---
title: "Indecent Proposal"
year: 1993
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/indecent-proposal"
fi1m_id: "indecent-proposal"
imdb_id: "tt0107211"
tmdb_id: 4478
wikidata_id: "Q603448"
fi1m_score: 50
critics_score: 41
critics_reviews: 8
published: "2026-10-04T23:12:38.654405+00:00"
updated: "2026-10-04T23:12:58.359716+00:00"
region: "AT"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Indecent Proposal (1993)

Directed by Adrian Lyne · 1h 57m · Romance, Drama

## Identity

Indecent Proposal

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/indecent-proposal
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** indecent-proposal
- **IMDb ID:** tt0107211
- **TMDB ID:** 4478
- **Wikidata ID:** Q603448
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107211/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/4478, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q603448

**Fi1m score: 50** · Critics 41 from 8 reviews

*In a sentence:* Robert Redford pays a million dollars for one night and the film spends the other hundred minutes feeling solemn about it

> Adrian Lyne has a hook most films would kill for and treats it as a tragedy. Moore and Harrelson give the marriage a pulse; Redford gives it a smile and some lighting. Handsome, soft-centred and far too pleased with its own seriousness.

## Synopsis

David Murphy (Woody Harrelson) and his wife Diana (Demi Moore) are young, married and broke, with a house half built on a hillside and no money left to finish it. They drive to Las Vegas hoping to win what they need, and lose what they have at the tables instead. There they come to the notice of John Gage (Robert Redford), a millionaire who moves through the casino with staff at his elbow and the croupiers at his call, and who takes a long look at Diana. He makes his offer: a million dollars for one night with her. David and Diana take the question upstairs. Their friend Jeremy (Oliver Platt) is drawn into it.

## Review

Adrian Lyne’s film, from Amy Holden Jones’s screenplay of Jack Engelhard’s novel, has one of the cleanest hooks of its decade: a rich man offers a broke couple a million dollars for a night with the wife. The trouble is that Lyne treats the hook as a tragedy, and for 117 minutes nobody on screen is allowed to find any of it funny, or absurd. It is handsome, well acted in two of its three main parts, and dull in the way only a glossy film can be. We came out wanting the comedy it kept refusing to be.

The first forty minutes are the good part. Diana (Demi Moore) and David Murphy (Woody Harrelson) run out of money with a house half built and drive to Las Vegas with what is left. Howard Atherton shoots the casino lit from below, green felt and gold ceilings and faces catching the glow off the tables, and Joe Hutshing cuts the gambling so that we feel the money going a beat before the characters do. When John Gage (Robert Redford) makes his offer and the couple take it upstairs, Moore and Harrelson are both good. He talks himself round to it; she watches him do it and says less and less. We believed in that marriage completely, which made the next hour harder to forgive.

Redford is the problem, and Lyne has made him so. He shoots him the way a church shoots a saint, lit from behind and never hurried, speaking as a man not used to being interrupted. Gage is meant to be a monster who is also irresistible, and the film cannot bring itself to do the monster half. Gage turns up at the class David teaches, and the students admire him and his Rolls-Royce, and so does the camera. Redford played a rich man with nothing behind the smile in [*The Great Gatsby*](https://film.one/film/the-great-gatsby) in 1974 and let us see the nothing. Here he smiles and lets the lighting finish the job.

The craft is expensive and of a piece. Mel Bourne gives Gage a hotel suite the size of a railway station and the Murphys a half-built house of bare timber on a hillside, and that contrast is the film’s one good visual idea. John Barry’s score swoons, long strings over long shots of water, and does more of the emotional work than the script does. Beatrix Aruna Pasztor, Bernie Pollack and Bobbie Read put Moore in black and Redford in grey, which makes its point in their first scene together and then keeps making it.

Then there is the middle hour, in which the Murphys sulk. Its question, whether a marriage can survive knowing its price, is a good one, and Jones’s script hands it to two people who mostly sit in separate rooms. Harrelson is asked to brood, and brooding is not what he is for. Moore has more to do and does it; her Diana is the only person on screen who seems to understand that the deal was also something she chose. We laughed, once, at a declaration delivered with a straight face that the film plainly thought its finest moment, and then felt mean about it, because Moore was working so hard to carry the scene. Oliver Platt, as Jeremy, gets the only lines that admit how ridiculous all this is.

The second half heads somewhere we will not describe, except to say that most critics found the ending hard to credit, and so did we. The reviews were savage, more than the film deserves, and we are a few points kinder, mostly on account of Moore, Harrelson and that first act in Las Vegas. Lyne’s [*Fatal Attraction*](https://film.one/film/fatal-attraction) (1987) was about sex and consequence and had the sense to be frightening. This one keeps the sex almost entirely off screen, and it cannot stop admiring the money.

Watch it with someone you are prepared to argue with afterwards, because the row is the best thing about it, and it happens on your sofa rather than on the screen. The 15 certificate is about right; there is less here to blush at than the tagline promises.

*Fi1m score 50, published 4 October 2026.*

## What the critics say

Most critics are not persuaded. The reviews agree the seven-figure offer at the film’s centre is a strong hook, and most think it is wasted. Where praise lands, it lands on the leads: several reviews find Robert Redford the main reason to keep watching, while Variety instead credits Demi Moore with the only emotional truth on screen. John Barry’s score also earns a mention.

The spread is wide. The harsher notices outnumber the kind ones two to one and find the drama solemn where it should be sharp, with an ending more than one critic calls absurd. The New Yorker objects to the film’s awed treatment of wealth, the classroom scene with the Rolls-Royce in particular. The Los Angeles Times breaks ranks on Redford, finding him listless. The two positive reviews take the premise as a talking point rather than a failing: Radio Times reads the film as a portrait of early-1990s emptiness, and Eye for Film finds it engaging and romantic.

## Straight answers

**Is Indecent Proposal worth watching?**

*Indecent Proposal* is a mixed bet, and we scored it 50: a clean hook, a good first act in Las Vegas and strong work from Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson, followed by an hour of solemn sulking. It suits couples who fancy a row about what they would do for a million dollars; the argument afterwards is better than the film.

**How long is Indecent Proposal, and what is it rated?**

*Indecent Proposal* runs 1h 57m. It is a romance and drama film.

**Where can I watch Indecent Proposal in Austria?**

*Indecent Proposal* is streaming on Paramount+ and Amazon Prime Video in Austria, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from €3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is Indecent Proposal, and is it suitable for children?**

*Indecent Proposal* carries a UK 15 certificate (R in the US) and earns it on theme rather than on anything shown; there is almost no violence, nothing frightening, and the sex stays mostly off screen. It is a film about a marriage being bought, so it is adult in subject and unsuitable for children, but teenagers and the squeamish will find little to flinch at.

**How does Indecent Proposal compare to Fatal Attraction?**

*Indecent Proposal* is the weaker of Adrian Lyne's two marriage-in-peril films, because [*Fatal Attraction*](https://film.one/film/fatal-attraction) remembers to be frightening and this one only remembers to be serious. Both are slick and well acted, and both stumble in the last reel, but the earlier film has tension and a great central performance from Glenn Close, where this one has Robert Redford's smile and some lighting.

**Is Indecent Proposal based on a true story or a book?**

*Indecent Proposal* is not a true story; it is adapted by Amy Holden Jones from Jack Engelhard's novel of the same name. Our review does not weigh how faithful the film is to the book, and you need no knowledge of it to follow the film, whose whole premise is explained in the first forty minutes.

**What should I watch after Indecent Proposal?**

After *Indecent Proposal*, try [*Fatal Attraction*](https://film.one/film/fatal-attraction) (1987, Fi1m 70): Lyne’s earlier marriage-in-peril film, and the one that remembers to be frightening. Then [*Belle de Jour*](https://film.one/film/belle-de-jour) (1967, Fi1m 86): Buñuel on a wife, a price and a secret, and far cooler about all three; and [*Eyes Wide Shut*](https://film.one/film/eyes-wide-shut) (1999, Fi1m 81): A rich marriage tested by one confession; Kubrick takes the dread seriously.

### Reviews we read (8)

- **Radio Times**, Joanna Berry (4/5): Berry finds the film’s moral premise gives way to selfishness, making it a commentary on early-1990s excess and emptiness. She nevertheless says its lead performances make it worth watching. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-ysih65/indecent-proposal/)
- **The New York Times** (64/100, inferred): The page content is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint is available from the accessible text. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/07/movies/review-film-indecent-proposal-who-d-have-be-paid-1-million-spend-night-with.html)
- **Empire**, Phil Thomas (58/100, inferred): The critic finds the film entertaining and sometimes compelling, but says its tension and quality falter by the end. He singles out Robert Redford’s performance and the mid-film emotional power struggles for praise. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/indecent-proposal-review/)
- **Variety**, Todd McCarthy (25/100, inferred): McCarthy finds the film a high-concept story with weak delivery and an especially absurd ending. He praises Demi Moore’s lively, heartfelt performance as the film’s main source of emotional credibility. [Read](https://variety.com/1993/film/reviews/indecent-proposal-2-1200432059/)
- **Time Out**, TJ (20/100, inferred): The critic dismisses the film despite its promising premise. The review singles out the seven-figure offer as a great hook, but calls the movie poor. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/indecent-proposal)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (10/100, inferred): Turan finds the film laughably implausible and says its earnest moral drama invites laughter instead of sympathy. He particularly criticizes Robert Redford’s low-energy performance and the filmmakers’ failure to make the wager’s consequences convincing. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-07-ca-19978-story.html)
- **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (10/100, inferred): Lane dismisses the film as vain, sluggish, and joyless, arguing that it turns a potentially comic premise into solemn trash. He especially condemns its worshipful portrayal of wealth, singling out the classroom scene where students admire Gage and his Rolls-Royce. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/04/26/paying-the-price)
- **Eye for Film**, Stephen Carty (75/100, inferred): Carty finds the film engaging and romantic, with its provocative premise inviting debate. He especially praises Robert Redford’s magnetic performance and John Barry’s stirring score. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/indecent-proposal-film-review-by-stephen-carty)

## Details

- **Director:** Adrian Lyne
- **Director:** Adrian Lyne
- **Screenplay:** Amy Holden Jones
- **Novel:** Jack Engelhard
- **Cinematography:** Howard Atherton
- **Editor:** Joe Hutshing
- **Music:** John Barry
- **Production design:** Mel Bourne
- **Costume design:** Bobbie Read, Bernie Pollack, Beatrix Aruna Pasztor
- **Producer:** Sherry Lansing
- **Cast:** Robert Redford as John Gage; Demi Moore as Diana Murphy; Woody Harrelson as David Murphy; Seymour Cassel as Mr. Shackleford; Oliver Platt as Jeremy; Billy Bob Thornton as Day Tripper; Billy Connolly as Auction M.C.; Rip Taylor as Mr. Langford
- **Runtime:** 1h 57m
- **First release (Romania):** 7 April 1993
- **Genres:** Romance, Drama
- **Budget:** $38 million
- **Box office:** $267 million

## Where to watch in Austria

- Paramount+: streaming, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: add-on
- Amazon Prime Video: rent €3.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy €5.99, hd

*Checked 2026-10-04.*

Also available in: AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, HR, HU, IE, IT, JP, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *Fatal Attraction* (1987), Fi1m 70: Lyne’s earlier marriage-in-peril film, and the one that remembers to be frightening. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/fatal-attraction.md)
- *Honeymoon in Vegas* (1992): The same wager played as farce, with Nicolas Cage and a plane full of Elvises.
- *Belle de Jour* (1967), Fi1m 86: Buñuel on a wife, a price and a secret, and far cooler about all three. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/belle-de-jour.md)
- *Eyes Wide Shut* (1999), Fi1m 81: A rich marriage tested by one confession; Kubrick takes the dread seriously. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/eyes-wide-shut.md)
- *The Piano* (1993), Fi1m 88: Another woman bartered by men, from the same year, with real weather in it. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-piano.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/indecent-proposal