Love in Paris

This film truly bored me. Roarke looks terrible, Angie Everhart's character went nowhere. The storyline is incomprehensible.

Let me start with the good points: the movie is on a high quality print, the art direction is lovely, the sets are sumptuous, the exteriors are shot in Paris and the French countryside (how bad can you screw that up)

And that's about it. The entire movie is shot in a corny blue lighting scheme, and most of the sets are also blue. Given the presence of such a beautiful woman, Miss Everhart, and given that she did some rare-for-her topless scenes, some clearer lighting might have been sexier.

Talk about a lack of Chemistry between leads. These two never seem to like each other at any time.

Rourke looks better suited to do a sequel to Angel Heart than 9 1/2 Weeks. He's aging ... gracelessly. He looks like a ventriloquist's dummy that recently had his hair refitted. Despite his physical appearance, Rourke gives it his best shot, and he's pretty effective as a man locked inside himself, tortured by past mistakes and chances never taken. This could have been very effective opposite Kate Blanchett or Emma Thompson or Gwyneth, but just seems to echo unnoticed off Everhart.

Miss Everhart is a presence. Unfortunately, sound developed before color, and there were never any silent color movies, which would have been perfect for her.

She has a magnificent physical aura, at 5'11", with the mane of hair, the supermodel looks, and the ability to fill out a sweater with extraordinary curves. But the girl went to the Royal Kathy Ireland Academy of Dramatic Arts. In terms of depth, she makes Pam Anderson seem like Soren Kirkegaard. She delivers every line with the chirpy intonations of a high school cheerleader. Surely there is more to her than this? What possessed someone to cast her in this role as a successful and powerful career woman?

Well, what else is there to say about a pseudo-arty piece of erotica that isn't erotic? Missing the right leads, and missing any chemistry between them ... what else could redeem the movie? Plot? You want plot? Maybe you should try to re-watch Sleuth instead of renting this movie.

The original 9 1/2 weeks was a fun and sexy film that was full of life. Another 9 1/2 Weeks is almost the exact opposite of the first film and that's why so many fans of the first film were so unhappy with this one. This ain't 9 1/2 Weeks. In this one the character of John is so devastated by the loss of Elizabeth (his lover from the first film) that in the opening moments he places a gun to his head. It doesn't get any happier from there. A few scenes later he looks out his window and sees a once beautiful horse being turned into a dead one. That pretty much describes the state of John and of this sequel. It's a dark dirge of a movie with none of the joy of the first film and that's the whole point. We see John with sexual partners, including a prostitute he tries to pretend is Elizabeth, but there's zero chemistry even with the film's lead actress Angie Everhart. Elizabeth departure has left a void in John's soul and few know the dark places of a man's soul like Mickey Rourke. Just take a look at his performance in Angel Heart if you have any doubts. This time Rourke's face has become so battered from boxing that his appearance fits his character's emotional devastation perfectly and this is underscored by the film's black and blue cinematography. Rourke's John truly seems to be a man who has lost everything as he wanders from the art galleries to the dark alleys of Paris like a ghost searching for some glimpse of redemption. It's not a pretty picture and it's not supposed to be. This is film about pain, loss, and regret. It's a joyless purgatory of a film which works best as a canvas for Rourke's haunting performance as the devastated John. This is not 9 1/2 Weeks. This sequel is bleak, dark, and tragic. That's what I like about it.

First off I LOVED the original 9 1/2 weeks, let me remind you that this film was previously close to 3 hours long and very faithful to the book (at least that is what I have read) apparently test audiences felt it was too disturbing so the director, Adrien Lyne was forced to cut A lot of parts. this is why the film looks disjointed - if you haven't noticed, the editing was pretty bad. I even read the Mickey Rourke had wanted Lyne to stick to his guns and let the film stay faithful to the book.

if you haven't read the book yet.. PICK IT up - its by far the best erotic novel I've ever read, its short and to the point.. apparently it is based on a true story - so it intrigues me even more.

back to my review on this sequel, lets face it folks most sequels are always bad.. its hard to make a great sequel period. when I first heard that there is a sequel to this film I was in shock - I felt that they should leave the story alone. but many of us who have watched the original have often wondered what became of the two protagonist... this sequel takes us there.

the biggest turn off was Angie Everhart's acting... yes she is gorgeous (not as gorgeous as Kim Basinger in my opinion) but looks only go so far - she was merely eye candy, watching her scenes was painful.

Mickey was great as the tortured John. I agree with another reviewer that the filmmakers made a wise choice to start the sequel where the original left off. I'm sure others would have liked john to move on - but that sometimes isn't reality. In theory the story was good, it just wasn't executed that well.

I really felt deeply sad for him and the fact that he could not be with the one woman he loved - even when confronted with gorgeous women - its just not the same chemistry as he had with liz. I like the fact that elizabeth liked the games John played without having to tell him directly - she was almost like a child - which John liked. whereas lea wanted john to play with her sooo bad - it seemed pathetic.

anywho.. the acting on everhearts part made the film bad for me... overall the film wasn't that bad. I think most audiences are use to the typical films which Hollywood feeds us with, this one was different. It was extremely sad and painful - a love story so intense and so amazing, one in which its main protagonist has to move on with his life knowing that he will never be with the love of his life ever again.

There aren't enough words to describe what a disappointment this movie was. As a staunch fan of 9 1/2 Weeks, I was dubious about a sequel, but even my low expectations couldn't match the reality of "Love in Paris".

Nothing about the movie was reminiscent of the orignal. The role of John Gray seemed more pathetic than anything else. In addition to his "impotent" personality, was the fact that Mickey Rourke had gotten so out of shape that he was never allowed to take his shirt off. (Thank God)

Angie Everhart was true to form with her poor acting skills, and the plot was so weak that several scenes were obvious and badly revamped copies from the first movie.

The sad part is that they couldn't even get the scarf right. How hard is it to find/make a scarf to look like the original? This goes to show that Love in Paris is NOT a sequel. It is a movie that must stand on its own, lest it tarnish the memory of that first and great movie that it is loosely based upon. Trust me, if you experienced any type of titillation/attraction for the first movie/original characters...you do not want to see Love in Paris. Not only will you be disappointed in it, but the images of a paunchy and washed-up Mickey Rourke will erase any pleasant memories of you have of charismatic John Gray.