Another 9½ Weeks

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.

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.

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.

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.