IMDb user comments for
Love in Paris (1997) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

20 comments in total

---

21 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
dark dirge of a movie - and that's the good part, 16 December 2004
Author: videomaniac from United States

The original 9 1/2 weeks was a fun and sexy film that was full of life. Another 9 1/2 Weeks is almost the exact opposite of the first film and that's why so many fans of the first film were so unhappy with this one. This ain't 9 1/2 Weeks. In this one the character of John is so devastated by the loss of Elizabeth (his lover from the first film) that in the opening moments he places a gun to his head. It doesn't get any happier from there. A few scenes later he looks out his window and sees a once beautiful horse being turned into a dead one. That pretty much describes the state of John and of this sequel. It's a dark dirge of a movie with none of the joy of the first film and that's the whole point. We see John with sexual partners, including a prostitute he tries to pretend is Elizabeth, but there's zero chemistry even with the film's lead actress Angie Everhart. Elizabeth departure has left a void in John's soul and few know the dark places of a man's soul like Mickey Rourke. Just take a look at his performance in Angel Heart if you have any doubts. This time Rourke's face has become so battered from boxing that his appearance fits his character's emotional devastation perfectly and this is underscored by the film's black and blue cinematography. Rourke's John truly seems to be a man who has lost everything as he wanders from the art galleries to the dark alleys of Paris like a ghost searching for some glimpse of redemption. It's not a pretty picture and it's not supposed to be. This is film about pain, loss, and regret. It's a joyless purgatory of a film which works best as a canvas for Rourke's haunting performance as the devastated John. This is not 9 1/2 Weeks. This sequel is bleak, dark, and tragic. That's what I like about it.

---

18 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
saddest love story ever, 18 August 2005

Author: lotsafun from Angel City

I rented this one thinking it might be an entertaining bit of tawdry trash with some cheap thrills. It is. It is also one of the saddest love stories ever. I can't say I "enjoyed" Another 9 1/2 Weeks, but I can say that I love the movie's romantic streak. It's a terribly sad romantic streak, but a great romantic streak nonetheless. Another 9 1/2 weeks is also cheesy and trashy. It's cheesier and trashier bits actually work to the movie's advantage by adding much needed levity to a very tragic story. Some have said the filmmakers should have had Mickey Rouke's character move on after losing his great love, but that would have diminished the power of their connection. He can't just move on. She's gone and he can't change that. There's no way out from his torturous pain. Mickey Rourke makes you believe it. The filmmakers were smart in building their entire film around him. He truly seems like he's been through Hell. His character begins the film in tremendous pain and ends the film in tremendous pain. There's no happy ending (although I like to imagine he changed his name to Marv and moved to Sin City). Another 9 1/2 Weeks isn't an easy movie to enjoy. Very few love it, but I do. I rented it, watched it, and then I bought it.

---

11 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Not as terrible as most have made it out to be., 4 January 2007
Author: htbt from United States

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.

---

19 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Love and Paris not bad, 23 March 2002

Author: poohpooh from Usa

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.

---

10 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
First soft porn, then romance, 18 April 1999

Author: (batboy_hu@yahoo.com) from Budapest, Hungary

I think there's two kind of males. One of them is the sexually overheated and uninhibited, first-sex-then-romance(or nothing) type, and the other one, who prefers the romantic involvement in its classic sense. First get to know, then trying to trust and to love. John Gray is the two kind in one. And Mickey Rourke makes a good job. This movie is not the rehearse of the first one, and OK, not as good too, but I think it shows the second kind of male. (9 out of 10) I would like to recommend The Casanova's Return (1992). Alain Delon's character shows great similarity to John Gray in Love in Paris.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
wouldn't be that bad if it weren't so damn dark!, 6 March 1999

Author: Scoopy from Budapest

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.

---

2 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Avoid at all costs!, 20 June 2008
Author: ShempMyMcMalley from United States

This is for any viewer that may go against their better judgment and watch this, 1: 'cause the first one is pretty decent for what it is, or 2: 'cause Angie Everhart is really, really hot. 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 (check that-the 5 hottest women), it has no redeeming value whatsoever. It is an incoherent mess of seemingly random scenes shot, and then edited together blindly in a attempt to make a story of it. Children could make a better film than this. It doesn't even deserve the one star I gave it, it deserves a negative 5. 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.

---

5 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Well, well, well, I don't think I can deal with another 9 1/2 weeks of this!, 10 June 2007

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

9 1/2 Weeks is one of the sexiest films you will ever see, if you haven't seen it, go rent it now! I have to admit that I love that film, it's such a guilty pleasure. But when I found the sequel to it, called Another 9 1/2 Weeks, I grabbed the movie without hesitation. I went home and watched it immediately, and I have to say I can see why Kim didn't want to be in this film. And Mickey, Mickey, Mickey, he's not so fine any more, he's more just very creepy and scary looking. The story didn't work and was just plain unnecessary, at least I didn't buy it. I mean, 10 years and John still hasn't moved on? May I just recommend therapy? Though he and Lea had pretty good chemistry, it wasn't as sizzling as what John and Elizabeth had.

John is in Paris, he is about to come to an art show where Elizabeth's paintings are about to go on auction, John buys all the paintings hoping he'll bump into her. But alas, she isn't there, but he notices a beautiful young woman wearing the shawl he gave Elizbeth, he asks her where she got it and she says Elizabeth gave it to her and they were best friends. The young woman, Lea, is fascinated with the infamous John that rocked her friend's world, but John is just more concerned with speaking to Elizabeth, but when he gets terrible news, he may just have to settle for the sexy best friend.

Some scenes were just too disturbing and unrealistic to how a person would react. John became too whiny and such a pansy boy. The passion wasn't very strong and the story was just horrible. I really recommend that you stay away from this movie, but please see the first 9 1/2 Weeks, it's a great thriller, don't watch this one, it's just plain insulting.

1/10

---

7 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Rourke wasted again, 29 December 2000

Author: largo-9 from Istanbul

This movie has got only two things to offer:an aging Mickey Rourke and a good soundtrack.There is supposed to be two main characters but Angie Everhart does anything but acting.Combining with the imperfection of the storyline,the failure to give her part a believable depth make the story look so pretentious.However Love in Paris slightly survives thanks to the acting of Mickey Rourke.He gives a rememberable performance as John Gray who,after years,still lives in the past and is unable to forget Elisabeth - played by Kim Basinger in the first part.After his affair with Elisabeth,he is now a man bored of life and in the brink of a suicide who has nothing to hold on till he finds out a way to alter his biggest mistake.So he flies to Paris hoping for a new life.Except the strong performance from Rourke playing John Gray a man who had turned out to be a vulnerable romantic obsessed with the woman he let go from being the fantasy seeking player he had used to be,this movie has nothing else.No acting,no intelligence,no style - although there is a modest effort to form one - and most importantly no intention to tell anything.Just another example of wasting such a good actor.But at least it can make you think about the chances you missed,the misjudgments you did in your life.It sure made me do.

---

14 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Mmm...I think I'm in love!!!!!, 16 February 2006

Author: Seth Nelson from (Near) D/FW Airport, Texas, USA

Now how would Barry White say this...most likely in a deep, suave, smooth, many voice..."Oh baby!" That's what I think of this love movie. First off, it takes place in Paris, France, in Europe. Of course, we all know that Europe IS the part of the world to...well, parents may show this good advice of giving "10"s to their children, so I'll keep it appropriate. But at least I can say that Paris is the city of lights; the city to fall in love with; the city of romance! And that's exactly what happens - where else - in "Love in Paris!" Now, one more thing: of course, I'm a guy for action. So why am I here reviewing a "chick flick?" Because of the many ladies I can find in this movie, that's what! And that's why I am giving this movie a ten.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history