Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

boyan-denizov This film was rather a disappointment to me. It starts promisingly but fails to develop and becomes boring and unconvincing. I think that this plot should have been developed above all as a psychological drama. But it is exactly psychology that is missing here. Instead, it relies on visual teasing. But a film is more than mere photography. Rourke is totally inappropriate for this role. His sweet smile, being on his face time and again, starts looking idiotic as the plot develops. Elizabeth, who is the central character, is also unrealistic. What is it that drives her into this dangerous and humiliating relationship? Taste for danger and adventure? Loneliness? Greed to catch a Wall street man? Masochism? We are not told to the very end. This film is a very pretentious attempt to reveal female eroticism but I think it fails in this. I find this film very un-erotic, perhaps because of the hints of sadism and masochism presented.

yajji If there is an 80s answer to The Last Tango in Paris, it's undoubtedly Adrian Lyne's stylish and engrossing erotic drama Nine 1/2 Weeks. Like its predecessor, critics and audiences were divided in regards to the films artistic value. Some saw it as exploitive, soft core pornography. Most audiences were evidently so distracted by the firestorm of controversy of both films, that they either side stepped around the artistic merit of Nine 1/2 Weeks, or they were simply distracted/repulsed by it and chose to dismiss its worth. Perhaps the most surprising aspect to me about this film was how tame it is. Perhaps our over stimulated, over sexualised, desensitised present day has numbed my inner prude, but I really fail to see how the sex in this film was such a big deal in 1986?At the very centre of this film is a love story without the happy ending. It's also a sentiment on surfaces, and how the 80s were all about appearance. This could not be more relevant in 2014, a time when we seem to have taken a few steps backward rather than forward in regard to artificiality, greed and vanity. John and Elizabeth could very much exist in today's world... John, a man motivated purely by money and sex, and Elizabeth - a lonely woman probably looking for an exit from her superficial life. Her exit is provided by John and an exhausting, passionate and at times aloof and disturbing affair begins. It's a relatively simple story, but its execution and performances are where it succeeds. One of the most amazing things about this film is its cinematography. New York City never looked so enticing with its fog shrouded, Canyon like rain swept streets, to its wet and misty alley ways, it really as important to the film as its central characters. Only in New York can a man meet a woman at a market in such a fleetingly brief encounter, fall in love, and have it all disintegrate in a matter of weeks. Forget about Fifty Shades of Grey, Nine 1/2 Weeks did it much, much better.

jd_movie_luver I just saw this movie for the first time without reading the book. I was familiar with the specifics of the story though so I knew what to expect. I was very disappointed in the movie though. I don't know if this is just the way 80s movies are or what, but there was so much potential for this to be a great movie but in my opinion fell way short.For one, I was majorly confused throughout most of it. They had all these little weird scenes with or without conflict and then cut away to another time with no explanation on what they were doing and why, or how the conflict was resolved. And the multiple wordless scenes with blaring music did not help.----->also in relation to this, every plot point was so subtle and shown in such a lack of detail that if I hadn't read a detailed synopsis and multiple book reviews with spoilers, I would have had no idea what was happening or why.Also, was I supposed to like John? Cause I didn't. I wanted to, but he was such an insensitive, insincere creep. I'm not sure if Mickey was trying to portray him this way or what....if he wasn't then I have serious doubts about his acting abilities. John always had that slimy fake smile on his face and never talked, and when he did it was so soft-spoken and hardly made sense. I don't know, I think the movie would've benefited with another actor, someone more charming and charismatic. I was really disappointed because I feel like this has the potential to be a really great, thought provoking, almost painful and beautiful movie, but almost every aspect of it fell short, from the writing to the acting to the editing to the music. They need to do a remake. In the mean time, I'll read the book and try to get the picture of creepy movie John out of my head while I'm doing so.

Dalbert Pringle Yep. It's even worse than I thought.Meet John Gray, the incessantly smirking prick of Wall Street. He may have picture-perfect hair, but he sure ain't no Romeo..... And meet Elizabeth McGraw, the ceaselessly pouting ho from Soho. She may have sexy, flyaway hair, but she sure ain't no Juliet.And when John and Elizabeth get together for playtime in 9 1/2 Weeks - It has got to be some of the dreariest sexual-obsession soap opera that I've seen in a mighty long time.If you can believe it - Back in 1986 this laughable, $17 million production, whose story was clearly 80% style over substance, was taken so seriously by its sexually-obsessed audience that it actually made back 6 times its initial costs at the box-office in no time flat.On a side-note - I think it's really scary to see just how drastically Mickey Rourke's looks have deteriorated over the last 30 years. Seeing him now and seeing him back then, you'd never, ever guess that these 2 screen-images of Rourke are, in fact, one and the same person.