Conference bookie::movies

    re .0, well, I don't think I liked it as much as .0 liked it, but I
    found it mildly entertaining.  I'd give it two stars out of four,
    though, not three.  
    
    Also, re .0, I don't either resent Demi Moore, or find her perfect.  I
    think she's an attractive woman, who is a capable, but not great
    actress.  Nothing more, nothing less.  So, each to their own I guess. 
    Personally,  I find it much easier to see what Alec Baldwin sees in Kim
    Basinger, or what Don Johnson sees in Melanie Griffith, than what Bruce
    Willis sees in Demi Moore.  And, of course, the *real* question is -
    what the heck does Demi Moore see in Bruce Willis????   :-)
    
    At any rate, I did find the plot interesting.  It held my attention and
    I wanted to find out what happened.  But, when it was all over I didn't
    feel that I had seen an especially wonderful movie.  Not especially bad
    either.  
    
    It did make for some interesting conversation with my daughter
    afterwards about how we would have felt in a similar situation.
    
    Lorna
    

	To those who've seen this movie and "Honeymoon in Vegas",
	how simliar are the plot lines?

    re .2, I saw both movies, and I think they were really quite different. 
    The only similarity is that the men (in each movie) lose gambling, and
    have a chance to make-up for it by selling their SO's favors to other
    men.  However, from that point on the movies are very different.  The
    personalities of the characters are very different, and the
    consequences of losing the money are different.  
    
    If I had to choose, I think I actually might have liked Honeymoon in
    Vegas a bit better, if only because I thought it was better at being a
    comedy, than Indecent Proposal was at being a drama.  
    
    I'd probably give both movies two stars out of four, though.
    
    Lorna
    

    Hi!  I thought this movie was pretty good---not a great movie, but
    certainly worth seeing.  I knew the concept going in, however I was
    bracing myself for the possible dissappointment I get when I don't
    think the characters are well developed and they act totally
    differently than the way you'd expect them to.. I was also bracing for
    Demi to be seen as a "slut".   Actually, I was not disappointed.
    I liked the fact that all the characters acted realistically and they
    all maintained respect for each other.  I really made me wonder if the
    money is really worth it, and I think that was the point of the film.
    
    I was pleasantly surprised in the pairing of Demi and Woody.  I didn't
    think they'd go over well on screen but they did have chemistry and it
    was nice to see Woody in something other than Cheers.
    
    I was pleasantly surprised with Robert Redford's character too, but
    I don't want to give too much away!!
    
    Renee

  This movie is becoming a big news story. Regardless if people have seen it or
not, lots of reporters are standing outside of theaters asking people if they
would sell their wife/self for $1 million. Some say the would, some say they
wouldn't. 

  One guy said he would sell his girlfriend (who was standing next to him) for
a million and she got really angry. All the reporters were laughing about how
they would like to cover the rest of that story.

  Best line was in the Boston Globe political cartoon this morning. A middle
age couple was seen walking out of the theater and the husband asked the wife
if she would go to bed with Robert Redford for a million dollars. She said
"Sure, but I don't know where I would get that kind of money".

  George

    re .5, great line about going to bed with Robert Redford.  I thought
    that the only problem with having him play that character was that many
    women would be willing to do it with someone who looked that good, and
    acted that charming, for nothing!!  It might be more of a test if
    somebody like John Candy, or Danny DiVito had played that role.  Would
    I go to bed with Robert Redford for a million dollars?  Sure.  Would I
    go to bed with Danny DiVito for a million dollars?  I'd have to think
    about it.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .5, also, of course, the most offensive part of the movie is the
    suggestion that a man can sell his wife for the night.  Afterall,
    slavery is no longer legal in the US, so nobody owns anybody else, even
    their spouse, and, therefore, nobody can sell anybody else's services. 
    The suggestion that a man could sell his wife or his girlfriend is,
    indeed, very offensive.
    
    Lorna
    

  Well legally it's not slavery because he wasn't actually selling his wife.
Although that term is often used, in reality from a financial point of view
prostitution is more of a rental. Also, they could get around any slavery law
easily by giving the money directly to the wife. 

  It would, however be illegal because it would violate most vice laws. Any sex
for money is considered prostitution in most jurisdictions, even if it's a
million dollars. 

  The Boston Globe critic wrote what I thought was a really bad review panning
the movie. It wasn't bad because of liking or not liking the movie, rather it
was bad because the entire criticism was about the moral implications of the
movie rather than being a review of the movie itself. In other words, after
reading the review I knew it violated the critics sense of moral values but I
have no idea if he thought it was a good or bad movie. 

  That was an extreme case, but this does seem to be shaping up into an example
of a movie who's main issue is much bigger than the movie itself. 

  George

    re .7 Oviously you haven't seen the movie. Your comments are explained
    in the movie and are not of a male dominated marriage. The wife said you 
    could you couldn't buy people. The Billionaire said don't be naive. The 
    Billionaire said to the husband I will give you a million dollars if you 
    let me sleep with you wife. The husband said no imediately. The
    billionaire said looking at both of them. No it real I will give you
    1 million dollars for one night with wife's name. 
    
    spoiler   
    
    Latter along at night the husband said I don't want you to do it, The 
    wife said she didn't want to do it but she would do it for him because 
    she thought he wanted her to do it.
        There was no husband selling wife in this movie But as the
    billionaire said you are naive to believe people aren't bought and 
    sold in the US. 8^) 
                 Jeff Peters 

    re .7, I saw the movie Saturday night, so don't be so sure of what you
    think is obvious.
    
    It's true that as soon as the millionaire (Robert Redford) offered the
    husband (Woody Harrelson) a million dollars for a night with his wife,
    the husband said something about you'll have to ask her, or something
    to that effect, thereby showing that he didn't think he owned his wife. 
    However, the fact remains that, originally, the millionaire did,
    indeed, offer the *husband* the million dollars to sleep with his wife.
    
    Lorna
    

    I haven't seen the movie; it was panned on NPR by critic Tom Shales.
    Not on a moral basis -- he just felt the movie was predictable and
    not very well played.  I'll catch it on video.
    
      John

    
    
    Yesterday on Oprah they had a discussion on this very
    topic.  Not so much this movie, but it was used as
    an example.  
    
    They did a telephone poll and asked "would you break your
    marriage vows and sleep with someone for a million dollars"
    It came out almost 50/50.  I wonder if the country were 
    not in a recession and so many were without jobs if it
    would have changed the numbers.
    
    They also had on two millionaires and asked them if they
    thought people liked them for them, or for what they have.
    The bottom line is that they really hoped that people 
    would like them for them.  That sure that used their money
    to get someone to date them as well.
    
    Then they had a psychologist who was talking about how
    people can be easily motiviated by money.  That people will
    do almost anything for money.  He brought up a different
    question - to keep sex out of it.  He asked the audience, if he
    offered $1,000 would someone lick his shoes.  Some folks
    said yes on the spot.
    
    There were alot of arguments from the audience.  Some folks
    thought it was only for one night and they had the rest of
    their lives to enjoy the money.  Other's were opposed, and
    said that they took a sacred vow, and could never do that
    for any amount of money.
    
    Jeanne
    
    
    

    Gentle moderator nudge: if people would like to discuss the general
    topic of "what would/wouldn't you do for money," and/or "is it OK to
    sell sex for money if it's a really, whopping big amount of money",
    etc., may I suggest QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS or perhaps PEAR::SOAPBOX? 
    While I don't object to digressions when talking about movies (as is
    obvious from most of my notes), this sounds like something that could
    become a whopping big digression, if you get my drift; and besides,
    opening a more general discussion about the subject elsewhere might
    bring in a wider range of opinion. [Heck, here all you'll get is movie
    fans, and you know what _we're_ like.]
    
    Discussions related to the movie - i.e., why one thinks that the
    characters' reactions to the titular proposal are or are not realistic,
    entertaining, dramatic, etc. - are quite appropriate to this conference
    and topic. [Alert noters will undoubtedly be able to figure out how to
    include enough movie-related commentary in their replies to stay within
    the guidelines whilst talking about anything they want. ;-)]
    
    SET MODE/NOMODERATOR
    
    When I first heard about this movie I was seriously turned off, but
    it's beginning to intrigue me; sounds like it may not be quite as pat
    as it first seemed. If I ever get any spare time again, I may go see
    it...
    
    -b

  I don't agree with the idea that the discussion is off limits. In fact as I
stated earlier, the question is being discussed by professional film critics
and news people and seems to many to be an important part of the general public
reaction to this movie. 

  Of course if the moderators tell us to stop discussing the issue, I'll stop. 

  ... until then ...

  Another point is that 1 million dollars is not what it use to be. There seems
to be in implication that people would do something distasteful for one
million dollars because they could then be a rich person for the rest of their
life. 

  Actually, ** IF **  you were careful with your one million dollars and
invested it carefully you could just about eek out a middle class standard of
living off the interest. One million dollars at 4% interest is only $40,000 a
year, hardly a rich person's income. 

  Of course it could be argued that some people would invest it wisely and turn
it into a fortune, but heck, those people are probably millionaires already. 

  Now if they were talking 10 million, that would be something else,
  George 

>  Of course if the moderators tell us to stop discussing the issue, I'll stop. 
    
    There is one moderator for this conference.  Her reply was immediately
    before your own.
    
    Ray

    I am intrigued by the casting choice of Robert Redford, and I
    never thought twice about it until somebody in here mentioned
    the John Candy/Danny DeVito angle.  Sleeping with someone as
    good-looking as Redford AND getting paid for it is one thing,
    but doing it with someone unattractive or even repulsive would
    certainly be something else.
    
    Since I haven't seen the movie, I must ask those who have: is
    the movie trying to say that the lure of the money is a strain
    on a marriage, the infidelity is the biggest stress, or infidelity
    with a man who definitely has the potential to steal your wife
    away the real problem?  Is the post-"act" tension between Woody and
    Demi believable?  Is Redford persuasive in trying to make the one
    night something more?  Could John Pinette or Gilbert Godfried had
    the same impact in the role as Redford?
    
    NAZZ

    re .17, who are John Pinette and Gilbert Godfried?
    
    re .15, yeah, but $40K a year is still a *lot* more than I make working
    40 hrs. a week for Digital.  A million dollars isn't what it
    used to be, but everything is relative.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I saw the movie last Wednesday, and I'm seeing it again tonight. I
    thoroughly enjoyed it. Of course, Mr. Redford had a *little* to do with
    that.
    
    I was also surprised at Woody Harrelson role in the movie. Pleasantly
    surprised. I've never watched Cheers, so I don't have anything to
    compare him to. I thought he and Demi made an interesting pair, and
    there was definitely chemistry between them.
    
    As far as Robert Redford: I believe he was perfect -- and perfectly
    cast -- for the role.  I believed him.
    
    I liked the ending as well. It ended the way it should have.
    Robert Redford's last line pretty much pulled the whole thing to a
    close, and I thought it was very appropriate. 
    
    Spoiler alert:
    I also liked the fact that they didn't show "the night." It left quite
    a bit to the imagination.
    
    My favorite line of the movie is Robert Redford's last line:
    	"She'll never look at me the way she looked at him."
    
    
    Catherine
    
    
    
    

    re .15 I don't know where you invest your money but most mutual funds 
    are averaging 10% a year. I could live quite nice on $100,000 dollars
    a year. 
                          Jeff Peters  

  Obviously I miss understood the moderators warning. I didn't recognize the
name, misunderstood the note, and I thought that it was someone asking the
moderator to limit the discussion. 

  So what's the decision? Can we talk about the issues like "What you would do
for a million" and "How far would a million go", or are those topics off
limits? 

  George

    The thing about this movie that bothered me the most is that I just
    don't find Woody Harrelson appealing.  His acting was good, but I,
    personally, just don't find him at all attractive, so I had a hard time
    understanding why Demi Moore would be that much in love with him.
    
    Needless to say, I though Robert Redford was very appealing, as ever.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .21: I would prefer that generic, non-movie-related discussion of
    "what I'd do for a million" not take place here. [Fwiw, somebody just
    started a topic on this in IKE22::WOMANNOTES-V4; and, as I mentioned
    before, there are several other conferences where this topic might
    start a lively discussion.] 
    
    Discussion of how the movie dealt with the subject, discussion of
    whether you believed the way the characters reacted to the situation,
    etc., are all perfectly fine here.
    
    Short non-movie-related comments or anecdotes or witticisms are also
    fine, especially if they come wrapped in a crunchy coating of
    enlightening thoughts or info re Movies And Those Who Make Them.
    
    We now return you to your regularly-scheduled "Proposal".
    
    -b-the-moderator

    Saw this one over the weekend, to see what all the fuss was about....

    Eh.  It's okay, I guess.  I think its strongest feature is the one
    issue that's got everyone talking -- "for a million dollars, would
    you...?"

    Leaving out the moral issues for a bit... I think I agree with whoever
    it was said it was a love story.  If you ignore the specifics, it's yer
    basic Something Comes Between Our Two Lovers -- Will Love Triumph?
    kinda plot.  (It's just that the specific "what" that comes between our
    two lovers happens to make for lots of moral outrage and interesting
    philosophical and theoretical and hypothetical discussions.... not to
    mention that the aforementioned "what" also offers the director an
    excuse to show just how much our lovers love each other in some meaty
    steamy thrashing-around scenes.... but even those were only fair-ish....)

    Continuing to ignore those specifics... eh, it was okay.  I liked Demi
    and Woody as a couple, and I only had a suspicion, not a certainty,
    about how it would end.  I was quite disappointed in Redford's
    performance -- he seemed almost, well, wooden, at least in comparison
    to Moore's and Harrelson's emoting all over the place....

    Worth a video rental, but I'm not sure it's worth paying full price for
    this one, unless you go with other folks who are sure to enjoy the kind
    of discussions it will inspire after leaving the theater.

    -- Cathy

    Jon Pinette is a 400 + pound comedian; Gilbert Gottfried is the
    whiny-voiced peanut-sized comic and host of USA's "Up All Night."
    Gottfried has also appeared in bit parts in several movies, most
    recently as a voice in "Aladdin" and as the lawyer in 'Another
    48 Hours" or some other Eddie Murphy mediocrity.
    
    NAZZ

    Let's not forget (then again, maybe we should) that Gottfried was part
    of the ill-fated cast of Saturday Night Live that took over the show
    the season after the original cast had departed.  That cast included
    Charles Rocket, Denny Doyle, and two people who stayed on after the
    rest of the cast was canned--Eddie Murphy and Joe Piscopo.

    -- Mike

    Saw this Friday at a matinee; glad I paid matinee price.  I never felt
    like getting up and walking out of the movie; it did hold my interest,
    but I felt like this was the "Demi Moore has Big Boobs Now and Wants to
    Show Them" movie.  I read a movie review after I saw the movie that I
    agreed with: the reviewer as at a loss as to why anyone would want to
    pay $1M for a night with Demi Moore, who is not a great beauty, and did
    not emote any terrific personality perks.  I want to emphasize the
    personality perks most because this discussion seems to be mostly about
    "would you" if the "payer" was a Robert Redford "beauty" type.
    
    First, I found Redford to be a caricature of Ted Kennedy in this movie! 
    That's all I could see when I looked at him!  I found it very repulsive
    watching a man pushing 60 kissing a woman who looked young enough to be
    YOUNGER than his daughter.  I also found it interesting that everyone
    in this conference asks what the Moore character (Diana) found in the
    Harrelson character (David).  Certainly looks are not what hold people
    together; it's personality and values, and chemistry is a very hard
    thing to explain.  I personally liked Diana and David's characters
    together and never thought of one being "better looking" than the
    other.
    
    Moore's character seemed, to me, to be the weaker one ... for those who
    saw the movie, Redford's character (John Gage) made her a promise on
    his boat before he moved in for the kill, and you never really knew if
    they actually went through with the act until Diane told David during a
    fight her opinion of Gage's sexual performance.  Her weakness extended
    to going for the "easier" life even though she supposedly loved her
    husband.  I saw Moore's performance as one of posturing rather than
    real acting.
    
    Redford and Harrelson did okay; out of the three I would say Harrelson
    was the best and convinced me of his acting abilities because I watch
    Cheers and he is so good in his role on that show that it's hard to
    imagine him breaking away into drama.  Well, he did, and he did a good
    job of it.
    
    I'm glad I saw the movie.  But as to all the ponderings about "would
    you for a million dollars with .. (fill in the blanks)" ... let's face
    it.  A price for sex, no matter how much and no matter who with, is
    still prostitution.
    
    ** out of ****
    
    Leslie

    Well I just saw the movie and I'm gonna put my thoughts behind a
    spoiler just to be safe....
    
    (BTW I'm surprised but I diagree with you Leslie)
    
    
    First I'd have to say I thought the movie was pretty predicatible. But
    I did enjoy it. Yes, I'm probaby pretty prejudiced since I've been
    infatuated with Robert Redford since Jeramiah Johnson and *still* found
    him to be absolutely breathtaking! I liked Demi Moore's performance but
    then again I *really* like her anyways. I was surprised how much I
    liked Woody Harrelesons (I know I spelt that wrong!)....I guess I found
    it refreshing after that 'blah' performance (AND movie) in White Men
    Can Jump. Overall though I thought Robert Redford's character was alot
    like The Great Gratsby only with more boldness. 
    	I also noticed (in fact it was the first thing I noticed) how big
    Demi Moore's boobs were in this as compared to anything else I've ever
    seen her in. But the guy I went with said he had read/heard that they
    filmed this shortly after her giving birth and she was still lacetating
    (another misspelled word I'm sure). 
    	I would have to say in all honesty though that unless you're a fan
    of any of the lead characters and don't mind predictability don't
    bother seeing this.....at least not in the theatres; wait until it's
    out on video. I enjoyed and am glad I saw it (mostly for the cheap
    thrills of seeing the ultimate *man* imo of course) but don't think
    I'll go out of my way to see it again.
    
    	re.Leslie
    
    	I think you got to caught up in the moral question the movie was
    supposed to be about and that you didn't agree with their choices. I
    think the movie *tried* to show that true love does win in the end.
    
    Natalie 

re       <<< Note 142.28 by 8269::MARTINN "Prior to that I was a person" >>>

>  	I also noticed (in fact it was the first thing I noticed) how big
>    Demi Moore's boobs were in this as compared to anything else I've ever
>    seen her in. 
   
    Natalie,

      Finally, after all these morals vs. money discussions, I've got a 
reason to see this movie. :-)

Regards
Barry 

    re .29, you won't be dissapointed.  They're huge!  :-)
    
    And, to be fair, she has nice legs, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, this is where I REALLY disagree (-1.) ... both my boyfriend and
    I, at the same time, said "God, she's got TERRIBLE legs!"
    
    Oh, well ... !
    
    Leslie

    Well, I haven't seen this movie yet, but I guess I am going to have to
    now, just so I can check out Demi Moore's legs and draw my own
    conclusion.
    
    -- Mike

    re .32, ha-ha.  :-)  
    
    I thought her legs looked okay when she was walking around in the
    shorts with the cowboy boots.  I can't imagine any guy saying or
    thinking, "Yeah, I'd consider dating Demi Moore....if only she had
    nicer legs."   :-)
    
    But, for *really* nice legs, check out Bridget Fonda's.  I wouldn't
    mind looking like her from the neck down.  (Course her face isn't bad
    either, but I think she has a great figure & legs.)  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I haven't caught much of Bridget Fonda's film work, but after having
    seen "Bodies, Rest & Motion", I would agree with your comments.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    A friend in the UK asked this question:
    
    >> who is (or was!) John Garfield?
    
    >> If you haven't
    >>seen it, the film contains a lawyer who's a bit comical.  He draws up a
    >>contract for a man to have sex with another man's wife.  This contract 
    >>contains a "John Garfield clause", which is designed to cover the woman 
    >>in case the man dies while they're having sex.  That was quite funny on 
    >>its own, but I wondered what the reference to "John Garfield" meant?
    
    Since I haven't sene the movie and the only John Garfield I know of was
    a movie actor I couldn't make the connection....any help out there?
    
    Thanks
    Joyce

Just saw this this weekend. (OK - so I don't just wait for them to come
out on video - I wait until they've been out on video so long the rental
is only a buck instead of $2.50 . . . :^)

I liked it. I must admit that almost up to the end, based on her soliloquy,
I expected it was going to have a bad ending.

re: .27

>						 Her weakness extended
>    to going for the "easier" life even though she supposedly loved her
>    husband.

I didn't get this sense at all. I saw it as her really wanting to stay
with David until he just made it too difficult (=impossible) because
of his attitude after the fact. I couldn't ascribe any blame to her.

-Jack

    ...just browsing through this note when i saw .6   and just had to 
    respond with the famous quote of 'well, now that we know what you are,
    we're really just haggling over price'..........;')............/k