a-leubecker I actually had the dubious experience of watching these movies in reverse, I saw Another before I saw 9 and honestly the difference is surprisingly glaring. Mickey Rouke takes center stage in this one. No longer the supporting character, he has become the focus. A man tortured by guilt is not a new plot point but it's a refreshing development for a character who was otherwise two dimensional. Thusly, it's a welcomed change. Angie Everhart has an energy about her that's intoxicating. She isn't just willing to pose nude, She owns her nudity. She is the playful one trying to lure Rourkes character out of his shell. Her motives remain questionable along with the fate of Elizabeth (the chick from the first movie). And the culmination of her motives is simplistic without feeling dumbed down. The other two predominant characters, Angie's assistant and business partner, are both likable and they are suppose to be. And all four turn in performances that make them memorable.So how does it compare to the original? Another is soft-core porn. It's a story about moving on from guilt or risking repeating your same mistakes. The mystery surrounding Angie's character draws you in as Rouke tries to unravel the mystery. And loads of gratuitous frontal nudity tucked in around the plot keep our attention.9 on the other hand is just a boring trudge through an unhealthy relationship where two people unrealistically expect something out of the other. Until finally it ends. Also no titties at all.So in the end. You can watch Another without seeing 9 and not miss a thing. It's soft-core, but with talented and under appreciated actors delivering compelling performances, this is worth checking out at least once. Plus naked Angie Everhart. 'Nuff Said

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.

RandomChick842 First time I ever watched this film was on my vacation in Jamaica. I didn't see all of it at the time but it stuck with me until I came back to the states and tried to buy it. All I could remember thinking was "WHO IS THAT GORGEOUS REDHEAD?!" I bought the film and curled up with my boyfriend and watched it after dark and watched this...OK film. Mickey Rourke bored the hell out of me because seriously...he had no passion about him. Angie Everhart was fantastic in my opinion but as my boyfriend said about her acting "You can only do so much with a dead fish" the dead fish being Rourke. Right of the bat I felt no chemistry between them. I think Angie is a good actress I just don't think she's found the best movie to show off her greatness. Everhart was the hot French fashion designer and Rourke was....the depressed kinky dude from America that seriously made me wonder why he didn't just kill himself as soon as he found out that Elizabeth was dead.....so Angie Everhart: 9, Rourke: 3, and the movie.....could have been better....a whole lot better

liorelin 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.