9 1/2 Wochen

Two successful, but lonely yuppies embark on a sexual odessey for 9 and a 1/2 weeks. All people seem to talk about when it comes to this movie is about the sex scenes and the nudity in the film. This film is not about sex and nudity in my opinion. It is about control and power. I found this film to be intelligent and stylishly done and yes very erotic. Rourke and Basinger make a steamy couple and the ending and the events that unfolded in the film lingered with me long afterwards and left me thinking for a while. This is one film that actually seems to have gotten better with time.

I find it interesting that people can get so many different feelings and experiences from one movie, but then; this is exactly the type of movie that would cause such disparity. The question really is, are you watching the movie for entertainment, or to critique it? There are wondrous scenes of erotic intimacy here (unfortunately not as fully developed as they could be) - and glimpses into just what two people "in lust" will allow themselves to be led into... The sensuousness of the relationship is the key - not the believability of the surroundings or the rest of the 'plot'. Is it believable? It certainly is conceivable... Liz (Kim Basinger) studying slides at work, so distracted by her thoughts of intimacy with a man she hardly knows that she can't keep her hands off herself... John so taken with her that he will spend exorbitantly for a gift - to give a woman he doesn't know - but feels that he must meet. The passion and need for these two lonely people that lets them open doors to their inner selves and allow another in BEFORE thinking of the consequences (there are ALWAYS consequences, in film and life; for opening "those" doors). Is it believable that they would win the fight with the street thugs? No. Is it believable that the adrenaline rush, the release of the flight impulse and fear, the closeness found in 'defeating a common enemy'; could possibly lead to the intensity of sexual closeness and climax in a semi-secluded spot (under falling water at that)? Yes. Are the other scenes believable? It's entertainment, not a psychology class... They are conceivable, certainly. Ever been really mad at your partner, and that anger leads to words then breaking dishes then apologies then hugging then closeness then sex? How about anger leading directly to sex? It can happen, and it does. It is not so much a rape as it is a purging of desire. The scene with Liz blindfolded, and the whore coming in to the room - you share the tenseness Liz feels. Will she be stimulated? Of course. Will she let John know it turns her on? He already knows it does. He wants HER to know that he knows it will.

This movie is a glimpse of what manipulators people are. The efforts made to manipulate another person into 'making them want what you want'. So much so, that it becomes their desire, not yours. So much so that the desire is to see if you can manipulate the other becomes more consuming than the original goal. Seeing if she WILL crawl across the floor becomes more important than seeing her actually doing so. And her feeling the depth of her self in what she will do - and finding she is doing it because SHE wants to, not because he wants it. Liz takes her pleasure from John, too. What appears to be a "rape in progress" as John pushes Liz back on the table, ends with her crying because she was excited enough by it to climax. That is perhaps the 'real' rape; her discovery that even if she is initially violated, in her mind she realizes it arouses her enough to let it continue; and as it continues she finds herself clutching at her 'attacker'; and attaining orgasm. The rape as much of her mind as it is her body. It is her discovery of what she learns of herself. When she finally leaves the relationship, he finds he can't live without her. Who manipulated who?

This movie, dated as it is, is still fresh because it is enough like life to be real. No, we may not be that rich or that attractive or that selfish or that spoiled. But we also may wish at times that we were...

I agree with the writer who mentioned that this film is too often underrated because it deals with a very dark side of sexuality that many people deny in society and in themselves. The relationship portrayed in the film is an adult one, and as such it is not a Little Mary Sunshine portrayal. It is a mature look at sex, not love, and it never pretends to be a romance. The characters find each other and they enjoy each other in a way that many people cannot accept, and therein lies the reality, the truth of this film, as well as the reason that it is consistently overlooked. For an established actress like Kim Basinger to accept this role and play it as naturally as she did speaks to her talent as well at to her willingness to explore alternate "romantic" ideas on film. Mickey Rouke has always been a maverick force in film. Look at him in "Diner" and you will see what I mean by that. He is much more talented than people give him credit for, and younger filmophiles should discover this early work and try to perceive him as an actor, not a joke.

Although generally rubbished by critics because of the two lead actors, among other things, this was an interesting film in that it attempted to be artistic, something of a rarity for Hollywood. Much of what is presented was designed to look sexy, even if it was unlikely to be if you tried it yourself. And to give it its due, those responsible for art direction and cinematography did a pretty good job and it stands repeated viewings to pick up on nuances missed first time around. It is tantalizing but not especially erotic; a lot more is suggested than actually happens. Anyone who can remember working in an office in the 80s will relate to the telex machines, phones with bell-rings, and no desktop computer for the manger, and no mobile phones. The 80s apartment decor and fashions will also jog memories.

This memorable sexual drama is an adaptation of a novel by Elizabeth McNeill. Kim Basinger stars as a character named Elizabeth, a divorced art gallery worker. One day, she chances to meet John (Mickey Rourke), a charming young Wall Street financier. She finds out that he likes to play sexual games, and realizes that she's vulnerable to his manipulations. Ultimately, she finds this strange relationship taking dominance in her life.

"Nine 1/2 Weeks" is a largely two character film that is not degrading or "pornographic" as some people might have you believe. It's actually rather restrained, and even in its full length uncut version is never overly concerned with nudity or depravity. This may come as a disappointment to some potential viewers, but most of the time it's concentrating on detailing the evolution of this sex-based relationship.

Unfortunately, we never get to know our two principals all that well. But since she has more to work with, Basinger definitely comes off better. Rourkes' character forever remains an enigma. Also, for a film running close to two hours, it doesn't seem to have all that much story going for it.

The sex scenes will stick in the mind, even if most of them aren't particularly imaginative. The exception is the notorious "food" sequence, which was later parodied in "Hot Shots!". But the choice of song in the sequence kind of kills the mood.

Basinger looks positively ravishing throughout - the camera loves her - and she delivers an appealing performance. Familiar faces turn up - Margaret Whitton, David Margulies, Christine Baranski, Karen Young, Julian Beck, Dan Lauria, Ron Wood of The Rolling Stones, etc. - but the supporting cast has little to do in the grand scheme of things.

Fairly interesting but not all that successful, this marked a stepping stone for former actor Zalman King (who co-wrote and co-produced); he went on to a prominent career as a soft core auteur.

Six out of 10.