Gross Misconduct (1993) User Reviews

weak B-movie

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 20 April 2022]

Justin Thorne (Jimmy Smits) is an American working as a college professor in Australia. One of his students, Jennifer Carter (Naomi Watts), works for him as a babysitter and keeps flirting with him.

This is an Australian film. It has a bit of Fatal Attraction but it comes without the bunny. The constant changes in Jennifer feels artificial. She's almost doing different characters. While I understand it, I don't like it. Does he have to play the sax? The movie is doing some cringey stuff. The sax really bugs me. It's a ham-fisted way to heighten Jimmy Smits' sex appeal and makes this cheap 90's cheese. Trust me. The man does not need more sex appeal. It does have Naomi Watts doing the softest of erotica which only adds to the movie's B-movie feel. It's 90's late night cable fare. The second half has a boring court case. It's basically an erotic B-movie with A-list stars.

Pretty Damn Bad

[morphion2 · 3/10 · 15 July 2005]

University Professor Justin Thorne (Jimmy Smits) has got it made. A good-looking, sophisticated teacher, with a loving wife and two adorable children. He plays the saxophone, owns an expensive car and his students love and respect him. But when temptation calls, in the form of one of his bright, pretty, sexy and willing students, Jennifer Carter (Naomi Watts), he foolishly gives in. The next day, he is being charged with her rape, and his perfect life could be forever ruined.

When we see an American actor in Australian film, we know we are not in for a masterpiece. But even viewed with low expectations, "Gross Misconduct" is a huge flop. Based on a play with a rather unimaginative title and then adapted into a reasonably enjoyable book, it fails to engage, convince or even remotely interest its audience on a most fundamental level. The script is awkward and unconvincing; the acting is, for most part, not much better. Watts gives an acceptable performance, demonstrating for one of the first times on screen her emotion rawness, but she is the only good thing about the film, which seems almost like even it can't wait to be over.

The direction is not horrible or distracting in anyway, but it is just painfully mediocre. Apart from the afore-mentioned Naomi Watts, who could be forgiven, seeing as this was early in her career, the acting is wooden and gets steadily worse over the course of the movie. The usually reliable Jimmy Smits doesn't seem to have been trying in this one, and who could really blame him? All these small failures, however, only add to the film's ultimate fatal flaw, which is that the focus is entirely in the wrong place. Any empathy for the characters or interest in the outcome is lost in a sea of what is basically soft-core entertainment of an adult kind. By the end, audiences will probably be bored, tired and wishing they'd done something else with their ninety minutes. Unless you just want to see Naomi get naked 4 or 5 times, you could definitely afford to give this nonevent film a miss.

Why?

[lanakael · 11 June 2001]

Why? I just saw this movie on Starz, and why is the question that comes to mind. Was Jimmy Smitts that badly in need of work? Or did he just not read the script correctly? Let's review, shall we?(Spoiler alert, sorry!) First off, a college professor who is well-known for his free love mentality, married to a woman he met while her professor some ten years hence, is seduced by a young woman who's his star pupil, the babysitter for his young children, and the Dean's daughter, no less. At first he does the right thing in telling her no, yet he doesn't take seriously her repeated(and escalating)advances. Nor does he **tell** anyone, his wife or the girl's father, about her behaviour. That's mistake #1. Then he openly banters with co-workers about her "crush" on him. Mistake #2, yes? She's already spending unusual amounts of time at his home and office, both for babysitting and for private tutoring sessions with this man. Mistake 3. When he **finally** gets around to taking her seriously enough to tell her to back off, she throws the predictable fit and he does the predictable pinning himself on her to stop her struggles. They kiss, he's hooked, they...well, ya know. Daddy, who's lost his wife in a car crash & transfers his grief/love for his wife onto his daughter in the sickest of manners, finds out and abuses his child in the worst way, leaving her mentally confused and ready to believe suggestions that her teacher raped her.

Smitts is portrayed here as a confused, sexually hyped, bumbling idiot of the highest order. In this age where a father is afraid to hug his kids for fear someone will take it the wrong way and level accusations, this man is openly spending time with a young girl in a manner which people can view as ambiguious, at BEST. He remains clueless as to the ramifications of continuing to spend time with her when half of England sees her draping herself on him every chance she gets. And when his world comes crashing down around him, he's wide-eyed with confusion. Unbelievable, and the father/daughter relationship is just sick.

I didn't think the shower scene with the girl was unrelated to the movie as some suggest. It portrayed subtly the awakening of a young woman to her body and the power of her own sexuality and fortells what can happen when the lines between fantasy and reality are blurred to dangerous results. Would that the rest of the movie had been done as well.

Nudity not needed

[cousinjon · 7/10 · 12 January 2001]

I gave this movie a 7. I would have given it a 9 but a couple scenes of full nudity were not needed at all! That was disappointing to say the least. Great film work and the acting was very good! I thought that this was one of Smits' best roles. He was amazing. Especially the scene where the students wrote on his chalk board! That was incredible!

Grossly Offensive

[j-thompson4-1 · 1/10 · 16 April 2006]

'Gross Misconduct' was one of a series of texts released in Australia during the early-to-mid 1990s that explored the supposed victimisation of the Privileged Heterosexual Male in the age of feminism. This creature only needs look at a Pretty Young Thing, and he's accused of sexual harassment, and his life is ruined. Damn those women's libbers! Grrr...

As my tone might suggest, I don't buy any of this anti-feminist BS, and correspondingly didn't enjoy this film. 'GM' trivialises the issues of sexual harassment and teacher-student relations. Sexual harassment is here the product of a Confused Young Woman's imagination, and those professional boundaries that teachers are meant to maintain ... well, when the teacher is a charming and handsome family man (and played by Jimmy Smits!), well needn't worry about those.

Sexist trash, and even by reviewing it, I'm giving it more time than it deserves.

An excellent and moving piece of film-art

[KarenJBristol · 10/10 · 7 February 2004]

It has been some time since I last saw this movie but what struck me, at the time I first saw it, and still now, was the over-all artistic quality. Set in my home-town of Melbourne, it is one of the rare pieces that actually shows this town as I know it.

Locations aside, this is the first movie I'd seen Naomi Watts in, and her talent shone through brilliantly. A difficult role for her, I'm sure, but she rose to the challenge :) Certainly a memorable performance.

Jimmy's inclusion is definitely something I give a standing-ovation to the casting directors for! You couldn't pick a better actor for this role. Jimmy is just simply made for roles like this!

Stunning and moving, plot-twists abound, quietly riveting from one minute to the next. I recommend this movie for anyone wanting quality viewing.

Horribly put together

[JBoze313 · 11 January 2001]

The story of the film is an interesting one that we've heard before, but that's not a problem--all films work like that. Well, most of them do, atleast. It looks as tho this film was made with a very small budget, which might actually be the case, and it takes away from it a lot. There are some sexually explicit scenes in the film, one of the most revealing being when the female lead is in the shower, and there's a full frontal shot of her nude. On that subject, what did that have to do with the story? Why was it necessary to add that scene? Especially at those angles (starting from her breasts, suddenly cutting to shots of her crotch).....makes no sense. This is a poorly put together movie, and it shows. The look of the film is somewhat shady in my opinion, and the way it's pulled off, I didn't find it very believable. Could have been much better. 5/10.

B movie with an interesting cast

[loftdweller · 9 January 2002]

Caught this one on the Mystery channel. I was curious about it because I liked Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive. The movie is pretty formulaic with some weak acting and poor production. In several opening scenes, you can even see the mike, so don't expect much here. Feels like a tv movie with strong sexual content.

One curious item is that in the opening scene, Naomi Watts' character is seen pleasuring herself while thinking about Jimmy Smits' character. For anyone who saw "Mulholland Drive," there is an eerie similarity to a pivotal scene in David Lynch's new dark tale. Curious foreshadowing to Ms. Watts' later roles.

Strong sexual scenes

[wasaap · 5 January 2001]

Although I watched it until the part where the police found her at a bus stop shaking, I thought it was sort of inappropriate for TBS Superstation to play and start it at around 10:30 PM. Young children may still have been watching it and in some places it showed the full female body, behind a very see thru shower curtain. Not appropriate unless starting at 1-2am