Another 9 1/2 Weeks (1997)

I didn't realize that this was a sequel until minutes before seeing it. I just found it on the bottom 100 list and decided to see it because of that, so my judgment is based solely on it's own merits, without influence from the previous film. I must say that I don't think it deserves a place in the bottom 100, I actually liked the extremely dark, almost suicidal tone in the beginning but about 35 minutes in, the whole movie shifts direction completely, becoming some kind of "Eyes wide shut" parody. I found myself asking "why is this happening?" over and over again throughout the second act of the film but at least something was going on. The last part of the film was just dreary, a drawn out sequence of nothing with dialog long winded leading nowhere, I was so close to just skipping to the end. Love in Paris (or Another 9 and a half weeks) could have been good but ended up being totally and utterly meh.

This is for any viewer that may go against their better judgment and watch this, 1: because the first one is pretty decent for what it is, or 2: 'cause Angie Everhart is uniquely attractive. (Quick capsule side-track - less than 3% of the world's XX-chromosomed inhabitants have naturally occurring blonde hair and redheads via genetic fusion will be gone by the year 2100, say some geneticists). I am a member of the latter category (and the first one too, actually). Heed my warning, even if the hottest woman in the world was in this movie, it has no redeeming value whatsoever. It is an incoherent mess of seemingly random scenes shot, and then edited blindly together in an attempt to make a story of it, I don't think an actual script exists. Children could make a better film than this.Do yourself a favor and tour the stop signs or traffic lights on foot in your local area rather than watching this abysmal turd of a movie.

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.

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