on November 14, 2007
disclosure is a refreshing film.it takes battle of the sexes and
reverses it.here we have a film of role reversal,with the
dominant,sexually aggressive woman against the weaker,more submissive
male.it works beautifully in this film.i normally can't stand demi
moore,but she is brilliantly cast here as the conniving
seductress.equally well cast is Micheal douglas as the victim of her
seductions.the basic plot is:a high level computer company
specialist(who is married)finds out he will be working for a former
lover.she initiates a sexual encounter between the two,rather
forcefully.he resists and puts an end to the encounter.she becomes
enraged,and vows revenge.she sues him for sexual harassment.he files a
counter claim of sexual harassment against her.and there you have
it.the stage is set for plenty of suspense and twists and turns,with a
surprising revelation and a terrific plot twist(which is down to the
wire)to end the film.I own this film and have watched it several
times,and it's riveting every time.brilliant. 5/5
on December 6, 2003
I caught this movie on TV a couple of years ago, and got wrapped up in it. I haven't read the book (I prefer non-fiction reading), so I can't compare this movie to the book. I thought this was an intelligent, but entertaining movie. It has a good ending - the bad guy (or girl) gets what is coming to them. There were only a few times I found scenes ridiculously implausible - like when Douglas's character is listening to Meredith and another worker scheme while she walks on a stairmaster, and they never notice him. Give me a break. I bet the good folks in Austin were irked when Michael Douglas's character turned up his nose at the possibility of being transferred to Austin.
Dennis Miller has a small role, but plays it effectively. Demi Moore is so beautiful, and plays a tough woman very convincingly. Michael Douglas's character was done so dirty in this movie, I was rooting for him all the way to the end. And thank goodness for "A Friend."
I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes movies with more depth than just car crashes and explosions.
on June 16, 2003
The allegedly questionable behavior exhibited by character Meredith Johnson in this film was a whole lot of hype about nothing of much importance. It certainly did not rise to the level of Johnson's dismissal from the company -- in fact, she was working as hard as she could, doing the business of the company. Plus, everybody does this sort of thing, it is common behavior in the corporate world. Plus, the charges of harassment leveled by Tom Sanders were lies. Also, the suggestion that Meredith had done something which merited dismissal from her job was a lot of hate talk, the corporate politics of personal destruction. And finally, by the time the harassment charges really arose in the movie, most of the characters had pretty much put it in the past, they had turned the page and moved on with business -- it was old news.
The best advice anyone could have given Tom, at the point he decided to go public and complain, was a wise bit of rape crisis counselling provided on one occasion by another of society's mistreated male victims: "You'd better get some ice on that."
on February 14, 2003
I'm not going to rehash the plot or what others have said about this film. I felt compelled to write this review to point out a glaring omission in all the other reviews of this movie I have read. That omission is the fact that Tom Sander's (Michael Douglas') lawyer proved during the mediation hearings that Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore) had planned the "seduction" of Tom THREE AND A HALF WEEKS earlier by proving that her secretary had been sent out then to buy a bottle of Tom's favorite wine, a wine which was not available anywhere within a 500 mile radius of the city (a bottle which she had dishonestly claimed earlier in the hearing that her secretary had bought at the non-existent "corner liquor store" that evening). Think about that. This wasn't just a movie about reverse sexual harassment, although that certainly was one of the main plot elements. She was out to shaft him from the very beginning, long beforehand. When you watch this flick (or rewatch it) pay extra attention to her advance planning and the fact that her harassment charge was just one shot in a war to destroy Tom Sanders. There's more to the plot here than what appears at first glance!
on March 21, 2002
Tacky thriller that lures one into thinking it's going to be controversial. One thing about *Disclosure*, it's not unprofessional: director Barry Levinson, in his (apparent) tale of sexual harassment, delivers a pretty hot payoff early in the movie that certainly appeals to our prurient interests. During the first half-hour, we wait for Demi Moore to "attack" Michael Douglas, and she certainly does, to our voyeuristic delight. Indeed, the entire movie fairly hums with a rancid energy that's at times entertaining to watch. But the plot soon reveals that the filmmakers aren't really all that interested in the subject of sexual harassment, even if the woman's the harasser. Lust is doubtless too deep a subject for them to want to fool around with, so they simply make Moore's character a cold career-type whose motives aren't sensual but strictly professional. She wants Douglas out of the company, and her attack on him turns out to be just a devious means to a desired end. This gives Levinson further license to waste our time with (now horribly dated) "virtual-reality" scenarios involving corporate espionage. (The "digital" Demi that appears when Douglas is in the virtual-reality world looking for some file or other is a pure howler. Almost makes this movie worth a rent.) *Disclosure* finally becomes just another dumb suspense movie. But Demi sure was something in those days, eh?
on January 30, 2002
Michael Douglas and Demi Moore fight the battle of the sexes in the film version of Michael Crichton's novel "Disclosure". A rising star at one of those Seattle firms that churns out consumer high-tech, Tom Sanders (Douglas) finds his career at stake instead. Losing his promotion to Meredith Johnson (Moore), who knows less about high-tech than sleeping her way to an exec position, Sanders tries to make the best of things. This is complicated by three things - Sanders's division is having problems delivering a line of new CD-ROM players, his company is in the formative stages of a crucial merger and Johnson has set her sights on him....for something. Sanders and Johnson had had an affair some time before, and Johnson's predatory habits give a not-so-subtle hint as to what that must have been like. When Sanders - now a family man - resists, Johnson turns the tables on him, accusing him of sexual harassment.
Director Barry Levinson wisely underplays the controversial aspects of the book. (Despite Crichton's sincere belief that he was taking on a PC establishment that refuses to see women in terms other than victims of aggressive white males, the corporate intrigue aspect of the story undermines this - Sanders's victimization stemmed largely from forces that wanted Johnson to oust Sanders. This is a common occurrence in Crichton's polemical novels where the author rails at forces like PC or media manipulation when some undrlying cloak and dagger is the real culprit.) Those who shun Sanders after Johnson's accusations become known are reacting less to PC angst than a fear for their careers. Instead, Levinson plays up The "man against the conspiracy" angle - with Douglas playing detective, sneaking into computer files, pulling out answering machine messages and tracking down any leads. Much of the suspense is artificial, but it works.
on January 11, 2002
This movie is just dumb. First of all, most plot points make little to no sense. Much of it is based around a new file system called Corridor - the most useless invention ever, which takes all the convenience of a computer file system, then makes it totally inconvenient by making it look and act like the old paper'n'cabinet storage systems that computers were designed to replace. In fact, the only reason for this is to set up a virtual reality scene, to add to the film's pattern of style over substance. Than you have the silly mystery unfolding with clever twists - like Demi Moore's character accidently spilling her whole evil scheme right in front of Michael Douglas! Or how about the random "solution" to the film's problem that comes so far out of nowhere it's desperately hard to appreciate it as some sort of resolution to what is supposed to be an evolving conclusion. But it doesn't really matter, because most of the acting and plot twists are so contrived you shouldn't be that involved, and DISCLOSURE becomes an unintentional comedy rather than the sleek, sexy thriller it intended on.
on June 11, 2001
When most people watch movies that have been made from books, they usually come away from the movie thinking, "The book is better."
My own response to that comment might be, "They're pretty equal in quality." With the exception of a few name changes ("Twinkle Drive" in the book becomes "Arcomax" in the movie; from "Louise Fernandez" to "Katherine Alvarez"), the movie follows the plot of the book pretty closely. It's actually one of the first modern movies I've seen that doesn't stray that far from the book.
The premise of the movie is an intriguing one to me. High profile cases, such as the confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas and the testimony given by Anita Hill, have increased people's awareness of sexual harassment exponentially. Based upon our personal perceptions and "expectations" of the people around us, we "expect" men to be more sexually aggressive than women and therefore more likely to engage in sexual harassment or rape. But what can happen if a man is harassed by a woman? Watch "Disclosure" and find out.
on April 3, 2001
I enjoyed this faithful adaptation of the Michael Crichton book, and it was nearly better than the book. Michael Douglas plays computer exec Tom Sanders, the leader of the Digicom's Advanced Products Group, who expects to be promoted to Vice President. But Sanders' ex-lover, Meredith Johnson, gets promoted instead. She sexually harasses him on the first day as boss, and Sanders wants to take action. He wants to sue the company. Demi Moore plays Johnson. She does well at the role, although she is not who I thought of when I read the book. Donald Sutherland is Garvin, the CEO who supports Meredith fully. The acting is excellent, and I thought that it was a good adaptation, better than most I have seen. Why is it good? It stays very faithful to the book, and cuts out a couple of subplots from the book that I was not depressed to see go, such as Sanders' old mentor. It also removed some details I thought should have stayed in, but this happens in nearly every adaptation. If you liked the book you will like the movie too.
The clawing of women into positions of corporate power was supposed to bring a new era of "humanity" and softness into the business scene. This film demonstrates what a false promise that was, on the assumption anyone believed it. The struggle to gain positions at the narrow end of the corporate pyramid grows more intense the higher the role. And Vice Presidents are pretty near the top. Demi Moore usurps Michael Douglas for one of these niches, but her victory tastes bitter-sweet since they were once intense lovers. Now he's contentedly married, a parent, and well settled in his mid-level position.
Once that scenario is established, the film takes some bizarre twists. One her first day in the new role, Moore decides to seduce Douglas. While the idea of reversing sexual harassment roles is intruiging, here it seems more than a little contrived. It's far too sudden; we could have done with a little build-up. Especially given the duration of the seduction in the film. Nor is there any real motivation given for Moore's action. Is it revenge for leaving her [we don't know that happened]? Jealousy for Douglas' wife? Whatever the cause, it's implausible that a climbing corporate woman would put so much at risk through such a blatant act.
Once the failed encounter is past, we're subjected to the sordid "disclosure" of the event and its ramifications on other lives through the remainder of the film. Harassment hearings are never charming affairs, with contestents and their advocates striving to make each other look bad and succeeding long before any resolution is achieved. Although nobody in this film shines in performance, Roma Maffia almost walks with it as Douglas' lawyer. Even Donald Sutherland's role, which could also have been enhanced, is made too superficial to give him breathing room. It's inspiring to see this issue raised, it needs more exposure. Unfortunately, this isn't the film to make it happen.