Fifty Shades of Grey Review Thread (1 Viewer)

My 2-word review: Too tame.


I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.

Has anybody else viewed this film?

*whistles innocently*

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)


** (out of 4)


Rather silly adaptation of the E.L. James best-seller about a shy, timid virgin (Dakota Johnson) who meets the elusive billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Doman) and soon both of their lives change.


Writing a plot synopsis of this thing is pretty pointless since I'm sure the target audiance is already going to know the story. I guess this is where I should admit that I haven't read the book so this review won't be comparing the two or complaining about what the movie did or didn't do from the book. No, this review is just going to be based around the actual movie and for the life of me I can't see what all the hype is about. I don't expect everyone laying their money down to be some sort of film buff but the "shocking" material on display here has been going on in European movies for four-plus decades so why it's just now reaching American shores is pretty funny in itself but that's off subject I guess.


As for the film, there are all sorts of major issues with it but we can start with the laughable screenplay, which would have been rejected by the Lifetime channel and in fact, I'm going to guess that it would have been rejected has a five-year-old written it. The dialogue is without question some of the most laughable I've heard in a very long time. In fact, the movie seems to be lost in what decade it is because there are times that the "F" word is used and it's used in a way to where it's supposed to be shocking. Really? It's going to take more than that. The entire character development between the two lead characters is another joke and after a while you really can't buy into any of the melodrama and you've just got to sit back and laugh.


The performances are another problem but then again, even the likes of Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor couldn't work with horrid material so I'm not going to be too harsh on Johnson and Doman. With that said, the lackluster direction by Sam Taylor-Johnson doesn't help either as there are many times where another take should have happened. The scenes with Johnson playing the shy girl just aren't very believable because the actress can't sell it. The scenes of her explaining she's a virgin are laughably bad. Doman really doesn't get much to work with and especially since he can't crack a smile and has to give off dumb, overly-serious facial expressions throughout. I will say that the actors have a nice chemistry together but that's about it. The supporting players are all equally forgettable.


Yet another problem is that the film just isn't erotic. FATAL ATTRACTION, BASIC INSTINCT and even something as silly as BODY OF EVIDENCE are just a few recent films that packed a lot more punch than this one. I mean, is sticking an eraser around your lips really erotic anymore? A lot of the lack of eroticness has to be blamed on the director who just seems to have been the wrong fit for the material. Nothing from the erotic nature to the serious stuff works and everything is poorly edited.


So, why the two-stars for all the negative stuff? As bad as the film is, thankfully it reaches the level to where you can't help but laugh and be mildly entertained as to what's going to happen next. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know which one is better but the film is pretty flat from start to finish.

Well...at least Patrick isn't alone any more! Thanks for adding your $.02, Michael.

My girlfriend, a fan of the book, just posted her thoughts on Facebook and she pretty much agrees with me, which is a VERY rare thing. I think she's more upset about how it turned out.

My GF actually wanted to go see this. I made a deal with her.

If you wait for the BD...we'll watch it then.

And I added...

You might have to tie me to the couch......

Thankfully, nobody I know wants to see this so I don't think I will ever be in a place where this is on a television and I am in the room...however, the mothers of several people I know (we are talking women in their 60s and up) have gone to see it and have given it very positive reviews. One woman I know shared her 68 year old mom's positive review of the film by texting a link to it to friends and wrote below it "One thing I hoped never to have to listen to or read is my mother reviewing in depth a movie about sex."


I would share it here but we were warned not to tweet, facebook, or repost anywhere under any condition. However, I did post in the old thread for this film the "Elders review" video that is on youtube and seems to indicate people over 60, women in particular, are enjoying this film.


At this point all I imagine when this film comes up is little old ladies making their way to the theater to see it.


I imagine if there are men watching this film it is because their wives or girlfriends...or maybe their mothers...have dragged them to see it.


My big concern with this film has nothing to do with sex but rather that Hollywood loves a trend so much. This is a movie based on a lousy novel written by a woman that is not a writer. Now bad novels often end up being much better films. The Godfather was a great film based on a pretty crappy novel by Mario Puzo. So, is Hollywood quickly buying up the rights to every poorly written bodice ripper they can find because 50 Shades is a smash? Will the shy theater owners that seem to prefer Disney animation and super heroes suddenly have a change of heart and start asking to book and promote bad R rated movies about sex that pull in the granny and housewife crowd? Is a remake of 9 1/2 Weeks already moving into production? Will Bo Derek's Bolero, Tarzan the Ape Man and Ghosts Can't Do It be reappraised as modern masterpieces? Is the entire Emmanuelle series being dusted off for remakes? What beautiful actress is being cast in the Ursula Andress part in the remake of The Sensuous Nurse?





These are the questions I think must be answered...

I can't understand what's gone wrong here. A large grossing film that is not based on a comic book (!) and without CGI.

Keith Cobby said:

I can't understand what's gone wrong here. A large grossing film that is not based on a comic book (!) and without CGI.

Click to expand...

The explanation is that it's a book so it's still a know property and that means that Hollywood isn't terrified to make it.

Keith Cobby said:

I can't understand what's gone wrong here. A large grossing film that is not based on a comic book (!) and without CGI.

Click to expand...

CGI or not...

Still had an ass double.

(I wonder who in Hollywood came up with the ass double...)

The wife and I saw this today and man, was this movie a stinker! We both agreed that (a) it was for the most part torpidly boring, and (b) at other times it was LOL silly (meaning, the sex stuff).


I mean, maybe you had to have read the book (neither of us have) to be able to see in the mind's eye what they couldn't put on the screen without getting an R or X rating.


And to top it off, we found there to be zero chemistry between Christian and Anastasia. Not a single spark flew.


15/100 or D+ .... this is one boring turkey of a movie.

And now there are three!

FYI - It was rated R.

Going to see this now. Nothing else is on before Hot Tub Time Machine 2, which, in and of itself, shows how desperate I am to see something at the cinema.

Patrick Sun said:

FYI - It was rated R.

Click to expand...

Wow ... I wonder for what? The sex scenes seemed tame to me. Maybe it was for language?

steve jaros said:

Wow ... I wonder for what? The sex scenes seemed tame to me. Maybe it was for language?

Click to expand...

Haven't seen the movie but looked at the "Parents Guide" on IMDB. Lots listed under "Sex & Nudity" - this bit alone would get it an "R":


"A woman lies nude on a bed and we see her shaved pubic area and vagina lips for a few seconds."


You can get butts and short boob shots in "PG-13" - ala "Titanic" - but they're never gonna allow pubic area/vagina in "PG-13".


Add to that all the rest of the nudity and sex and it had to be an "R"...