostitution is never mentioned. The circumstances leading up to the "deal" are odd, too. We never actually find out just what it is about Demi Moore's character that the billionaire finds so appealing. He smiles whenever he watches the husband and wife together, as if he's getting some kind of kick out of it. But what is behind the smiling? Is he thinking that he'd enjoy being a wedge in the relationship, wondering if he has the power to break it up? I suppose we may assume he felt a purely physical attraction, but surely he has easy (and cheaper) access to women even more beautiful than Demi.
We never learn why he offers a million dollars to sleep with Demi. Is it just because he is in a particularly mischievous mood that evening in Las Vegas, or is he really so hopelessly drawn to her? Even more mysterious is why this playboy bachelor in his fifties would fall in love with a happily married woman in a one night stand for which he paid a million dollars. We find out later that the playboy billionaire has a soft spot in his cold heart and for reasons we never discover he decides that Demi is the person who can bring love and happiness to his empty life and sprawling mansion.
The billionaire frequently says how "amazing" Demi is, but he never says why she is amazing. We never see them have a real conversation, or even exchange tender words. As a person, Demi has no dreams of her own. She is a not-so-successful real estate agent, and she doesn't seem to have any ambitions other than to be the wife of a successful architect husband. The husband seems to feel the pressure from this and worries that his wife is feeling disappointed and frustrated. The billionaire criticizes the husband for allowing his wife to sleep with him, but he never criticizes the wife. I ask you, since it is HER body, who is the more responsible party? Not to mention the fact that it was the wife who really convinced the husband it would be okay.
Yet another huge flaw is the unexplained and sudden jump from Demi hating the billionaire to loving him. Even after the deal was consummated, the billionaire continued to interfere with the couple's life in an obvious attempt to break up the marriage. The wife had good reason to hate him for this, because it demonstrated that he was willing to abuse power and hurt people in order to satisfy his selfish desires. But what does Demi do when her husband's anger and doubts get the better of him? She runs back to the billionaire and falls for his sweet talk, and before long they plan to get married.
This movie only pretends to look at how gray-area moral decisions can affect our lives. One could just as well ask if it is moral to be a workaholic miser in order to make a million dollars, or the CEO of, say, a cigarette company. There are a million ways to sacrifice oneself on the altar of money and power. The moral component of this movie is watered down because the husband and wife are not "innocent" or sympathetic characters. They gamble all of their money in Las Vegas, in the idiotic pursuit of getting the money they want quickly, and even after winning a large amount, they gamble all of that on a single bet, which of course they lose. What do I care, and how surprising is it, if such a husband and wife then accept a million dollars for a one night stand?
There are the old jokes about how the price of sex determines whether someone is a prostitute. This movie mixes up money with love. How might the story play out without the billionaire falling in love? How might a good marriage be affected without all of the silly complications in this movie? If a happily married couple were to accept such an offer, is it by definition a bad marriage? If a happily married couple were to make the mistake of accepting such an offer, how might they recover from the mistake? Is accepting such an offer worse, or more damaging, than an affair? Alas, none of these more nuanced topics are covered in this movie. Instead we get a simplistic plot that merely teases. I suppose "Indecent Proposal" was a good prequel for Demi's next movie "Striptease."
|
| |
Expedited Available
