Love in Paris

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.

Another 9 1/2 Weeks (1997)

1/2 (out of 4)

What on Earth were they thinking? John Gray (Mickey Rourke) travels to Paris to try and track down Elizabeth but after learning that she's now married he starts up a relationship with a young fashion designer (Angie Everhart). I think 9 1/2 weeks in hell would be much more pleasant that trying to sit through this film. It has one of the worst reputations in the history of sequels and it's easy to see why. It would be like trying to make a Friday THE 13TH film but instead of violence, gore and Jason you threw in singing, good vibes and Barney the dinosaur. I'm really not sure what the producers were thinking but this here is perhaps the most unerotic erotic movie ever made. They clearly were just wanted to cash in on the notoriety of the first movie and I understand that. I'm fine that they were simply wanting to make money but for the life of me why would they deliver something like this? There's very little sex, little nudity and there's nothing erotic that happens. The majority of the overbearing 105-minute running time features the two stars just going into various clubs and getting in trouble. They flirt, they talk, they talk some more and then they go home to do nothing. Director Anne Goursaud might have been given an impossible task but she didn't help matters any. The pacing of the film is downright horrid, the lack of style just made for an ugly mess and I'm really not sure why she decided to make everything so dark. The entire film just seems like a bad nightmare that you can't wake up from and this includes the two leads. Rourke and Everhart have zero chemistry together and Rourke appears bored out of his mind and wishing he was anywhere but in front of the camera. ANOTHER 9 1/2 WEEKS is a really bad movie on all levels and it's even poor when compared to much of the direct-to-Cinemax trash that was making the rounds during this period.

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.

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

Surprise! I actually liked love in Paris. I think it was much darker than the first one, but I respect the writers ideas and can see where they were going with it. What alot of people don't know is Mickey was disfigured from boxing when the movie was made. And he still hasn't fully recovered yet. It took guts to go on filming in such a superficial business. But he always shows his fearlessness, and that makes him a great actor. And Everhart wasn't bad. She's a good actress and can only grow as long as she continues to believe in herself. The scenes between John and Lea said just what they needed to say. Use your imagination and feel John and Lea's pain! This darkly romantic film made sense as it showcased John's inability to love again. Sorry, but there is someone who did enjoy this film.