Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Console best movie i've ever seen.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

dan_c99 Great interesting plot, really dramatic "noir" events that do really shock, terrific chemistry between the leads, a really seductive female lead, brilliant acting, from everyone, steamy "sex", and a terrific Mr. Rourke cast in a romantic lead when other lesser actors would no longer look the part. The original was great, but this one is better! See it over again, it just gets better, much better, it is a classic, pure and simple.It's great! And very exciting! Watch it over and over to get the most out of it!Mickey Roarke always showed signs of greatness, and now we see why.

Leofwine_draca I'll admit, I still haven't seen the first 9 1/2 WEEKS all the way through; it says something when this B-movie sequel is shown on TV more often than the first film! Still, it was a popular movie of the 1980s, and I'm sure a lot better than this absolutely pitiful attempt to ride the then-popular wave of softcore movies clogging up cable TV in America in the mid to late 1990s.Where to begin? Nothing goes right with this film, and it ends up as an amalgamation of terribleness. The script is horrible, the story overlong and nonsensical. This is a mood piece, so there's a lot of standing around, a lot of talking about nothing, a lot of leaning on walls. Director Anne Goursaud has a few similar movies in her filmography but this has to be her worst.Mickey Rourke returns from the original movie and his presence is an embarrassment. He looks weird, his face altered by plastic surgery, so they try to hide him in the shadows for a lot of the time. It doesn't hide the obvious. Angie Everhart gives a C-level performance, nothing more, and isn't memorable at all. The film tries so hard to be erotic, but there are no sensual scenes and the attempts at them are excruciatingly embarrassing. In all honesty, I don't know what they were trying to do here except recapture the spirit of the original movie in some way, but it doesn't work.

Son_of_Mansfield If not for the creamy Agathe de la Fontaine, this would be a wholly sad and laughable affair. There is something about French girls with their full lips and flushed faces. Mickey Rourke increasingly creepy facial features don't make him the ideal romantic lead. Mix in a stolen plot straight from Last Tango In Paris and un-erotic direction from the person who brought us Embrace of the Vampire and Poison Ivy II, and you have a movie that no one could love no matter where they live. My biggest draw back is the miss use of Angie Everhart, one of the few redheads in movies. She can play an icy fatale better than most, but she is not so good as the girl looking for love, although she does look good with rose petals and honey smeared on her. The original, directed by Adrian Lyne, is one of the better erotic fests with a more convincing lead in Kim Basinger and a smoother faced Rourke.

htbt 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.