User reviews

I agree with the writer who mentioned that this film is too often underrated because it deals with a very dark side of sexuality that many people deny in society and in themselves. The relationship portrayed in the film is an adult one, and as such it is not a Little Mary Sunshine portrayal. It is a mature look at sex, not love, and it never pretends to be a romance. The characters find each other and they enjoy each other in a way that many people cannot accept, and therein lies the reality, the truth of this film, as well as the reason that it is consistently overlooked. For an established actress like Kim Basinger to accept this role and play it as naturally as she did speaks to her talent as well at to her willingness to explore alternate "romantic" ideas on film. Mickey Rouke has always been a maverick force in film. Look at him in "Diner" and you will see what I mean by that. He is much more talented than people give him credit for, and younger filmophiles should discover this early work and try to perceive him as an actor, not a joke.

This memorable sexual drama is an adaptation of a novel by Elizabeth McNeill. Kim Basinger stars as a character named Elizabeth, a divorced art gallery worker. One day, she chances to meet John (Mickey Rourke), a charming young Wall Street financier. She finds out that he likes to play sexual games, and realizes that she's vulnerable to his manipulations. Ultimately, she finds this strange relationship taking dominance in her life.

"Nine 1/2 Weeks" is a largely two character film that is not degrading or "pornographic" as some people might have you believe. It's actually rather restrained, and even in its full length uncut version is never overly concerned with nudity or depravity. This may come as a disappointment to some potential viewers, but most of the time it's concentrating on detailing the evolution of this sex-based relationship.

Unfortunately, we never get to know our two principals all that well. But since she has more to work with, Basinger definitely comes off better. Rourkes' character forever remains an enigma. Also, for a film running close to two hours, it doesn't seem to have all that much story going for it.

The sex scenes will stick in the mind, even if most of them aren't particularly imaginative. The exception is the notorious "food" sequence, which was later parodied in "Hot Shots!". But the choice of song in the sequence kind of kills the mood.

Basinger looks positively ravishing throughout - the camera loves her - and she delivers an appealing performance. Familiar faces turn up - Margaret Whitton, David Margulies, Christine Baranski, Karen Young, Julian Beck, Dan Lauria, Ron Wood of The Rolling Stones, etc. - but the supporting cast has little to do in the grand scheme of things.

Fairly interesting but not all that successful, this marked a stepping stone for former actor Zalman King (who co-wrote and co-produced); he went on to a prominent career as a soft core auteur.

Six out of 10.

I find it interesting that people can get so many different feelings and experiences from one movie, but then; this is exactly the type of movie that would cause such disparity. The question really is, are you watching the movie for entertainment, or to critique it? There are wondrous scenes of erotic intimacy here (unfortunately not as fully developed as they could be) - and glimpses into just what two people "in lust" will allow themselves to be led into... The sensuousness of the relationship is the key - not the believability of the surroundings or the rest of the 'plot'. Is it believable? It certainly is conceivable... Liz (Kim Basinger) studying slides at work, so distracted by her thoughts of intimacy with a man she hardly knows that she can't keep her hands off herself... John so taken with her that he will spend exorbitantly for a gift - to give a woman he doesn't know - but feels that he must meet. The passion and need for these two lonely people that lets them open doors to their inner selves and allow another in BEFORE thinking of the consequences (there are ALWAYS consequences, in film and life; for opening "those" doors). Is it believable that they would win the fight with the street thugs? No. Is it believable that the adrenaline rush, the release of the flight impulse and fear, the closeness found in 'defeating a common enemy'; could possibly lead to the intensity of sexual closeness and climax in a semi-secluded spot (under falling water at that)? Yes. Are the other scenes believable? It's entertainment, not a psychology class... They are conceivable, certainly. Ever been really mad at your partner, and that anger leads to words then breaking dishes then apologies then hugging then closeness then sex? How about anger leading directly to sex? It can happen, and it does. It is not so much a rape as it is a purging of desire. The scene with Liz blindfolded, and the whore coming in to the room - you share the tenseness Liz feels. Will she be stimulated? Of course. Will she let John know it turns her on? He already knows it does. He wants HER to know that he knows it will.

This movie is a glimpse of what manipulators people are. The efforts made to manipulate another person into 'making them want what you want'. So much so, that it becomes their desire, not yours. So much so that the desire is to see if you can manipulate the other becomes more consuming than the original goal. Seeing if she WILL crawl across the floor becomes more important than seeing her actually doing so. And her feeling the depth of her self in what she will do - and finding she is doing it because SHE wants to, not because he wants it. Liz takes her pleasure from John, too. What appears to be a "rape in progress" as John pushes Liz back on the table, ends with her crying because she was excited enough by it to climax. That is perhaps the 'real' rape; her discovery that even if she is initially violated, in her mind she realizes it arouses her enough to let it continue; and as it continues she finds herself clutching at her 'attacker'; and attaining orgasm. The rape as much of her mind as it is her body. It is her discovery of what she learns of herself. When she finally leaves the relationship, he finds he can't live without her. Who manipulated who?

This movie, dated as it is, is still fresh because it is enough like life to be real. No, we may not be that rich or that attractive or that selfish or that spoiled. But we also may wish at times that we were...

After all these many years I finally watched "Nine 1/2 Weeks" and clearly it is a dated piece that captured the times of the 1980's well. Also many may find the film a bit overstated for the way it tries to prove it messages of love and feeling. Still this is a film that is fun and very enjoyable to watch as it proves just how complex and tense that love making can be really this film showcased it as a dangerous and mysterious game of obsession.

Set in New York City, with the hustle and rush of big city life you see Elizabeth(Kim Basinger) a young single and attractive woman who works at an art gallery showcase. Then one day while strolling the city by chance and fate she meets a handsome and strange man his name is John(Mickey Rourke). John is the perfect man who has a successful job as a wall street broker, he dresses nice has a nice place. Yet the big thing missing is love. He's just so emotionally empty that it hurts inside.

When the relationship progresses the love making leads to extremes as their ways of pleasure are strange. The scenes where food were used as support were interesting! John had clearly showed a side of being a risk taker and that is seen as even being more evident when his erotic love making ways with Elizabeth push her limits and boundaries. You name it from blindfolds to whip creme to another woman for hot turn ons for John! This film really proved just how fun love making can be true it pushed the limits, but it showed just how far someone will go like the John character who was so emotionally and physically empty for so long. Yet in the end as with most cases the passion wears off as it couldn't last proving that love hurts and it must be a special kind for it to last. Overall good film that may be a little to dated, still it's a nice treat for it's take of pushing love making to new erotic and obsessive heights. As it proved love can be so complex and which passion feeds from one's emotions. And the on screen chemistry between Basinger and Rourke made it a watch.

What one realizes while watching this is how limited and ultimately unsatisfactory is a relationship based purely on sex.

I imagine that the familiar dominance/submissive psychology at the heart of this visually stunning movie--and it really is beautifully shot--comes from the novel by Elizabeth MacNeil. I say that, not having read the novel, because the seduction of Manhattan art dealer Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) by the smooth and supremely confident financier John (Mickey Rourke) is so very well done with the expensive presents, the well-timed flower deliveries, little endearments, etc., that it amounts to a woman's fantasy. The partial debasement of Elizabeth and her eventual triumph over her darker instincts and her realization that there is a difference between love and submission is also something that one might expect to find in a woman's point-of-view novel.

However when we get to the actual sexuality and how it is acted out, it is unclear who dreamed up the scenes, MacNeil or director Adrian Lyne or the scriptwriters. I say this because the scenes were so predictable and so ordinary, and when not ordinary and predictable, were bordering on the just plain dumb. Making love in the rain, at the top of a tall building (inside the clock tower), blindfolding the woman, making her crawl, feeding her strawberries, etc., bring nothing new to eroticism. And the scene requiring some imagination--baiting the gay bashers--was not realistically done. Why directors insist on allowing a man holding onto the hand of woman to outrun the men chasing them never ceases to amaze me. And then to have Elizabeth and John stop in the middle of the street to allow the bashers they have outrun to catch up was just plain stupid, not to mention the phony fight that followed.

Not only were the sexual scenes predictable but clearly Lyne was in harness (and I am glad of that) since he stops well short of what might happen if this sort of theme were fully played out.

Putting all that aside what makes this movie worth seeing is Kim Basinger. She is absolutely stunning, and it is clear that Lyne and his camera adored her. More than that Basinger does a fine job of acting in a demanding role.

I was impressed. Before seeing this film I thought she was a rather ordinary actress, but her ability to combine grown-up New York chic with little-girl vulnerability and to make absolutely clear the psychological dilemma her character's heart faced really held the movie together.

Lyne's insistence on whispered dialogue difficult to hear was consistent with the theme of the movie but not kind to these ears. But that was okay because much of the dialogue was secondary to the visual exploration of the woman's sexuality. The peek-a-boo and off center and shadowed shots of Basinger's face and her silhouette, and the studied smile from Rourke combined with the stark black and whites of their clothes and the furnishings served to highlight and emphasis the flesh tones of Basinger's skin while lending an appropriate artistic and fashionable atmosphere to the movie, which after all has an art dealer at its center. The many scenes that were began and suggested, and then cut away from, allowed a richer texture of experience for the viewer than would have been possible had the scenes been played out. And that was doubly good because again it is the visuals that make this movie worth seeing, not the originality of the story and its development.

To those viewers who thought that this was some sort of high class pornography, I can only say you missed the point entirely, and indeed, you may be projecting your own sorry mentality. For those others who were not, shall we say, sufficiently stimulated, I can point you to a graphic novel with a similar theme (written by a man) entitled The Story of O which will NOT be coming to a theater near you anytime soon.

See this for Kim Basinger whose sensitive and robust beauty dominated the screen.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Elizabeth McGraw (Kim Basinger) works in a SoHo art gallery in the hustle and bustle of NYC. She is taken with confident Wall Street trader John Gray (Mickey Rourke). They begin a torrid sexual affair lasting nine and a half weeks. He's a commanding presence and she feels herself breaking new boundaries. Her best friend goes out with her ex.

At least, this is better than 50 Shades. Mickey Rourke is simply a superior actor especially at this time period. He exudes the over-confidence of his character. Kim Basinger is beautiful and also very enchanting. The movie develops the world of New York. It's fun, a little wild and very alluring. The cinematography is beautiful. The food eating lit by the fridge light looks sexy and beautiful. At the end of the day, this is a pretty thin story. Despite the nice acting, there is not much more here than an erotica. The montages are beautiful but shows the lack of drama. Also the controlling nature of John Gray can be taken as misogynistic and very off-putting.

I think most people don't understand this movie. This is not a love story, at least not in the conventional sense. "9 1/2 weeks" is about sexual desire and intimate sensuality run amok and becoming the monopolizing forces in a relationship, and the ultimate demise of that relationship as a result. Certainly the physical pleasures and sensuality of sex are aspects that make a relationship fulfilling and gratifying but they are not the only facets. A relationship purely based on sexual desire is doomed to failure. At first it seems like a game, but later on the intensity is too much for the relationship to withstand, largely because if love and caring are sacrificed for the sex, it will die.

You almost couldn't find more suitable casting than Mickey Roarke and Kim Bassinger. Roarke plays John, a sexually-driven finance executive who is not satisfied with winning over the woman he wants. He craves continual heightened sexual excitement from his "lady friend". And he uses subtle coercion to achieve his goals. For Elizabeth, played by Bassinger, John is the ideal lover. He makes her breakfast, buys her clothes, brushes her hair. He takes care of her in an interesting role reversal. But nothing is free. In return, John wants Elizabeth to be in his complete control and engage in sensuous sex games. And each game is more intense than the last.

At first the games seem innocent enough. He likes to blindfold her and play a touchy-feely game in which he introduces objects that she feels and/or tastes. But then the requests become more intense. He wants her to enact a strip-tease, to dress in a certain way without her consent, and to receive a spanking for being a "nosey parker". They have sex in the oddest of places, sometimes engaging in intimate contact in public. At first Elizabeth enjoys the attention and the excitement until she begins to lose the sense of herself as the relationship intensifies. And John eventually goes too far.

At one poignant moment in the film, Elizabeth speaks with an artist-recluse. Because her job is at an art gallery, she helps coordinate artists for exhibitions. When she finds him in a rural area, she asks him if he remembered that his exhibition is coming up. He replies that when he is hungry he remembers to eat and when he is tired he remembers to sleep. She has lost the simpler pleasures of life, and this old man reminds her of that.

Late in the film there is an interesting scene where Elizabeth's former boyfriend comes to the place she works--not to see her but he is now dating one of her co-workers. He's a plain man who does not have nearly the sexual allure of Roarke. But he seems kind and honest. Liz watches her co-worker and her former boyfriend leave and there is an expression on her face that speaks volumes: maybe she misjudged him after-all. For a moment, the two stare at each other from a distance, and you get the feeling that she was the one who left him. He is not the Mr Exciting that John is, but maybe he has other qualities that John could never have.

This is quite a stunning film, certainly not for all tastes, and some of the steamy sex scenes could be misinterpreted as being only for pornographic sake. What saves it are the incredible and absolutely believable performances by the two leads, Roarke and Bassinger which strangely complement one another. Roarke plays his character right on the money, always enigmatic, never raising his voice, but always mysterious. His character is always just outside of reach. He constantly smiles, even when he is noticeable disappointed. Basinger is a perfect complement as one of the few actresses left who can be vulnerable and elicit a willingness to be under control that you don't see in many female performances anymore. Despite what may appear to be pornography, there is a point to the film I think, and that is that constant sexual control and nurturing relationships mix like oil and water. In the end you wonder if it was all a game.

Divorced SoHo art gallery employee meets a coolly handsome, enigmatic Wall Street arbitrator who harbors a kinky side: he's into role-playing and emotional (and sexual) manipulation...also, he's a bit of a jerk. "Nine 1/2 Weeks", directed by Adrian Lyne and adapted from Elizabeth McNeill's novel by Patricia Knop, Zalman King and Sarah Kernochan, is almost-sexy, almost-erotic, but never very inviting. The central relationship between Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke is there to be busted up--and Lyne doesn't appear to be concerned with the characters, anyway (his thing seems to be gauzy supplement spreads of apartments and restaurants). The early sexual foreplay with the blindfold and ice cubes is hot stuff, even though the scene is curiously chopped short (presumably so as not to offend prudish Americans). But, as it turns out, all the sexual clinches have been edited in much the same way: the rush of passion, the brief flash of nudity (hers), some heavy breathing, end of scene! There are two or three playful moments (such as a food frenzy in the kitchen), but mostly it's a lot of whispered talk without much action--and unintentionally funny bits like Rourke attempting to get Basinger in the mood by playing Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit". **1/2 from ****

I have seen this movie a few times, before and after going through therapy for abusive relationships. At one point, I thought this was a sexy film, like so many others who seem to love it. I used to think the same thing as all these people giving this film high ratings, that it's just sexy, dark, intriguing.

Well, after therapy, I can't even watch it. The characters are a bad example. Elizabeth is a bad example for women because she doesn't set boundaries for herself and ends up slightly traumatized because she has let herself be used, done things she wasn't comfortable with because it made the man happy.

John is a bad example for men because he's the typical alpha male, womanizer, predator who has no regard for the women he abuses. In fact, he seems to like the fact that she is uncomfortable. Her reluctance turns him on more. He likes pushing her comfort limits.

This film has no informed consent, no agreement on what is pleasurable for BOTH participants. In fact, there are times when you can see Elizabeth is clearly not happy and it doesn't matter.

If you desire healthy relationships, even ones based on sex, then skip this movie.

I have seen this movie many times. I find it to be, not a sexual movie. It does have depth and symbolism if you are able to get passed the simple sex scenes. My favorite part is when Elizabeth goes to visit Fransworth, the artist.If you really think about it just as he is at the gallery opening of his show, so is she "a fish out of water".It can't survive and in the end neither can she.I love the way this film was shot.This movie is more about stepping out side your comfort zone. You know about her family and life, but you don't learn about his until it is to late.People need to get passed the sex scenes and realize this movie is about human limits.All of us feel this inside, but are afraid, like Elizabeth to try it.

A sadomasochism tale in which the most pain is inflicted on the audience. This is one truly awful movie. A woman meets a mysterious man who pushes her sexual boundaries. This mystery man is the dominant type and he leads the relationship into some dark places. He's manipulative, at times abusive. She goes along for the ride. Happily at first, less happily later. She gets emotional, he does some more stupid and bizarre things, and then the movie just fizzles out. Tension and drama are in very short supply. What little dialogue there is in the movie is mostly laughable. Basically the movie just careens aimlessly from one "daring" sex scene to the next. And while the film has achieved a somewhat notorious reputation it's really not that daring at all. Any of the really dark stuff is only hinted at, not seen. What's on the screen is not explicit at all, by today's standards it's downright tame. Watching people play with their food is not particularly erotic. Mickey Rourke turns in an atrocious performance, smirking his way through the whole thing. Kim Basinger comes off slightly better but she's not nearly good enough to save this dreck. How they ever stretched this movie to a length of nearly two hours is beyond me. There's not even enough story here to sustain a 30-minute TV show, much less a full-length feature film. On and on it goes with nothing interesting ever happening. This is about as bad as it gets.

Two successful, but lonely yuppies embark on a sexual odessey for 9 and a 1/2 weeks. All people seem to talk about when it comes to this movie is about the sex scenes and the nudity in the film. This film is not about sex and nudity in my opinion. It is about control and power. I found this film to be intelligent and stylishly done and yes very erotic. Rourke and Basinger make a steamy couple and the ending and the events that unfolded in the film lingered with me long afterwards and left me thinking for a while. This is one film that actually seems to have gotten better with time.

Nine 1/2 Weeks (1986) is a movie that I recently watched for the first time in a long time on HBOMAX. The storyline follows a woman who becomes sexually obsessed with a man she's just met. She experiences sex and desires in ways she never has but the longer they're together the more complicated things get.

This movie is directed by Adrian Lyne (Fatal Attraction) and stars Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler), Kim Basinger (8 Mile), Margaret Whitton (Major League), Christine Baranski (How the Grinch Stole Christmas) and David Margulies (Ghostbusters).

This movie is 50 Shades of Grey decades before 50 Shades. The cast is outstanding and Rourke and Basinger deliver strong performances. The sensual scenes weren't as good as intended. The food scene was pretty awkward. However, the stairwell scene is the highlight of the movie and the striptease at the end was great. There's a fart scene that's hilarious too. The storyline did feel a bit unrealistic for a couple who don't know each other but that was the point of the movie.

This is entertaining and worth a watch but nothing special overall. I would score this a 6/10 and would recommend seeing it once.

This is high-gloss soft-porn; a boring soap opera concentrating on one thing: sex. They actually made sex boring, sad to say, because I defy you to watch this casually and tell me what the storyline was. What this is, is an excuse for Kim Bassinger to show off her great body and for Mickey Rourke to smirk a lot. That's it. Rourke's smugness is so bad it's sickening and Bassinger, despite the great figure, looks cheap more than beautiful.

Kudos to the photographer for some nice closeup shots and some wonderful color, but the story is so weak - no character development and no plot - it's unable to compensate. Let's face it: this movie was made for only reason - to titillate male viewers. On that level, it probably succeeded. If I recall, it's why I gave it a look being a fan of Bassinger's looks, but I actually expected a story, too.

Those trying to pass this off as "arty" and something deeper than soft porn are only fooling themselves.

This film has been unfairly slated by people who were perhaps expecting something else. Re-watching it 30(!) years on, I notice above all the beauty of Kim Basinger, above all when she is apparently not trying to be beautiful. The range of expression she can bring to a scene just by looking is amazing; her hair often seems to have been brushed by a dog's claws, but there is something in her eyes which can take your breathe away. Mickey Rourke is above all effective as a guy who is willing to take risks and wants the woman to do the same, and I'm sure if I was a woman I would find him irresistible in this role ...

A much-maligned film which deserves re-evaluation as a masterpiece of its kind. 1 point off because it seems a little too afraid of the censor at times ...

This is a movie that breaks many taboos, not just fun naughty ones, but deep-seated cultural ones. There are some unforgettable scenes (don't miss the striptease scene, which is amazing two decades later!) and a great soundtrack. The film's photography is gorgeous, using darkness and rays of light to set the shifting contexts of sensuality and sensation throughout. Rourke and Basinger are both superb in their roles, John who is painfully frozen in his incapacity to feel, and Elizabeth who grows visibly in self awareness over the course of the film.

The chemistry between Rourke and Basinger is electric. You can practically see the sparks fly off the screen. Is Rourke's character a nice guy? Not really. However, is he sexy, and would he make most women melt? Yes he would without a doubt. The story is compelling and absolutely fascinating as you watch the couple's relationship spring up and then unravel. Highly recommendation for all erotic movie lovers.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

For years I had heard about this movie and how erotic it is, and in particular about the fridge scene. We finally rented it, and I nodded of a few times (in the early evening). It was a boring movie, with no apparent point to the story. The plot went nowhere, and the sexy scenes weren't especially. As for the fridge scene - YAWN.

I am very surprised reading several negative reviews about this movie. Probably this is not a movie made for the American audience, which many times react in a bad way when a movie push a little bit too much the envelope. This movies was a very big hit in Europe when first came out. It was the most talk about movie of the year because of his extremely unique and modern approach to sexuality in a film. I was very young when this movie came out, but i still remember the big fuss about it. The director is one of the best director, he challenged himself constantly, his movies are never boring or dull and he like to take chances which many directors are very afraid to do it. Nine and 1/2 weeks is a very interesting movie to watch, because it is about what is going on between this 2 people, in an emotional level. Which can be pretty scary for the intensity of that. It is not about sex, it goes beyond that. It is a very innovative movie that it would always be remembered for changing the rules about making movies that are considered erotic. Too bad that not everybody is Adrian Lyne, and the majority of the films of this genre are horribly bad.

As 86 R rated flicks went, this was the most successful, and certainly a different kind of movie experience. Beautifully shot with style, the most weirdest, yet engrossing relationship between these two characters from two then hot stars, one of course whose looks have sunk, is truly something to behold. The enigmatic Rourke is way too weird for words, a bored stockbroker, who likes to play manipulative games, with his lovers, some which turn quite nasty. His new love Basinger, an assistant architect, truly bored with her job, like Rourke, just can't get him out of her head, her old lover, with who'm life was normal, but not exciting. Just wait til you see him, andR then you'll understand. Rourke makes the relationship, such a dizzying one, Basinger just can't think straight, so ultimately she has to let herself go. And that's alright for us to do that. Some scenes are so weirded out, one involving Rourke leaving Basinger on a ferris wheel while it's at it's peak and him and the operator go off for a coffee, whatever. One scene that stood out in my mind, okay, apart from the blindfolded one, involving all these condiments and fruits, whatever, was the one where she went out and saw that old artist in the country, an unnecessary yet beautiful scene, beautiful as how Basinger describes this old codger's work. Slave to love, a song I first heard in this, in the montage, was one I grew to love. We also have an adventurous scene with our two being chased by some drunken thugs. This sex drama, is well acted by everyone, a lot of the small players, particularly good, Rourke cool again in this role, as first coming across him in the electric action thriller, Year Of The Dragon, with Basinger, just as good, if a tad less. It's a film you wouldn't expect to be this well acted, especially if a first timer, seeing it today in it's near two hours running time. It's certainly something different, yet the same could of been said for Angel Heart. It's resolution caught me in a bit of downfall as to the expiration of the relationship, which in no way was ever normal anyhow. The film will affect you in many ways, as viewing relationships, or drawing on your own personal ones. Not as explicit as people have been led to believe. Haven't people heard of 1990's follow up, Wild Orchid. Followed by a totally pointless and terrible sequel.

What's up with this movie? Does Mr. Lyne and his writers think that a sado-masochistic fling between two screwed up Yuppies can carry a feature length movie? Maybe if it had some comedic elements (which is doesn't, at least intentionally), or there were some additional dramatic elements (which there are not), or maybe if it was hardcore. No, it's simply the history of the affair; a chronology of a bunch of R-rated trysts. Ho-hum, who cares? "Nine ½ Weeks" deserves every Razzie nomination it got. It's a loser.

And by the way, what's up with Roger Ebert and his rave review? Where was his head back in 1986?