Smartorhypo
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Salubfoto
It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.
PiraBit
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
deickos
The story behind this movie is so commonplace and so potentially full of clichés that is really a challenge for us to see the hidden truth. But we should for our own good forget about Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger and focus more on ourselves. It is our story here our drama - how we let a million things destroy what we feel and what we love. The writer of this movie tells us how the artist, a painter manages to focus only on what is most important. Shouldn't we do the same? Escape all the obstacles and eventually find love.
lethal_smile
If people calling this film a porn than 50 shades of grey is what? There is hardly any nudity in the film. Yes there are sex scenes and we all do have sex. Sex is a part of our life. Why people just jump and start labelling "porn" if any film has number of sex scenes. This film is classy, arty, stylish, romantic, sexy and have a deeper meaning. The way Mr Lyne has directed the film I know Kim Basinger went through a lot but if she didn't, this film wouldn't be this good and chemistry between those actors wouldn't be this superb. This film has been my all time favourite. I have always been open about sex as I am not shy to say I enjoy it a lot, open about it and like to explore and I am sure a lot of people do and there is nothing wrong in admitting it, it's one of the joy which life has given you, enjoy it until you are able to. I believe in films these days, sex should be exposed more than it is now without being labelled "porn" and censorship system should change too which restricts the directors and producers and limits the audience and limits the promotion. That's why I am a big fan of European cinema than American as they have more tolerance and I have great respect for directors like Lars Von Trier, Gaspar Noe and Paul Verhoeven. This film is way better than that boring 50 shades which has the exact story but wait which film or book was released first? no no actually which book is based on a true story (do your own research on that). This film is a true masterpiece but if your sexlife has always been limited to the bedroom then this film is not for you.
SnoopyStyle
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.
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.
