9 Songs (2004) User Reviews

A Michael Winterbottom curiosity

[maatmouse · 5/10 · 6 August 2005]

I came to this Michael Winterbottom film from one of his previous efforts starring Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins. I had never heard of him as a director and when Sight and Sound (the house magazine of the BFI) did an article on him I thought he was worthy of attention.

Another reason for seeing this film was the promise of being able to watch a couple having actual sex and no merely faked orgasms and suggested oral sex either and no pornography. I quite wanted to be reminded of the reasons why two people can get together because of what they have in common.

Winterbottom's film is not pornography at all. It is merely a study of a relationship seen through the context of real sex (what nearly all of us have experienced once we are a certain age (18+ usually) and are not bound by religious considerations ie the Catholic priesthood) and popular music. That's all. And the cast are two everyday folk. They are not artificially enhanced porn actors or glossed up dolls for the benefit of the viewer. It is a very much warts and all film, although I have much admiration for Winterbottom to persuade any actor to show the camera (and thus the audience) his real erection and later orgasm.

Once the novelty of watching real adult sex wears off, however, there is little else left and that's the real disappointment of this film. Nevertheless it is an adult movie and some may enjoy it.

Deep meaningless sex

[Philby-3 · 5/10 · 27 February 2007]

This film is yet another example of Michael Winterbottom's versatility. One peculiar aspect of it is that the scenes of lovemaking are divided by songs (hence the title). The film is only a little over 60 minutes so we get 30 minutes of music and 30 minutes of sex. It's fairly gentle, loving sex, with a short foray into mild bondage at the end, but it is indisputably real sex. There is a rather wistful atmosphere because with the opening scenes of a light plane flying low over the Antarctic wastes it is clear that Matt (Kieran O'Brien) is reflecting on the past, on his short affair with Lisa, a younger American woman in London. Matt is a glaciologist who spends his time uncovering the secrets of the earth's past. Lisa's background is not sketched in. In fact we learn little about her except that she does rather like sex and doesn't have to fall hopelessly in love with someone to enjoy their body. Matt is left only with a few warm memories.

The 9 songs are mostly noisy rock numbers from bands playing in the cavernous Brixton Academy, though there is at least one decent Michael Nyman number. It seems Matt and Lisa both like the stuff (they first meet there) and the songs kind of punctuate the relationship, but again, there is not a great deal of meaning.

Matt is played by Kieran O'Brien, previously seen as Fitz's difficult teenage son in "Cracker", and he certainly meets the physical demands his role requires. Margo Stilley as Lisa plays her in an uncomplicated fashion. I thought they were both pretty brave to do this and I hope it doesn't hurt their careers. It was something of an achievement to get this film past the censors but it clearly falls into the "Art" rather than "Pornography" category. I do wonder though, as I did with "Shortbus," what's coming next. I don't think, even in adult love stories I want to see all the anatomical detail. I'd much rather have some crackling dialogue or even just some nice scenery.

Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 18 December 2014]

In 'the most sexually explicit film in the history of British cinema', as the hype reads, Lisa (Margo Stilley) and Matt (Kieran O'Brien) spend their free time snorting coke, looking rather bored at rock gigs, and boning each other.

Needless to say, there are plenty of moments of graphic nookie between stars Stilley (a little too young and inexperienced to be taking on such a daring film role, maybe) and O'Brien (who, judging by his DVD commentary, seems to have had a whale of a time), lots of rough and ready music footage shot at various London gigs, and some pretentious bilge about life in the Antarctic, all accompanied by a monotonous voice-over.

Is 9 Songs a bona fide work of art, voyeuristic porn masquerading as art, a realistic study of an intimate relationship, an exploitative piece of trash, or a risqué promo for up and coming rock bands? I have no idea: it really is very hard to fathom out what Winterbottom and Co.'s intentions were for making this film, although I'm guessing the real answer is, 'it's whatever you want it to be'.

Viewers will watch 9 Songs for their own personal reasons (to become aroused; for intellectual discussion at dinner parties; as ammunition for attacking liberal types; or just to see what the fuss is about) and enjoy it accordingly. I thought it passed 66 minutes quite painlessly—the action was hot and the music was cool—but for me, perhaps the most interesting thing about 9 Songs is seeing how the film will affect the stars' careers in the long term, and guessing where this whole 'real sex in cinema' trend will end (Brad and Angelina going at it on Screen 1 at the local multiplex?!?!).

An anti-climax

[rogerdarlington · 31 March 2005]

In the (admittedly unlikely) eventuality that someone wandered into a cinema expecting this to be a musical, a rude shock would ensue, since this is the most sexually explicit mainstream film ever exhibited in Britain. Indeed the only mainstream movie I've previously seen to compare in explicitness was the 1976 Japanese work "Ai No Corrida" ("In the Realm Of The Senses"), but this work goes further with a scene of ejaculation, as well as fellatio, cunnilingus and penetrative sex. Since this is the work of accomplished British director Michael Winterbottom ("In This World"), one cannot possibly regard this is as pornography - besides anything else, porn features far more voluptuous women and portrays the sex from an exclusively male point of view, whereas the sex here is realistic (as well as real) and as female-oriented as much as male.

The problem is that the film appears to be utterly meaningless. A British research geologist Matt (Kieran O'Brien) goes to London gigs and has sex with American student Lisa (Margot Stilley), but there is no characterisation or plot or even a script (the dialogue was improvised and is banal). Even the music seems to bear no relationship to the lovers and - except for some haunting work from Michael Nyman - is dreary gunge. Shot on low budget digital video, the picture is as grey as the subject matter and the only light-hearted aspect is the rather unsubtle joke of the (mercifully short) running time (69 minutes). Come again? No chance.

A big fuss about nothing.

[purered · 1/10 · 1 August 2006]

The fuss in the media, and by word of mouth, led me to want to see this film. I have always had a deep interest in censorship, be it of film, music, art or any freedom of expression.

I approached this film with the hope that it had been passed by the censors because it had some kind of beautiful message or story to tell. That the overall worth of the film had outweighed the controversy of the sexual content and it was such a well made film that to deny it a release would have been an injustice to film making.

But I was deeply disappointed. If you take away the explicit content of the film, it has nothing. It says nothing. It goes nowhere.

It has no particular storyline or insight to offer, the sex scenes are all it has to carry it. Without that it becomes nothing but a collection of badly filmed concert footage. As for the musical artists chosen, they are like the film..for twenty-somethings who think they are being daring and are pushing the boundaries, but are walking the safest path right down the middle of the road.

The characters are not developed at all, and what you do see and learn of them makes them instantly unlikable. Neither are they particularly attractive- which makes the sexual content unpleasant to watch. It may be (slightly) graphic but those people watching only for the hope of a sexual thrill will also be very disappointed.

I would much rather have seen this film without the graphic sexual content, and a more satisfying storyline exploring the relationship between the couple. As it is, it just lets you down in all areas.

It is put forward as a unique insight into a couples love making, but comes across as the cold, functional sex of a one night stand. There is not the passion, or the intensity, of a genuine loving relationship.

The film needed to be longer, to give time to develop the characters or some kind of story and give the viewer something to grasp. The sixty six minutes running time leaves you thinking "is that it?" and wanting a refund- both of the money paid for the film and the hour of your life you just wasted. It will remain notorious for its sexual content, and continue to appeal to those who have not seen it. Once seen, it loses any appeal.

This film is most likely to end up being passed around schools by thirteen year old boys and skipped to the sex scenes, or more likely the sex scenes downloaded from a peer to peer network.

I suppose the whole film does have one thing, an element of realism. It is like watching a very expensively filmed home video but as everyone knows other peoples lives may seem interesting at a distance, but close up they are just as boring as your own.In this case, dull is an understatement.

Maybe that is the point..but if this film does have one, it is very cleverly disguised.

I really wanted to like this film. I really wanted it to be the ground breaking, brave, work of artistic genius that the media promised.That this was the film that would open the gates for a more honest era of censorship.It isn't any of those things, the most interesting thing about it is the question of how it was given a certificate..the biggest question is why bother making it in the first place?

60 minute pretentious prelude to penetration

[spamjewce · 1/10 · 3 August 2006]

This film stinks of pretension, as do all of the positive reviews I have read about it.

I'll make my points short and sweet.

1. If I have to obtain external info (a synopsis, a forward, a cast and crew interview, or a commentary) to understand the film maker's intentions, the film as a medium has failed.

2. If this is supposed to be a story... it is lost.

3. If this a myopic of human sexuality, I can possibly except that as the reason I just wasted 67 minutes of my time. But sex is not love, and I knew where to put it before I left grade school. I didn't need two college age students to show me.

This film is not about relationships- its nothing more than a human equivalent of the Wild Kingdom- the mating rituals of homo sapiens. Unlike the Wild Kingdom, and just like porn, you actually get to see the film's "climax." I am not a prude by any stretch. But there is no Bohemian facet to this film. It is porn plain and simple. No matter how many college rock songs you use to whitewash it, strange cuts, melancholic piano tracks, or fancy words you try to pimp it with, you have amateur porn on your hands. Porn with small breasticles.

Is this really a spoiler considering there is no plot?

[macboswell · 1/10 · 29 May 2006]

A sorry nonsensical excuse for a porn flick. Why in the world director Michael Winterbottom has confused himself into believing that by putting footage of live gigs in between explicit sex scenes warrants the film (I say film in loose terms, more like 'footage') as 'mainstream' or 'art-house' and not 'porn' is beyond me. This truly was a waste of a cinema ticket.

The films plot or lack of one, consists of footage of live rock concerts followed by sex scenes followed by more live concert footage and more sex scenes in a vicious circle of tedium. This tiresome, lazy drivel is obvious proof that Michael Winterbottom is incapable of producing a film which shows the relationship between rock n roll and sex without simply forcing poor live footage of some great bands and gratuitous sex scenes in front the viewer over and over again. Boring.

On a plus note for Winterbottom, this film has has NO redeeming features: A dreadful script if there was one, terrible sound quality especially for a film called '9 Songs' and as for the acting; it cannot really be judged considering that the sex scenes were so explicit that there was 'no acting required'. The film looks as though it was shot using a web cam and then edited on a mobile phone, incoherent and flawed in every way imaginable.

In short, if you want to make a honest porn flick make one and I might even buy it, but don't dress up live footage of rock bands with explicit sex scenes and expect us to be blinded into believing it's not a porn flick. This should have never made it to the cinema, it stinks and I'm bored of talking about it.

Possible the first pornographic 'date movie' that lacks the hardcore edge guys expect but does take mainstream ADULT movies to the next level - REAL sex!

[SONNYK_USA · 7/10 · 25 August 2005]

How does a modern man recall his last 'love' relationship? In this case, by the songs they shared together. The man in question is a glaciologist who's airborne research over Antarctica spurs a chronological series of memories broken up by nine LIVE concert segments. To sum up the simplistic plot line of the flashbacks, the two young lovers meet at a rock concert and then each major sex scene at their Islington flat is punctuated with brief concert segments (shot guerrilla-style with the couple in attendance).

Director Michael Winterbottom ("24 Hour Party People") has actually done Hollywood (and Planned Parenthood) a service by taking out the 'fake' lovemaking scenes audiences have grown accustomed to and replaced them with REAL sex, actual condoms IN USE, and a female (or male) orgasm that hasn't been staged for dramatic effect.

Seriously, the porn industry should take note if this film has any commercial success in the USA, because for my money I'd rather have my human sexuality nicely photographed, lit well, and true-to-life than filled with emotionally forced bad acting, flat lighting, and fake orgasms (with even faker breasts). Name one porn movie with fantastic helicopter shots of Antarctica's icy surface with a science lesson tossed in too. Nada.

Best of all are the honest, first-rate acting performances from both Brit acting veteran Kieran O'Brian ("24 Hour Party People") as 'Matt', the very lucky older guy (age 31), and 'Lisa' (Margo Stilley), the young American waif, who gets picked up at a rock concert one night at London's Brixton Academy.

In England, where this film has already been released there was quite a brouhaha as first-time movie actress Margo Stilley (age 21) supposedly tried to have her name removed from the credits. Luckily, the scathing reviews by the British press have worn off and the film is being released in the USA with Margo credited and NO NC-17 rating.

Although a first-time principle actress, Margo's performance is noteworthy in that her improvised dialogue not only rings true but it speaks to the neuroses of many young 'wild' females way beyond the Paris Hilton experience. She even creates a little comic relief when confronting her 'boyness' in the bathroom mirror.

In retrospect, I don't think this film has the artistic merit of last year's ode to eroticism (Bertolucci's "The Dreamers"), but director Michael Winterbottom does make a compelling argument for taking sex scenes to their natural conclusion. Adult audiences are gravitating more and more to NC-17 rated movies (re: "The Brown Bunny," etc.) and it may be time for local cinemas (and Hollywood) to grow up. Hey, if Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt really are lovers then why couldn't they have 'condom sex' on screen for a change, and how much more of an impact would that have on college-age adults practicing 'unsafe' sex than thousands of hours of PSA's and sex-ed classes! Even if sex on the big screen isn't your thing, this film is so pure in its intentions it's practically a 'date movie' (except blind dates). Even the ladies will enjoy the sensitive approach to the material as the sexual exploits build from cunnilingus to some mild S&M, eventually progressing to the de rigeur 'cum shot'. As I said, it's an ADULTS ONLY experience, but one that might rekindle the sexual romance in your own relationships and give you a forum to converse with your partner about a sensitive subject (in America anyway).

Deeply boring

[dehodneth-1 · 1/10 · 7 April 2007]

This is one of the most boring films I have ever seen. There is no discernible story line. Despite all the very explicit sex there is no build up to it, resulting in a complete lack of any sexual tension - and the dreary repetitiveness of the sex act robs it of any eroticism. There is a limit to how long two people banging away in a room, with nothing else remotely resembling a plot going on, can hold the viewers interest. It doesn't help that the chief protagonists are not very attractive (my very subjective opinion, admittedly) and the whole pointless charade is punctuated periodically by loud bursts of awful music (although some might consider these intervals the best bits of the film).

Is it porn? Yes. Here's why.

[jack_malvern · 6/10 · 2 February 2005]

It is high-concept, art-house, and even watchable, but it is still pornography.

The definition of pornography (which I checked as soon as I got home, having left the cinema without looking anyone in the eye) is something along the lines of "sexual images created for erotic rather than aesthetic pleasure". Michael Winterbottom might argue that his intentions - to tell the story of a relationship through sex - were aesthetic, but there are three problems with this.

First, the images were unquestionably titillating. (Other reviewers' protestations that there is no erotica tells you more about them than about the film.)

Second, most of the sex scenes were interchangeable. Some were appropriate to the stage of relationship at which they were shown, but most were not.

Third, the "money shot" did not enhance the story. It was baldly gratuitous, and served only to show how far Winterbottom was willing to go.

I don't have a problem with pornography, but to claim 9 Songs is not, merely because it has characters and a story (of sorts) is disingenuous.

SUPER boring!

[dulgheru90 · 1/10 · 6 January 2016]

This is the most boring movie I've ever watched. There is no plot, no story, and nothing interesting about it. It's just two pasty, below average people having the most vanilla sex I've ever seen. I have no idea what kind of drugs the people who are rating this movie favourably are doing, but I want some.

I watched this at home and fast forwarded most of it due to the mind numbingly boring sex and lack of dialogue; I have watched actual pornos for longer than I've watched this movie.

The leads have absolutely no chemistry, it's painfully obvious that they're strangers. The only interesting part of this movie was that one of the "9 songs" was a great live version of "Last High" by the Dandy Warhols about halfway through.

I absolutely recommend skipping this and either watching an actual porno or an actual movie, this mess isn't worth checking out.

Beautiful, intimate, responsible. A minor triumph.

[Chris_Docker · 8/10 · 20 March 2005]

This is a love-it-or-hate-it film, as reflected by the deep divisions in critical response. It is a serious piece of film-making but there are two major components that you may love or hate - extreme sexual explicitness and modern rock music.

The rock music is mostly from live concerts. If the music that people pogue and stage dive to is not for you, you probably won't want to sit through an hour of it (check the soundtrack listings - Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Von Bondies, Salif Keita, Franz Ferdinand, Primal Scream, Dandy Warhols, Goldfrapp, Super Furry Animals, Elbow - do you recognise/like a few of them?) The sexual explicitness is a matter of personal taste - and tastes in sexuality vary a lot. If you can identify or empathise to some extent to this 20-some young couple and feel comfortable seeing how their relationship develops through sex and rock music you may, as I did, find it beautiful and intimate. The lovemaking is so natural that it is in sharp contrast to the fictionalised and very artificial sex scenes in mainstream films. There's also some wonderful symbolism in contrasting shots and details of Antarctica (connected to the daytime work of the main character). It's also a triumph British cinema that the Censors have allowed it to reach mainstream cinemas uncut.

interesting portrayal on relationship

[nobbytatoes · 7/10 · 29 July 2005]

Matt is in Antarctic on account of his job. While he is there he remember the relationship he left. The rest of the movie is made up of flash backs on his relationship with Lisa. All the flash backs contain when Matt and Lisa are at the concerts they attend; 9 concerts in all, and when they are having sex.

What is annoying and so interesting about 9 songs is that there is no story line. As the movie is a splice of flash backs, though they run chronologically, they don't make a story line; so the movie doesn't really go anywhere and you don't learn anything about them. But this is whats so interesting about it. If you keep in mind that it is a retrospective, Matt is remembering the best times of the relationship; and that is when he is having sex with Lisa and when they attend the concerts.

9 songs has been called one of the most sexually explicit movie of our age. This can be rightly so as this does have real sex scenes. But though it does have real sex scenes, this isn't in the fashion of a pornographic movie. A lot of the time in the sex scenes, most of the time we only see extreme close ups of the faces or other part of their body. With this style of filming, the sex scenes aren't that confronting; but there is a lot of nudity. The movie was shot on high definition hand held cameras, so the quality is fuzzy and shaky, so you don't get a complete feel of the surroundings.

The bands at the concerts have The Dandy Warhols, Elbow, Franz Ferdinand, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, The Von Bondies, Primal Scream, Super Furry Animals.

9 songs runs much in the vein of 'In the realm of the senses', a Japanese movie which also had a couple which we only see having sex the entire movie. Though 9 songs can be confronting at times, it lacks a lot of substance; from the lack of no story line. But this is one of the most interesting portrayal of a couples relationship. There are a lot of metaphors in here as well. The best is when Matt says that being in bed with someone can be so claustrophobic and agoraphobic at the same time.

Though i would say you should see this movie, but for a better movie that uses sex as a main point on a couples relationship, the movie Intimacy is much better.

much ado about nothing

[damien-16 · 1/10 · 5 November 2004]

This was a wasted 65 minutes. Mercifully short, fortunately. No plot, totally unappealing characters, and absolutely no idea why they got together, why they stayed together (the sex didn't seem all that great) nor why they split up. Maybe Micheal Winterbottom is turning into a dirty old man??? I'm sure he can do better than this. I will give him the credit of the doubt, after all he made code49 and Jude the obscure, but simply filming naked bodies (badly) and intersecting them with poorly recorded live music is no excuse for an "art film". If it is true that he wanted to make a serious adult movie about the sexual aspects of a relationship he should watch his classics again, and certainly Ai no corrida.

Physical love is a dead end ("L'Amour physique est sans issue")

[consul-2 · 25 January 2005]

I had read some reviews and comments from the Director before seeing "Nine Songs" so I had adapted my viewing mode accordingly. I armed myself with the kind of cold, intellectualized, high-culture glasses one uses to see relevant contemporary art. Most of the times it won't be neither an esthetically satisfactory experience nor a necessarily pleasant emotional experience but if we can see the point of the artist and if that point seems in resonance with one's curiosity and awareness of the world around, that will be good enough. From that somewhat minimalist expectations' level viewpoint, "Nine Songs" did the trick. I can see Michael Winterbottom's point. Why can a writer engage in sexual imagery with no restrictions and a film author can't do the same? There is also, I think, a honest experimental tone in all that. Something like "Let's see if it works to ask the actors to go all the way. Let's see if we can stay inside serious film making and not add an item to the increasingly inflated porn film list." I think MW managed to sail through. Yes, it can be done (but, at what a price for the actors it remains to be seen); yes, it's definitely miles away from porn. As to if this incursion into real sex in the picture is as effective as explicit sex in literature, I'm afraid that MW is no Houellebecq. Sex in the daring novels of Houllebecq retain a kind of legitimacy because in the center of the plot there is a couple where love between the two is expressing itself (although fed by some rather non-conventional sexual behavior). Sex in Sade or in other libertine writers was deliberately tabu-breaking, and liberating in a way. The extremely good quality of the writing (both in Houellebecq and Sade) is a crucial element in allowing the authors who engage in such edgy fields to get away with it. In "Nine Songs" the couple fails to touch us, there is no love there (not even the good chemistry of sexual love), and the "writing" in film terms is not that impressive. It resembles more a documentary, which in fact it is ("How to introduce explicit live sex in mainstream cinema"). We end up leaving the screening room with the frustrating sense that an opportunity was lost. Like a piece of rather cold contemporary art it challenges you, it makes you engage in argument with your friends, it makes you wish to write a comment on web site. But we enjoy good cinema, not merely relate to.Enjoyment is not there.

Zzzzzz

[cclaire-1 · 1/10 · 14 August 2006]

I am a Winterbottom fan, and love all the bands..however this film was so so so so boring. it was horrible. There was no point, just sex prom styles, no passion,

just boredom! Honestly I am open minded and tried so hard to be open minded about this film but there is nothing that could change my mind Real sex, more like porn, actress who is far too skinny made me feel sick. I hope that his next film will be more like 24 hour party people. It's such as shame as the idea behind the film had such great potential. Great music, and great theme.. music a& sex 0 what else could be better!?? well you would think that with sex and music it wouldn't be that hard to create an awesome film.NOT COOL

a pointless waste of time

[ellire · 2/10 · 23 January 2007]

The first thing I thought after coming out of the theater was that the filmmakers started making a documentary about Antarctica, gave up partway through, and spliced what they'd filmed onto a sequence of rock concerts and interspersed sex scenes... either that or it was a failed attempt to give some plot to the thing.

The dialogue was so bad it was hilarious, especially when the narrator was trying to be all solemn and meaningful.

Some examples: "Do my nipples feel sore to you? Because they are." "Can we do it just once without a condom?" "No." (end of conversation) "You're BORING." (Gee, what a great relationship they have, right?)

9 things I would rather do that dignify this movie as interesting, provocative, intelligent, challenging....

[luket · 1/10 · 30 October 2009]

I was once told that nobody liked soft porn. Porn lovers hated it because it was,... well 'soft' and porn haters hated it because it was porn. Enter Peter Winterbottom - a man who wants to make a bit of R-18 porn (the full frontal, penetrative kind) but who doesn't want people to think that he actually wanted to make porn, so he tries to convince people that one of most boring films of all time is an explicit, yet subtle exploration of a relationship. No doubt the closet, porn-loving, anti porn guys will love this movie. 'Is that porn you are watching dear...I thought you hated porn.'......'No honey, it's actually a very tender exploration of the physical act of love. I am definitely not watching it because its the only film I could rent at Blockbuster where I could see all the naughty bits.' The reality is that if someone hadn't managed to convince some idiot that they could show full sex in a film, this would have never been made. As a concept (excluding the bodily fluids) its not even a story - Two kids meet, listen to some music, have sex...not exactly Dickens! However if you add the, 'you can see them actually do it' factor into the equation its makes the film a marketable project.

I must confess I watched it because it was the first film I heard of that showed real sex and tried to take itself seriously. More fool me for my curiosity. If anything the film made me feel a little uncomfortable. It was voyeuristic and I couldn't help but think that the two leads got duped into the roles in the belief that showing a couple of their orgasms might make them big stars. It seems a little immoral that no-one told them it would probably ruin their careers, which to date it seems to have done.

Anyone who tries to legitimise this film is either on the right end of a paycheck or is too gutless to say that they enjoyed watching a couple of actors exploited.

I can handle the fact that a Mac Donalds is Mac Donalds, but don't try and serve it to me on some fine china and tell me its fine dining.

I hope the actors sue Winterbottom for even hinting that they should make this film and I hope people see this film for what it is. There's no benefit moaning about the graphic nature of the film....it literally says on the box what to expect, so if you don't wanna see sex save some of your life and money and give this a miss. It would be nice if someone noticed that this is exactly what it claims not to be. A dumb turd of a movie that shamelessly exploits the human urge to watch a bit of fornication. It's a shame the sh#@!y director didn't have the decency to be honest about his intentions...I am sure the small inde' budget would have been enough for some skint couples around the world to let him watch them have sex and film it.

A patronising concept, and one flaccid sausage of a movie. It will be less painless telling your other half that you'd like to watch some porn now and again - I don't think anyone with a brain could be fooled by this movie!

There's something about it

[Angeneer · 7/10 · 29 March 2006]

Bad marketing has hurt this movie irreversibly. Yes, 9 Songs is sexually explicit. But the presentation of the sex is not at all pornographic. It's realistic. In fact, this is one of the most realistic depictions of a couple's love life I have ever seen. And, let's face it, this is what guys are nostalgic of when they are somewhere far away from it. True, there is no actual plot line, but the film is mainly built on recollections of images, not in a plot. After all, at your early twenties, your life revolves around sex, music and drugs and there's not really any dramatic element that is movie material.

And yes, the film could do with less sex, but here comes the experimental aspect of it. Winterbottom tries to see if he can get away with it. He does, because of his accomplished direction, which is what keeps 9 Songs marginally on the artsy side. Without it, it's just a porn flick. This is a director's film in every way.

As a side-dish, you get to enjoy good indie rock and brit-pop from top acts (plus Michael Nyman) and also get a scent of beautiful London.

Sex Sells Schlock Songs

[themwntl · 1/10 · 17 June 2020]

Feeling sad for Mike W-Bottom. Mediocre writer (uncredited) of this pretentious matress romp.. Off to the concert you lovers... back to bed... etc etc etc.. There must come a time in a mainstream Brit TV directors' career when the dream of being a really great Driector (list famous Driectors here) dies.. ? what to do to ease the depression? Mike can make that voyeur sex film with some young (ish) , fit, desperate for work actors. Let them improvise much of the dialogue (like the Trip with less talent) and make sure the camera gets just enought of the penetration.parts... OH goody Mike... you really can make a swell film.... Keep up the good work...

Maintains its artistic relevance and never feels exploitative or campy

[fredrikgunerius · 7/10 · 7 August 2023]

9 Songs captures the zeitgeist of turn-of-the-millennium young lovers: British pop/rock, careful fiddling with medium-level drugs, and passionate, self-soaking sex with loose strings attached. The film is groundbreakingly sexually explicit for a mainstream film, and the director Michael Winterbottom (24 Hour Party People) manages to some degree to narrate his otherwise simple love story through nothing but sex scenes and concert clips. It's something of an achievement, really, especially taking into account that the film maintains its artistic relevance and never feels exploitative or campy. There is solid, brave acting from the two leads.

The idea is more interesting than the execution

[tomgillespie2002 · 3/10 · 8 October 2017]

Michael Winterbottom is one of the most important and challenging filmmakers around. Over the past couple of decades, he has directed a prolific stream of interesting features across a variety of genres, refusing to settle on a particular style and seemingly always working on a minuscule budget. But no filmmaker is immune to producing a stinker, and after a successful 2002 which saw the release of the excellent double-header of 24 Hour Party People and In This World, Winterbottom hit a grey patch with Code 46 and 9 Songs. He would push the boundaries of what could be tolerated in terms of cinematic violence in 2010 with the divisive The Killer Inside Me, but 6 years earlier he would test the BBFC's waters with 9 Songs, a film that may still be the most sexually explicit film ever to be released in British theatres.

It tells the story of two lovers: Matt (Kieran O'Brien), a British scientist, and Lisa (Margo Stilley), an American exchange student. As the film opens, the couple have broken up and Matt is heading to Antarctica to conduct research and reflect on their doomed relationship. He remembers their time together through the sex they had, and they had a lot of it. 9 Songs quickly falls into a pattern: Sex scene, concert scene, and then a trip back to desolate mountains of Antarctica. They met at Brixton Academy and share a love of live music, so between the sex we get to experience the various gigs they go to - the 9 songs of the title - shot guerrilla-style from afar over the heads of the audience, which is pretty much how most of us experience a concert. The sex is passionate, spontaneous and exciting, but love is much harder. As it becomes clear to both of them that they won't be together forever, they employ blindfolds and handcuffs to spice things up, but nothing can mask the distance opening between them.

Winterbottom doesn't shy away from explicitness. We get to see full penetration, oral sex and even a money shot - pretty much everything you would expect from a cheeky browse on Pornhub. But what separates 9 Songs from pornography is the complete lack of sensationalism. There is absolutely nothing arousing about the sex, despite the attractiveness of the two leads, and this is likely what convinced the BBFC to pass it uncut (it's 'art'). The problem with 9 Songs is that the idea is infinitely more interesting than the execution. This is an incredibly dull and repetitive film, made all the more of a chore to sit through by the two thinly-realised and rather annoying characters at the forefront. Winterbottom seems to be trying to say something profound by occasionally switching the action to the South Pole, but it comes across as allegory on the level of a student-film. The concert footage is filmed with the same grungy energy as 24 Hour Party People - one of my favourite Winterbottom films - so there's some relief to be found in performances by the likes of Primal Scream, Franz Ferdinand and Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, if you're into that sort of thing.

A unique experience

[KeeganDeWitt · 9/10 · 26 July 2005]

It seems strange to have such an affection for a film that is so flawed and fails in so many areas. Either way, I really really enjoyed Nine Songs, a relationship drama told strictly through sex. First, we'll list the failures. The acting of our female lead is a bit suspect and makes her, in the end, unlikable. The photography, although intimate and immediate, suffers from it's DV quality and makes you wonder how beautiful this film could have been shot with the eye of perhaps... Lars Von Trier's dogma lense. Most importantly, the movie relies on two ingredients that in the end prove a bit useless. We are reliving the story in memory via the male lead as he travels through Antarctica. Although it is an interesting metaphor and a captivating landscape, it seems almost entirely unnecessary. We hear him say "you can be clostraphobic and agoraphobic all at the same time, much like the bedroom." Secondly, and most important, the live music is inconsequential, although good. The actual image quality is low, the songs play for too long, the lyrics apply to the narrative not at all, and the bands all flirt with one style (Michael Nyman being the exception). I must say, there is an outstanding version of "Jacqueline" by Franz Ferdinand.

Now let me tell you where the film succeeds. We experience two young, naive, selfish personalities infatuated with one another, and the idea of one another. This is expressed in the most immediate and intimate fashion: SEX. We see two people in the prime of a relationship, in which the most sex is had, and as much as possible, however possible, symbolizing favors, trust, forgiveness, revenge, and all the other facets of a relationship. These scenes also succeed because of their length, the total lack of music, and the director's willingness to let them exist without explanation. Although these two characters are not even particularly likable or explained to us, we end up feeling as if we've shared something very deep with them, solely based on the extent to which we are asked to hang with them throughout the long and graphic and no holds barred sex scenes.

It may seem sick, but by the end, as a graphic fellatio scene ends with actual ejaculation, you have become so acclimatized to this topic, and it being our main source of communication, that there is an almost unspoken dialogue between all parties. Instead of feeling offended, we feel love for the privacy of the moment, for the trust and sharing that happens there. Instead of feeling aroused, we feel compelled by the motives, interested in the roles played and mindful of the moment shared.

By asking that you step into a theater, with total strangers, and watch many graphic sexual encounters, many unexplained and without the usual Hollywood ramp-up, you have signed over a certain amount of control and comfort as an audience-member, which in the end, offers a truly unique experience of the "love story". When all is said and done, "Nine Songs" evoked a truly unique and loving response from me, in spite of the fact that as a film, it fails in many areas. I would not say that many films should be made like this, but I would say that it is flirting with a new form of love story that is raw, beautiful and in the end, no matter how many times it fails, honest by the sheer default of it's topic.

What the heck is wrong with moralistic people?

[agostino-dallas · 7/10 · 4 March 2017]

I understand the religion preaching about movies like this. After all, intimacy has the "in" to highlight that some parts of our adult lives should happen INsice 4 walls, a closed door, don't forget the shades in the window and mostly important...it must have a roof above you too (skylight should be OK if helicopters are not crossing your roof). Then you are all set for your sexual activity, which like I just described seems like you're going to kill someone. And maybe this movie is trying to say it out loud: "sex isn't a mortal crime and you're not going to rotten in hell and having your genitals pierced and speared by sadistic demons forever". That's how a Korean girl pictured it on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRzFIBXIUg8) because you had sex, lost of it. But, the thing is, sex can really be a passport to heaven or hell mostly in your mind than on your body and I mean it in a not religious context. Irresponsible sex can also screw you and your partner in a non pleasant way, physically!! Let's remind people that STD like AIDS has not stopped. In addition, it is very likely that a couple, especially married couple, will have issues in their relationship if the sex life is dull. We can look at it in many angles other than just preaching about what you see. Funny that "how you SEE it" makes the whole difference because a blind person would never that judgmental approach!! Anyway, try to be open to what that really means even if you just watch the trailer. have your own opinion and think that sex for sex, without love, will always be just sex, and that is usually dull over time.

If you just want to fetish...just for the sake of physical thing sans content..watch it!

[rushatiu · 1/10 · 25 April 2012]

Honestly, when I came across the movie, I was attracted to its cover picture along with its title. Seriously, the way movie started was really fascinating. But as it went on gradually, it became disappointing since I found hardly any content in it. The plot seemed to have lost somewhere. Kieran O'Brien was good. Margo Stilley, however, could have given it a better shot. One thing I was hooked to it because of its music,9 rock songs. Otherwise there are many other better pornographic pictures made till date. It is not worth buying tickets for this movie. Otherwise, if you really don't have anything to do but fetish, watch it.Lol!