<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Indecent Proposal : Divorce Edition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fanedit.org/7142/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fanedit.org/7142/</link>
	<description>The wonderful world of movies - edited by fans for fans</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:32:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jelio</title>
		<link>http://fanedit.org/7142/comment-page-1/#comment-11020</link>
		<dc:creator>jelio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:30:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fanedit.org/?p=7142#comment-11020</guid>
		<description>This is an enjoyable cut of the film, recommended.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an enjoyable cut of the film, recommended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DwightFry78</title>
		<link>http://fanedit.org/7142/comment-page-1/#comment-11002</link>
		<dc:creator>DwightFry78</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:16:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fanedit.org/?p=7142#comment-11002</guid>
		<description>I saw Indecent Proposal years ago and didn&#039;t care for it at all. It seemed like an interesting subject cheapened down by an overly-Hollywoodized approach helmed by a hack, featuring phoned-in performances and moving at a sluggish pace. The best thing about it is the fact that it spawned one of the most memorable Simpsons episodes. But, the second best thing about it might very well be this recut version.

Plot: Consistent (or as consistent as the original script allowed), with no holes created by the edit. Now it&#039;s overall still contrived, but much more believable. In some moments, the characters even feel like human beings and not Hollywood clichÃ©s (in others, they&#039;re still awful, but no solution for that). Stopping where it does, this version is much darker and almost completely devoid of movie cheese, so it works much better than the original &quot;love conquers all&quot; garbage. The characters are still despicable (Gage a vomitive sexist asking David permission for things about Diana, the couple obnoxious snobs), but this version isn&#039;t trying as hard to force us to like them. Which is grateful. Still, I think that AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL sequence with Jeremy the lawyer and the two screenwriters should disappear. It adds nothing, is not narratively needed, and cheapens the overall movie. Rating: 9/10.

Image quality: This is only available as an .avi file, and the technical info indicates the source was a divx (which means compressed), and that&#039;s too bad. Blocking/pixelation is present all through it, particularly whenever a dark hue dominates the frame. Not too unusual for a xvid file, but it&#039;s too bad we aren&#039;t getting a DVD. The B&amp;W conversion does not create great visuals, sometimes it&#039;s more like ugly washed-out grey on grey, yet it&#039;s competent and works. Rating: 6/10

Audio quality: Again, this can&#039;t be judged against the standards of a DVD, but I noticed no mistakes or level errors whatsoever when watching it on a 2.0 system. Maybe a 5.1 would reveal further details, but so far, rating: 10/10.

Difference to the original: As I say, less Hollywood corn and more serious drama. Which improves things a lot. Still a bad movie, right, but that can&#039;t be fixed. Rating: 8/10.

Overall presentation: Only the .avi, which is too little and too bad for such a well made edit. Rating: 5/10.

Entertainment: Much higher level than the original could ever dreamed. Rating: 8/10.

Technical editing: FLAWLESS in audio and video, except maybe for one very slight jump at 0:46:32, in which there appear to be one or two missing frames. Still, it&#039;s hard to spot and it even may be a flaw of the original, I have seen way more noticeable hard cuts within the same shot in theatrically released movies (there are two particularly ugly ones in the James Bond film Never Say Never Again). Rating: 9/10.

Overall rating: 8/0. BUT, to the faneditor: please consider releasing a DVD, much preferably if it&#039;s a 2.0 version in which the screenwriters sequence is nowhere to be seen!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw Indecent Proposal years ago and didn&#8217;t care for it at all. It seemed like an interesting subject cheapened down by an overly-Hollywoodized approach helmed by a hack, featuring phoned-in performances and moving at a sluggish pace. The best thing about it is the fact that it spawned one of the most memorable Simpsons episodes. But, the second best thing about it might very well be this recut version.</p>
<p>Plot: Consistent (or as consistent as the original script allowed), with no holes created by the edit. Now it&#8217;s overall still contrived, but much more believable. In some moments, the characters even feel like human beings and not Hollywood clichÃ©s (in others, they&#8217;re still awful, but no solution for that). Stopping where it does, this version is much darker and almost completely devoid of movie cheese, so it works much better than the original &#8220;love conquers all&#8221; garbage. The characters are still despicable (Gage a vomitive sexist asking David permission for things about Diana, the couple obnoxious snobs), but this version isn&#8217;t trying as hard to force us to like them. Which is grateful. Still, I think that AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL sequence with Jeremy the lawyer and the two screenwriters should disappear. It adds nothing, is not narratively needed, and cheapens the overall movie. Rating: 9/10.</p>
<p>Image quality: This is only available as an .avi file, and the technical info indicates the source was a divx (which means compressed), and that&#8217;s too bad. Blocking/pixelation is present all through it, particularly whenever a dark hue dominates the frame. Not too unusual for a xvid file, but it&#8217;s too bad we aren&#8217;t getting a DVD. The B&amp;W conversion does not create great visuals, sometimes it&#8217;s more like ugly washed-out grey on grey, yet it&#8217;s competent and works. Rating: 6/10</p>
<p>Audio quality: Again, this can&#8217;t be judged against the standards of a DVD, but I noticed no mistakes or level errors whatsoever when watching it on a 2.0 system. Maybe a 5.1 would reveal further details, but so far, rating: 10/10.</p>
<p>Difference to the original: As I say, less Hollywood corn and more serious drama. Which improves things a lot. Still a bad movie, right, but that can&#8217;t be fixed. Rating: 8/10.</p>
<p>Overall presentation: Only the .avi, which is too little and too bad for such a well made edit. Rating: 5/10.</p>
<p>Entertainment: Much higher level than the original could ever dreamed. Rating: 8/10.</p>
<p>Technical editing: FLAWLESS in audio and video, except maybe for one very slight jump at 0:46:32, in which there appear to be one or two missing frames. Still, it&#8217;s hard to spot and it even may be a flaw of the original, I have seen way more noticeable hard cuts within the same shot in theatrically released movies (there are two particularly ugly ones in the James Bond film Never Say Never Again). Rating: 9/10.</p>
<p>Overall rating: 8/0. BUT, to the faneditor: please consider releasing a DVD, much preferably if it&#8217;s a 2.0 version in which the screenwriters sequence is nowhere to be seen!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uncleblue</title>
		<link>http://fanedit.org/7142/comment-page-1/#comment-10083</link>
		<dc:creator>uncleblue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 06:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fanedit.org/?p=7142#comment-10083</guid>
		<description>Amazed that i enjoyed this so much: Adrian Lynne, Woody Harrelson, Demi Moore....three strikes right there. But the combination of removing the color, the new topicality of another recession, and all the perfect tiny cuts you exacted on the original...all made this a truly impressive achievement. You took a movie I couldn.t get through when it first came out and turned  into the best movie it could possibly be.
Way to go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amazed that i enjoyed this so much: Adrian Lynne, Woody Harrelson, Demi Moore&#8230;.three strikes right there. But the combination of removing the color, the new topicality of another recession, and all the perfect tiny cuts you exacted on the original&#8230;all made this a truly impressive achievement. You took a movie I couldn.t get through when it first came out and turned  into the best movie it could possibly be.<br />
Way to go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hokie97</title>
		<link>http://fanedit.org/7142/comment-page-1/#comment-10067</link>
		<dc:creator>Hokie97</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:29:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fanedit.org/?p=7142#comment-10067</guid>
		<description>The idea of this fan edit caught my attention immediately. I had not seen the original in many years, probably since it first came out in 1993. But it was not a movie I would have watched more than once, in its original form. And that is why I like the Divorce Edition.

I thought that it was very well done. The edits were smooth, the sound and music flawless. I liked the black and white more than I thought I would. It really helped to hide some of the colors and patterns that date the original movie. 

The ending is somber, but that was the point, wasnâ€™t it? Life is often somber, and there are not always happy endings. Happy endings are predictable, clichÃ©d and not realistic. The way TV and movies are today, most everything has a happy ending. These days, when a movie starts, even when there is conflict, pain, angerâ€¦ you know that 95% or more of the time it will all be resolved in the end. There may be sadness, but in general it will also be happy. Because that is what the masses want. But personally, I like realism. When everything you see on TV is perfect people with perfect lives, it does not make me feel better. Why do I want other people to have perfect lives when I do not? Seeing that doesnâ€™t make me feel better about myself. I want real emotion, real reaction. In real life, I do not believe that Diana and David would have been able to stay together. Firstly, they did not seem that devoted in the beginning of the movie, and secondly, she was attracted to John Gage. Whether they shouldâ€™ve made the decision for Diana to spend the night with Gage is almost irrelevant. Right or wrong, the choice was made, and we all have to live with the choices we make. David was right to do what was right for him in the end. He needed to.

I recommend this version to anyone who believes that Hollywood happy endings are overdone. This movie is still hopeful, despite the ending. Rather than have a married couple continue to be married but at least half be unhappy or resentful or sorrowful, you have David, who can now move on with his life, and Diana, who can continue whatever it is she is doing with Gage, and have the money and the life that she thinks she wants.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea of this fan edit caught my attention immediately. I had not seen the original in many years, probably since it first came out in 1993. But it was not a movie I would have watched more than once, in its original form. And that is why I like the Divorce Edition.</p>
<p>I thought that it was very well done. The edits were smooth, the sound and music flawless. I liked the black and white more than I thought I would. It really helped to hide some of the colors and patterns that date the original movie. </p>
<p>The ending is somber, but that was the point, wasnâ€™t it? Life is often somber, and there are not always happy endings. Happy endings are predictable, clichÃ©d and not realistic. The way TV and movies are today, most everything has a happy ending. These days, when a movie starts, even when there is conflict, pain, angerâ€¦ you know that 95% or more of the time it will all be resolved in the end. There may be sadness, but in general it will also be happy. Because that is what the masses want. But personally, I like realism. When everything you see on TV is perfect people with perfect lives, it does not make me feel better. Why do I want other people to have perfect lives when I do not? Seeing that doesnâ€™t make me feel better about myself. I want real emotion, real reaction. In real life, I do not believe that Diana and David would have been able to stay together. Firstly, they did not seem that devoted in the beginning of the movie, and secondly, she was attracted to John Gage. Whether they shouldâ€™ve made the decision for Diana to spend the night with Gage is almost irrelevant. Right or wrong, the choice was made, and we all have to live with the choices we make. David was right to do what was right for him in the end. He needed to.</p>
<p>I recommend this version to anyone who believes that Hollywood happy endings are overdone. This movie is still hopeful, despite the ending. Rather than have a married couple continue to be married but at least half be unhappy or resentful or sorrowful, you have David, who can now move on with his life, and Diana, who can continue whatever it is she is doing with Gage, and have the money and the life that she thinks she wants.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
