Metascore
35

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 17
  2. Negative: 7 out of 17
Watch On
  1. With some movies, though, it's just the opposite. Like this one. It's a whole lot easier to forget than to forgive.
  2. Redford's Gage is so busy being exquisitely sensitive and polite he neglects to project any energy, and without it the crucial morning-after part of the movie gradually collapses under the weight of its own self-importance. [07 Apr 1993 Pg. F1]
  3. 30
    The movie is hardly in a position to chastise Gage for his empty soul when its own style is one of numbing, desolate slickness.
  4. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    30
    This is one of those high-concept pictures with a big windup and weak delivery.
  5. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    25
    There's nothing sleazier than sleaze that fails to titillate, and this drab blight on a hot cast is as sleazy as a preordained hit ever gets. [07 Apr 1993 Pg. 08.D]
  6. In Adrian Lyne's latest monstrosity, love takes on money -- and loses. Not necessarily in the story, of course. This is a Hollywood movie. I'm talking between the lines.
  7. With a shamelessly cliched script by Amy Holden Jones (based on a novel by Jack Engelhard) that includes a speech plagiarized from Citizen Kane, the results are only for those who can take fare like "Valley of the Dolls" with a straight face and want to see Redford play Jay Gatsby again.
User Score
8.6

Universal acclaim- based on 46 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 1
  2. Negative: 0 out of 1
  1. Dec 16, 2010
    5
    average for me.... acting was sub par I thought compared to previous work the two major stars (Demi, RR) had done. Not a big Woody fan inaverage for me.... acting was sub par I thought compared to previous work the two major stars (Demi, RR) had done. Not a big Woody fan in anything lol

    Subject matter did hit a nerve though - "how would I feel?" worth watching but that's about it
    Full Review »