Love in Paris

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.

Ice-cold movie that fails to engage the viewer, despite having loads of glamor, which is what RavenGlamDVDCollector is all about, so if I'm not happy about it, something is seriously wrong. To the reviewer who said that Angie Everhart would have been great had it been a silent movie, hell, you summed it up most eloquently! She looks like a thoroughbred racehorse, but fails to emote any real feeling. True, she is a classy- looking leading lady, but comes across as not even lukewarm. Makes me wary of pursuing her other titles.

At the beginning of the movie there is this scene with a fantastically beautiful girl, only credited as 'beautiful blonde' (Philippa Mathews). However, John Gray isn't satisfied by her, and his attention wanders, he is distracted by a neighing cart-horse that seems to have suffered a stroke outside in the street. The police arrive and they administer a lethal injection to put the poor animal out of its misery. This is a metaphor for this entire movie.

Mickey Rourke isn't as bad as one of the reviewers made him out to be. Twelve years later, of course he'd be far less good-looking. Couldn't care much for the character of John Gray though. Movie cried out for Kim Basinger, who was riding the crest of the wave of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL at the time and couldn't be bothered, lucky for her. Or perhaps Adrian Lynne might have been there had Kim been there? Anyway, a decent spark of real interest might have kickstarted this flimsy plot.

Jeesh, those hateful paintings! So Liz is supposed to have painted that dreck? With Vittorio as the model? Yuck! They're worth a few hundred dollars, and that's for the frames. Jeremiah the Bullfrog on a bad day is a much more pleasing sight. Listen, they obviously obtained the rights to plow with other people's horses, but they sure lead them astray. So Kim wasn't available, so Liz is dead?

Stylish people are, I suppose, quite often merely coldly efficient. There is only a reptile heart there, I suppose. Which is what is wrong here. The fashion show fails to be really exciting, it's all so damned cold, it looks good, but really lacks warmth. Glamor with very little sex appeal, or perhaps, sex appeal with no real sexiness? Nothing playful. These observations have been very educational to me. I have pinpointed a coldness in too-fluently-executed perfection. RavenGLAM has learned of a flaw in beauty. Perhaps over- confidence caused this coldness? Perhaps super-cold people hide behind visual excellence? Hell, HELP! This movie is ruining RavenGLAM!

Best thing of the movie: End credit (!!! No I didn't mean it that way!!!) featuring Julienne Taylor. Why Did You Do It? Hauntingly beautiful. Words doesn't really fit in with the theme of the movie, so it is simply played at the end. But wondrously good, a joy to hear.

Very poor sequel. Unsatisfactory. My rating of three is simply influenced by positively rewarding several glamorous scenes, the beauty, the composition, the photography. I cannot allow myself to give it just a one, which it truly doesn't even deserve. For what has been lost here, is big.

In its defense, it hardly belongs on the Top 100 Worst Movies. There are thousands of titles out there that fit that bill. But if you bestow this accolade as a warning to future fools who dare to tread where angels backed off, then I quite understand, and just nod sagely.

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.

9 1/2 Weeks, the predecessor, wasn't much but it was a masterpiece compared to this film, which is incoherent, unerotic and much too long. In other words, a colossal bore on every count. I never did think much of Mickey Rourke as an actor but he had a certain magnetism when he was young. In this movie, he looks like a dissipated wreck and he never exhibits any attractive characteristics that would explain the behavior of the young women that throw themselves in his destructive path. In the version I saw it was called, not Love in Paris, but Another 9 1/2 Weeks, and it seemed more like Another 9-1/2 Years.

All that really stands out in my mind is the poor acting from "Lea". This movie lacked all purpose, and what made it worse was the poor excuse for acting from an otherwise talented model. Slow moving, lacked any depth in it's scenes, and made the first movie look like a masterpiece. Overall, not very good at all.