Nine Months (1995)

reviewed by
Melissa Martin


                                  NINE MONTHS
                       A film review by Melissa Martin
                        Copyright 1995 Melissa Martin

I will truly expect every professional critic to absolutely hate this movie. It makes no pretenses for being anything but a stupid, childish, predictable, cliche comedy. The film is awful on that level.

     But if the public loves the film as much as I did, it'll be a
hit.

This is a great comedy, more in the tradition of DUMB & DUMBER than something oh, say, cleverer, like CLUELESS. I laughed like a fool from some stupid physical comedy, cartoon-style gags and some really corny jokes. The script is unquestionably cheesy and cheap, but it's hilarious ... which is all that really counts.

Hugh Grant, who I thought was horrible in FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (actually, a friend and I didn't even finish the film, we thought it was pretty awful) and I never liked previously anyway, turns on the English boy charm like a firehose. I walked into the theatre with a slight loathing for him, and by the middle of the movie I wanted to have his child. :-) He is absolutely hilarious and has an obvious knack for corny comedy. He even managed to switch gears and carry something more emotional ... during the middle of the film, at one of the fleeting moments of seriousness, I almost cried (seriously) because of the look in his eyes.

Julianne Moore is a goddess given actress form. With her strangely stunning, delicate average-girl appearance and high-quality acting, we get a character to put our heart into, unlike the childish Samuel (Grant). She carries her performance through well and is a pleasure just to look at.

Unfortunately, Moore and Grant do *not* make a cute couple. There are no sparks nor chemistry between the two characters, which is unfortunate considering the appeal of the two.

I never liked Tom Arnold either, and so was surprised that I didn't sit back and wish he was not in the entire movie. In fact, he was rather enjoyable.

Joan Cusack is lovely as Arnold's also-pregnant wife (which was a sad plot attempt, a little too much like a coincidence).

Robin Williams, as is natural for the man, is side-splitting funny and a darned fun ride. It is unfortunate that he got so little time : I would have preferred him to take the place of both Cusack's and Arnold's characters.

The most unfortunate thing about this film is somewhat in the vein of ACE VENTURA : PET DETECTIVE, it has been billed as a kind of semi-family movie. I saw a huge number of obviously under-13 kids (I'm thirteen, I should know) get tickets and go in, when it was very clearly stated 'PG-13.' What particularly saddened me was that one sweet ol' grandma had taken two children, about seven and ten, to the film. There is a *lot* of sexually explicit and lewd writing here. It is very funny at times, but completely inappropriate for anyone under my age (especially with parents, which is what we tend to call "unbelievably embarrassing"). There is also one prelude-to-a-sex-scene, where Julianne Moore gets to participate in a rather demeaning strip-tease.

I can't really write much about this film, because there isn't much to write about. To sum it up, NINE MONTHS is a very funny but purposely stupid film. Not exactly the kind of "don't-miss-comedy-of-the-year," but easily merits a few good laughs if you have nothing else better to see.

Of course, the best films of the year remain POCAHONTAS and APOLLO 13. If you haven't seen those yet, you've missed a hell of a show.

WATERWORLD comes out this week. Can't wait to review it for the reading public. :-)

Cheers!
Melissa Martin
martin@ccu.umanitoba.ca

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews