Un especialista en informática es demandado por acoso sexual por una examante, lo que amenaza tanto su carrera como su vida personal.Un especialista en informática es demandado por acoso sexual por una examante, lo que amenaza tanto su carrera como su vida personal.Un especialista en informática es demandado por acoso sexual por una examante, lo que amenaza tanto su carrera como su vida personal.
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados y 2 nominaciones en total
- Furillo
- (as Joe Attanasio)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaA decade later, Demi Moore was sued for sexual harassment by the caretaker of her Idaho ranch, Lawrence Bass, who claimed that she hit on him in the same manner she used to approach Douglas' character in this film, then fired him after he rejected her advances. The case was dismissed.
- ErroresThe mediation is completely unrealistic. In a mediation, no court reporter is present to make a transcript and the lawyers do not cross-examine the opposing parties; it is not a mini-trial. In reality, the parties explain their case to the mediator and the mediator tries to get the two sides to agree on terms.
- Citas
Catherine Alvarez: No means no. Isn't that what we tell women? Do men deserve less?
Meredith Johnson: Well, when he really wanted to stop, he didn't seem to have any problems doing it, did he?
Catherine Alvarez: And that's when you got angry.
Meredith Johnson: Of course I got angry. So would anyone.
Catherine Alvarez: Don't we tell women that they can stop at any point?
Meredith Johnson: Haven't you ever said no and meant yes, Mrs. Alvarez?
Catherine Alvarez: Up until the moment of actual penetration...
Meredith Johnson: [interrupting] The point is he was willing. That tape doesn't change anything.
Catherine Alvarez: The point is you controlled the meeting. You set the time. You ordered the wine. You locked the door. You demanded service and then got angry when he didn't provide it. So you decided to get even, to get rid of him with this trumped up charge. Ms. Johnson, the only thing you have proven is that a woman in power can be every bit as abusive as a man!
Meredith Johnson: You wanna put me on trial here? Let's at least be honest about what it's for! I am a sexually aggressive woman. I like it. Tom knew it, and you can't handle it. It is the same damn thing since the beginning of time. Veil it, hide it, lock it up and throw away the key. We expect a woman to do a man's job, make a man's money, and then walk around with a parasol and lie down for a man to fuck her like it was still a hundred years ago? Well, no thank you!
- ConexionesEdited into Die Geschichte des erotischen Films (2004)
Tom Sanders (Douglas) is an executive at DigiCom, a high-tech computer company, who hopes that now it's finally his time to get promotion. Passed over for an outsider, he's further irked when it turns out to be Meredith Johnson (Moore), an old passionate flame of his from years previously. When Meredith arranges for a meeting between the two later that evening, Tom finds himself sexually harassed by her. Spurning her aggressive overtures, Tom is shocked to learn the next day that she has filed a charge of sexual harassment against him. He naturally counters the charge, but this opens up a can of worms for both him and the future of DigiCom.
The 1990s practically belonged to Michael Crichton, it seemed for a time that everything he wrote was adapted to the big screen for some form of entertainment. With Jurassic Park still warm and still garnering bucket loads of cash, two other Crichton adaptations worked their way into theatres; both of which were a world away from the family friendly extravaganza of Jurassic Park. One was Rising Sun, a messy wasted potential of a movie, the other was Disclosure, a zeitgeist snatcher that seized the moment.
The topic, and the novelty of flipping the gender aggressor, was always going to make Disclosure of much interest, thus the film and the novel made big money: aided still further by the hot casting of Douglas and Moore, who were still draw cards in the early 90s. Crichton, after being displeased with other adaptations of his work, got big say on the screenplay as a written project. So with director Levinson in tow, he set about pushing the buttons of his audience, attempting to continue the heated debates that were brought about previously from Douglas' Fatal Attraction and Basic Instinct. If it's Crichton's or Levinson's fault that it didn't work out that way? I'm not sure, but fact is, is that Disclosure really wasn't that potent back then, and certainly now it's not even lukewarm.
There's too much techno babble going on, and an over keenness to stick the nose up at the big business vultures picking the flesh off of the lesser minions. Entering the last half hour of the film, it's easy to forget there has actually been a sexual harassment case! Here's the crux of the matter, if going in to it for a first time viewing expecting this to be a powder-keg of sexual harassment muckiness and legal intrigue, then you are in for a big disappointment. I know, because I was one of the paying patrons at the theatre back in 94! You sense that one of the makers got a bit carried away
Yet the film still has much going for it if stripped of that expectation, not least that it packs a pile of tension in that last half hour and the finale is rather rewarding. I'd go as far to say I'm a fan of the film, but it's not the film I originally went to see! There's a trio of interesting and differing female characters at the front of the narrative, even if Moore's stair-master vixen isn't exactly developed beyond being a bitch, and the virtual reality sequences have an appealing charm about them. The cast are turning in good ones, with a notable shout out to Caroline Goodall who wisely underplays it as the wife. While the interior set design (Gary Lewis/Joseph Hodges) for the DigiCom HQ is wonderful with its 90s excess of glass meeting mirrors and open spaces. Which leaves us with what?
A film that is not what you expect! Which in this case is both disappointing and a surprise. 7/10
- hitchcockthelegend
- 24 jul 2011
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Disclosure
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 55,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 83,015,089
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 10,068,126
- 11 dic 1994
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 214,015,089
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 8 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1