Avaliações de usuários

A tale of sexual harassment in the office with a twist – this time, the guy is the victim and the woman the pursuer. Yes, it's another thriller that builds on Michael Douglas's typecasting as a victim of powerful women (following FATAL ATTRACTION and BASIC INSTINCT) but this one plays all the right cards. Part workplace drama, part courtroom thriller, and all the time invested with now-dated-but-then-cutting-edge technology (email, virtual reality) I found Disclosure to be never less than intriguing and well made. The Crichton source material helps, of course; I haven't yet seen a Crichton film that hasn't been thought-provoking and entertaining (even the worst, CONGO, isn't entirely without merit, although the book is loads better).

I've been seeing a lot of Douglas in recent months and my opinion of him has steadily improved to the degree that I can't remember him giving a bad performance. He's fine here, providing a key likable anchor for the film to revolve around, and playing opposite him Demi Moore is also a surprise: she oozes sexuality and selfishness in equal measure, proving a powerful enemy at all times. Moore isn't the world's greatest actress but this might well be her best performance in a film.

The courtroom scenes, tense and full of electricity, are undoubtedly the film's highlights and there are supporting actors to relish (Donald Sutherland, Allan Rich and in particular a slimy Dylan Baker). It's not a perfect film, but it is a reminder of the kind of solid, sensual thriller that got made during a sometimes forgotten decade of filmmaking.

I'm really surprised that there are next-to-no comments on this excellent thriller. It has been on ITV many times now, but I have only just caught it now after reading a second-hand copy of the novel. This thriller deals with the inequality between men and women in the corporate workplace brilliantly, displaying the clichéd attitudes of so-called friends and colleagues. this film has a real moral to it that rises it up from the blockbuster it is intended to be. The plight of the man against the megalomaniac female corporate boss seems quite desperate against the political correctness of the 90's, but is also sadly realistic showing what an unphilanthropic, complicated world this sometimes is. Especially in the ever-dominant world of corporations, simple human empathy is lost against a backlash of other most often selfish concerns. Michael Douglas as Tom was superb, although the acting of Meredith was sometimes a bit too clichéd, although this of course is what it was meant to be. All-in-all a very enjoyable, gripping thriller with all the plot that only usually a novel adaptation can give, exploring a real contemporary issue which other thrillers typically leave blank.

This is a pretty good drama with an excellent cast of characters. The story centers around Michael Douglas, who plays a division head in a high tech company in Seattle that is undergoing a merger. Demi Moore plays his old girlfriend, an aggressive corporate executive, who comes in and snatches away the job promotion he was counting on, then failing to seduce him after hours, files a false sexual harassment with the company in order to get rid of him.

It's interesting that although the story revolves around Michael Douglas's plight, it's the women who set the events in motion and who help the protagonist resolve the problem he's presented with. Female empowerment is the main theme of this movie.

Demi Moore gets perhaps her best movie role ever by playing the sexual predator to Michael Douglas's easygoing mid-level manager. She knows how to play the corporate game much better than him, and quickly boxes him into a dicey situation. How does a guy explain that it was his female boss who hit on him and not the other way around as she claims? Demi Moore controls the situation well for most of the movie, and plays the villain so well that the viewer really enjoys when she finally gets her comeuppance.

Roma Maffia does an excellent job of playing Michael Douglas's lawyer. He's lost on how to respond to the sexual harassment charges and what to do to preserve his job, and she forcefully takes over his defense and steers him towards a successful resolution. She also understands how the game is played and keeps her nerve when the company comes after her client.

Caroline Goodall plays Michael Douglas's wife and displays a perfect combination of anger and support while he resolves the charges against him. A lawyer herself, she understands the situation her husband has gotten into much better than he does, and is there for him as both an advisor and partner.

Rosemary Forsyth plays another female executive at the company who, without giving away the plot, mentors Michael Douglas through his dilemma. She's smart, but calm and principled, and in fact it is she, not Douglas, who eventually gets the promotion to head the company.

Even though Michael Douglas is the protagonist and eventually overcomes the crisis he's facing, his character is basically weak in the movie. He's carefree and unfocused at the outset, assuming the job promotion is his because he's done a good job for the company, and is completely blindsided when a woman takes it away from him and then threatens his career and his marriage. Douglas eventually takes charge and with alot of outside help and some improbable plot twists gets the upper hand, but in the cutthroat world of corporate intrigue, he's the little fish who gets lucky and swims out of the net.

Donald Sutherland hands in his usual fine performance as the president of the company. Dennis Miller plays a computer geek working for Michael Douglas and has a few humorous moments, but suddenly turns nasty in the middle of the movie and then just disappears. Dylan Baker plays a sort of Mr. Smithers kind of character to Donald Sutherland's Monty Burns, and is just egregious enough make you hate him, which is a good sign of a performance well done.

There are a few plot twists that offend the viewer's senses and things are wrapped up just a bit too neatly, but all in all, this is pretty good entertainment from start to finish. The movie touches an important issues, sexual harassment in the workplace, and makes it more interesting by making the woman the aggressor and the man the victim. Not surprisingly, I noticed that women gave this movie a higher average rating than did the men.

I have not read the Crichton novel, so I cannot compare the two. It's too seldom you see a thriller that really *works* without the threat being that of the protagonist(s) being physically harmed by someone chasing and/or attacking them. After his new female boss throws herself(quite literally) at him, Tom Sanders is in trouble. Who's going to believe him? The allegation sounds absurd, it seems. This is a believable scenario, and it remains that way through most of the film. The plot is interesting, and the twists and turns are unexpected. This has a marvelous pace, and it's never boring. It's exciting from start to finish. The leads have great chemistry, and all parts are well-cast. Every acting performance is riveting. Douglas, Moore and Sutherland are of course magnificent, and Miller is spot-on in a role that you can tell, as the Trivia confirms, was written to fit him. Cinematography and editing are good. The special effects do look a tad dated, and I'm not sure the film absolutely needed that portion, but they do the job fine. Computers and such in this are not completely credible, it is Hollywood after all. This touches upon important subjects, and treats them with respect. Barry Levinson does an impeccable job directing. There is no nudity, one sequence of strong sex, and a moderate amount of unrestrained language in this. I recommend this to any fan of those involved in making it and/or the book(possibly). 7/10

"Disclosure" deserves better treatment than it got from the critics. Sexual harassment of males by female superiors may be rare (and more likely than harassment of females by males to go unreported) but it takes place. Both Michael Douglas and Demi Moore are playing against type; only Donald Sutherland fits his character like a glove. But it's a reasonably good film and the major scene in which Moore's character is exposed as a liar and schemer works well, though with a boat load of improbable touches. If it makes the corporate world look like a jungle with predators around every bend, well, if you've been exposed to the corporate world it isn't much of a stretch.

Disclosure is directed by Barry Levinson and co-adapted to screenplay by Paul Attanasio and Michael Crichton from Crichton's own novel of the same name. It stars Michael Douglas, Demi Moore, Donald Sutherland, Roma Maffia, Dylan Baker, Caroline Goodall and Rosemary Forsyth. Music is scored by Ennio Morricone.

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

Not-terrible adaptation of Michael Crichton's bestseller about an honest executive at a Seattle-based computer company mixed up in office politics, corporate mergers, and he said/she said sexual misconduct. Paul Attanasio's screenplay is full of outrageous, unconvincing twists and turns, which director Barry Levinson seems to inexplicably relish in. Still, if you meet the picture half-way, it's a lot of fun on strictly a low-brow level. Michael Douglas is solid as usual, Demi Moore is agreeably villainous, but Donald Sutherland comes up with nothing new as a shady corporate head. Rather smirking and silly, though it does offer callow pleasures for those in the right mood. ** from ****

I was very surprised that nobody else has commented on this movie. It is one of the better Crichton book adaptations (although it still varies from the book a lot) and deals with an interesting (if not important) topic. The acting is good. The film has serious, comedic, and other aspects (including some computer and technical stuff). It is not a great movie, but it was well received and is at least above average. Plus, it has the feel and look of a good movie (it is not a waste of money).

This film may not be exactly a thriller, but it comes close. Michael Douglas gives one of his best performances here as a man who is seduced by his boss (Demi Moore who is hotter than hell) and she sues him for sexual harassment. Good dialogue (by author Michael Chricton) and good performances make this watchable, and the plot is also kinda intelligent. Dennis Miller has a small role as a co-worker. A-

Michael Douglas plays Tom Sanders, a successful computer specialist working for a big firm who is passed over for promotion in favor of an old flame named Meredith Johnson(played by Demi Moore). She is very ambitious, and seems to have undue influence over the CEO, which proves to be the case as Meredith tries to seduce Tom after hours in her office. Tom, a happily married man, is tempted by her beauty, but resists. He is later shocked to learn that she has reported him for sexual harassment, so he has no choice but to sue her, which endangers his future within the company, but Tom will discover that things are not as simple as they seem, and Meredith has another agenda at work...

Based on Michael Crichton's novel, and well directed by Barry Levinson, this features fine acting by its stars, and a fascinating story with many twists and turns, that leads to a satisfying finale.

I have a theory that certain actors take the same role again and again because they either (a) feel it brings out the best in them, (b) they have personal issues that they cannot help but expose, or (c) that's all they get offered.

I can't tell which applies to Michael Douglas, but I think its a little of each. In 'Fatal Attraction', he has an weekend-long affair with the anti-Christ and pays for it in spades. In 'Basic Instinct' he is never sure if he is going to get killed or seduced by Sharon Stone. In this movie, his feelings are hurt that Demi Moore is more masculine than he is.

All the female characters I've mentioned are more masculine than Mikey, come to think of it.

He gets sexually attacked by Demi, on her first night as his boss, but he stops them mid-stream. This is a little much to..(please excuse the expression)..SWALLOW, and the sight of Demi running after him, ordering him to 'finish what he started', has nothing on Neely O'Hara's confrontation with the demons from her past in an alleyway in 'Valley of the Dolls.'

He decides to sue the company but remains a weiner. He gets a masculine woman, Roma Maffia (she's the only reason to endure this), to do his bidding for him. She wins, of course, cause he's the hero and Demi is the predator, as designed.

Quite alot remains unquestioned. Why he would want to work there, after he finds out that they intended to get rid of him, is anyone's guess. Why Demi allowed herself to be treated so badly, when she is obviously a shark, is open for discussion. Why Barry Levinson directed this yawner is another good one, and why you'd want to sit through it, too...

Oh, and Michael...chin up, you'll work it out..

Sexual harrassment soars to new concepts in this compelling film based on the novel of the same title by Michael Chricton.

Tom Sanders (Michael Douglas) is psyched up about his promotion at DigiCom. But, as he arrives at work that morning, he finds out that the promotion never happened, but the position of Vice President was given to a woman. Of course, its not just any woman, its Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore), a woman from his past. Sanders discloses that he once was in a whirlwind romance with Meredith, but they parted ways and he came to Seattle, married, and started a family. Now, she wants nothing more to rekindle their romance, which Sanders doesn't want. An after-hours encounter leads to Meredith crying sexual harrassment, Sanders claiming he was the one who was really harrassed. Now, Sanders must be able to push past her power and status to show people what Meredith is really all about.

This was a great movie, based on an amazing novel. Douglas as Tom Sanders is what I expected, middle aged with a family, successful. However, the novel describes Meredith Johnson as blonde, while Demi Moore was not what I really pictured. However, her performance as "Super-Bitch" Meredith is convincing. She makes you hate her, no matter how much you like the characters she played in other films.

The part where Sanders struggled with Johnson in her office was extremely graphic. My mom predicted that I would cover my eyes, but I was very fascinated with it. In the book, this particular scene was EXTREMELY long, about 15 pages.

In conclusion, I thought "Disclosure" was a very well-done film with a great cast. Performances by Moore and Douglas were great, with a good supporting cast to back them up. It gives a good understanding of the American Legal System and sexual harrassment, and proves that sexual harrassment works on two levels. Sex is truly power, and if you have it, you have it, and if you don't...well, you'll have to work hard to prove yourself. I highly recommend seeing this film, but read the novel in addition to the movie. You won't regret it.

Disclosure could have been a great movie. For its time, it probably was. All the ingredients are there - capable actors, an intriguing story, not to mention the erotic greatness provided by Demi Moore. She plays the boss of Michael Douglas' character, and she invites him to her office and proceeds to make sexual advances on him, then accuses him of sexually harassing her. The movie then goes into the mediation of these claims, and these are the best scenes because it really shows how people can instinctively side with the woman in these cases despite evidence pointing to the contrary. Moore's lawyer interrogates Douglas ruthlessly, asking him leading questions and bringing up their sexual history in order to make him look as guilty as possible. And on top of all that, Douglas is a family man so it's also taking a toll on his marriage. All of these elements work.

What doesn't work is the cyber-thriller aspect. The computer graphics are HORRIFIC. Even for the '90s it looks bad; these days it looks like a glitchy Atari game. And one of the main plot lines revolves around Douglas receiving messages from an anonymous source on his computer, so a lot of time is spent looking at dated interfaces. The movie's climax goes a step further and throws virtual reality into the mix, and those scenes make the X-Files episode 'First Person Shooter' look like a visual masterpiece. It really takes you out of the movie, despite Ennio Morricone's best efforts on the music front.

Disclosure is certainly watchable. It has some witty and clever dialogue, it deals with serious issues in a tasteful manner, and has a wonderful sex scene that will keep your eyes glued on screen even if you detest the rest of the film. Overall, Disclosure is a serviceable thriller, ending the Michael Douglas sex trilogy with a bang. Literally.

1994 was a great, great year for movies. That year, audiences and movie history were blessed with the classic THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, Tarantino's milestone of cinema, PULP FICTION, Stone's own landmark Tarantino adaptation, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, the much loved FORREST GUMP, and many other good movies. Then there's stuff like DISCLOSURE, no... that's unfair. Very little Hollywood fluff gets as bad as DISCLOSURE. There were other bad movies released in 1994, but they were the safe, normal bad movies we've come to expect.

DISCLOSURE dares you to enter the terrifying cut-throat business world in which bad dialogue runs rampant, characters appear in cartoonish clarity or linger blurred in the background, and all dramatic points are rendered in stark black and white.

If I hadn't seen a little cheapie shot-on-video horror movie called HELLSPAWN, I'd call DISCLOSURE the worst movie of its year. The packaging looked intriguing at first: we have the usually respectable Michael Douglas, the "talented" Demi Moore, and the once respectable Barry Levinson. Then there's that whole roles-reversed sexual-harassment thing. It sounded like a neat idea at first, but they brought it off as some cheesy thriller complete with bad suspense and a hero who is constantly accidentally implicating himself. It's like FATAL ATTRACTION plus crap.

In short, it's about a guy (Douglas) being sexually harassed at the workplace by his superior, and ex-lover (Moore). Nobody believes him because guys generally like girls coming onto them even when they're married (if the film was good it might have dispelled this sexist stereotype). The matter gets legal and things complicate.

Now, we've seen hundreds of these bad thrillers, but DISCLOSURE isn't satisfied with being a regular old bad thriller. Instead, Demi Moore, Donald Sutherland, Michael Douglas, and probably the entire supporting cast are entangled in some kind of shady deal involving technology and the manufacture of microchips overseas. This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't result in supposedly important techno-babble about the technologies for which they obviously failed to consult a technical advisor. That isn't the worst of it either. The real stinker of this flick is the virtual reality scene. Michael Douglas puts on the virtual reality goggles to uncover footage exposing corporate black-ops, only to find a cheesy 2D icon of Demi Moore deleting his files with what looks like a laser-beam (Ha! Ha!). And then comes the computer-geek with angel wings and a halo, trying to warn Douglas while still in virtual reality. The scene inspires one to say out loud "What the F***?"

Meanwhile in reality, Douglas has a wife who doesn't trust him, people in his office shifting loyalties, accusations- the whole deal. None of it is interesting, and you can see the twists coming a mile around the corner. Levinson renders it all very dull, taking no steps to save the picture from its script. Levinson even fails to put the beautiful Seattle locales to the proper use. I think this one really unmasked him as a bad director (after all, how good was RAIN MAN, really?). DISCLOSURE is a bad 80s concept trying to squeeze into the newly forged 90s in all the wrong ways.

The final result is truly inexcusable. DISCLOSURE should only be watched for laughs, and even then, only out of severe boredom. For a good suspense/thriller involving a domineering woman and sex, see PLAY MISTY FOR ME. For a good 90s movie, see any of the films I named in the first paragraph. Just stay far away from DISCLOSURE!

1994's Disclosure shows viewers to a subject and issue that is coming more and more common in the workforce and society that is sexual harassment. You have Michael Douglas as a computer executive Tom Sanders, who rejects the advanced passion of his new boss an old-flame played perfect by the hot and sexy Demi Moore. Only to find out later that his whole life and career is on the line when he's accused of sexual harassment, the tables are turned only as he later finds out this is all a game of company conspiracy and sexual politics, the Sanders character is one you cheer for to win his lawsuit and career. I'm thankful for Barry Levinson and Michael Crichton who show with this film that sexual harassment can come from a female instead of a male. Men are sometimes wrongly stereotyped as the predators instead of the prey, and that many women in the workforce have ego problems and power trips just like the Moore character. Disclosure is a good movie not a great movie that shows women can be just as guilty as men with issues like sexual harassment, and remember be careful and stay away from a female with a little bit of given power.

This film was supposedly about sexual harassment but somehow got diverted into corporate shenannigans. Michael Douglas and Caroline Goodall play the happily married couple and Demi Moore the predatory female with the hots for Douglas. The plot is convoluted involving takeovers, technology and an old love affair. The sexual harassment aspect seems to have been added as an afterthought and does not appear to add anything to the corporate goings on.

What really rankled me were the all too obvious differences between the two women. Demi Moore was made up and dressed up to the nines with figure-hugging dresses and killer heels. Caroline Goodall had no hair style, no dress style and no heels. I'm sorry if I'm going on too long about this but the contrasts were too blatant to be believable.

Also unbelievable was Douglas' refusal of Moore's advances. Why an actor of Douglas' calibre chooses to make films like this is difficult to fathom. The same could also be said of the other cast members. I've rated this film 4 because there is a serious message in there somewhere but this is not the film to broadcast it.

The sex scene with Michael Douglas and Demi Moore is one of the hottest things ever on film that wasn't X rated.

Incredibly there is no nudity in the scene in which I can recall.

It was truly sensual and hot and showed that a woman could be just as cruel as a woman when it comes to corporate politics and the cut throat world of technology.

Douglas is known for his passionate scenes with Sharon Stone, but in my mind the scenes with Demi are far more erotic.

For whatever reason this film didn't really have the impact I thought it would have as a cultural statement on the world of corporate America.

Another film watched in preparation for a "How Did This Get Made" podcast episode, bizarrely I had this on DVD... why? I've no idea. Anyway, I've watched it last night and though tonally it's pretty strange - it's mostly a film that time has not been kind too.

Michael Douglas (right in the middle of his sex/thriller run) plays Tom Sanders, a manufacturing executive in a Seattle tech company that's about to go through a lucrative merger. A few days before the Merger is due to go through, a Vice-President role, which Tom was up for goes to Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore) a former lover of Tom's before he settled down. On her first evening, Meredith calls Tom to her office and tries to rekindle their physical relationship, which he declines. The following morning Meredith accuses Tom of sexual harassment in the workplace, which he counters by contacting a solicitor and accusing her of the same thing.

The film is now 24 years old, so it's not surprising that a film that was at the cutting edge of technology at the time is now hilariously out of date. Much of the plot revolves around the construction of CD Disk drives. There are email, web sites and video calls all of which look incredibly primitive to today's eyes but most bizarre of all is the VR representation of the company's main storage drive - which is then deleted in one of the funniest dramatic sequences of all time, towards the films climax. Humorous as all this is, it's not really fair to criticise the film for it a quarter of a century later.

It's much fairer though to criticise the film for its strange tone. Ostensibly advertised as an erotic thriller, though there's only one sex scene and it's not particularly titillating. The film then spends a lot of time pretending it's a legal drama, then a tech thriller before finally ending with the merger nonsense. I'm not sure it does a great job of explaining what's actually happening in the scheme that the film hinges on. I think I worked it out afterwards but I did have to sit and think about it for a while. Throughout all that, there's odd moments of humour - occasionally almost slapstick that jar with the rest of the film.

I don't want to get too down on the film as it was successful at the time, but I have to say that "mild boredom" was my most common experience throughout the runtime and I won't be back to see it again any time soon.