"Another 9 1/2 Weeks" has been on and off IMDb's Bottom 100 list for the last few years. It's on and off because it's near the bottom of the list and occasionally other films knock it off...though eventually it seems to find its way back. Currently it's #99--and it being on the list is why I decided to watch this film. Although I have reviewed tons of art and foreign films, occasionally I like to see a really, really bad movie--one that is so bad that it gives me a good laugh. Well, I must say that "Another 9 1/2 Weeks" is terrible...but I didn't recall laughing even once. It just wasn't an enjoyable experience on any level.I am sure that many tried watching this film to see copious nudity. After all, that's what made the first one famous. However, despite Angie Everhart being a very, very beautiful woman, you never really see that much of her and so often parts of her are strategically hidden. So what you are left with is like a mild R or even PG-13 rated porn film--with a plot that seems about the quality of a porno. And, I am pretty sure MOST people don't watch explicit films because of the great acting or complex plots!! The film picks up a few years after the first one. Mickey Rourke arrives in Paris and is trying to follow the trail of his old fling, Elizabeth. However, Kim Bassinger (Elizabeth in the first film) wouldn't appear in this film, so you know he won't get his lady love. In the meantime, he meets one of her bizarro friends (Everhart) and she spends most of the film jerking Mickey around (and not in a good way). As for Mickey, he spends all his time brooding and grunting. And, ultimately, you learn that Elizabeth was dead and this other woman knew this all along. Does it sound romantic? Does it sound sexy? The plot is too thin for most porn films. It rarely makes sense and is never interesting. Rourke mostly grunts and Elizabeth behaves like a women who is off her meds. But the worst part about it is that it really isn't sexy. I really have no idea what they were thinking when they made this one...but it's pretty limp (double entendre intended) and not worth your time--even if you are a bad film buff.

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.

Sorry to say, but this one completely misses the bulls eye! It could have been an interesting film as Rourke as John trying to find Elizabeth (Kim Basinger's previous role in the first film) was a good plot to go with; John feeling lonely, haunted by her memory, unable to open up and let go even with this red head chick. Interesting themes of love never dying and moving on could have been explored. However, the director didn't pull it off, didn't really know how to take it and that shows.What a shame. Honestly, just watch this film if it's on on a late Friday night and you are not hitting the town, or because you are a big fan of Mickey. Really, it does not deliver, and its a shame because it could have been a chance for this film to outshine 9 and 1/2 weeks, the first movie. Sorry folks!

This is a very bad, worse and the worst film! I don't like sequels almost and that is the worst of all. When the film was going on I wanted to stop it each minute. Don't watch this movie if you don't want to feel bad. So great actor as Mickey Rourke had not to take part in that film.