1,458 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
This movie raped my Intelligence
sarangi201511 February 2015
This movie is atrocious beyond words, and the first movie from which I've ever walked out (an hour and 17 minutes into it). The session was full of giggling middle-aged women, wetting themselves with anticipation - I cannot believe this book and movie has appeal. Are women really so bored, so desperate, that this is what gets them off?? The acting was appalling - I guess that's the end of Ms Johnson & Mr Dornan's careers. And I wouldn't be surprised if the actors who refused the role of Christian Grey are secretly relieved they had the sense to reject it! The script was laughable. No chemistry between the two leads. As for the 'eroticism'.....it was completely lacking. Stilted, awkward, poor cinematography, cheesy scripting. Just terrible.

Do not waste your time or money with this.
2,244 out of 2,886 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
My god.. this was awful
gangstah_vino10 February 2015
I don't want to spoil a lot, so ill just give ratings with a brief description on certain elements of this so-called "film".

Acting; 3/10. The acting was misplaced, awkward.. not to look at. At least convince us you're an intense guy, Mr. Grey.

Plot: 1/10. that wasn't a plot for a normal movie, it was a plot for soft-core porn.. which had as terrible acting in it as real porn.

Camera work/scenery/etc. 7/10 for what it is.. great camera work i guess and good scenery

Romance; 2/10. I've seen the notebook... that's romance. This is a poor attempt to romance. It tries to tell you they're madly in love, but it's just a weird sexual relationship.

Drama: 1/10. there is no thrill.. no intense things going on. There is no drama in this soft-core-erotic-drama.

"The deeds" 10/10.. they did it. so.. can't give it any lower points than this.

Overall, it's was horrible acted, plot-less, non-romantic nor drama movie about a girl being horny and the guy doing an attempt of BDSM, which comes down to.. soft-core.. almost nothing different than normal sex with bondage.. boring sh*t.

on that note, go watch the kings man; secret service. that's one of the best action movies i've seen in a while!
1,537 out of 2,028 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Yeah, I'm sorry, it is that bad
blanche-212 February 2015
"Fifty Shades of Grey" is based on a badly written book, so why someone thought they could make a decent film out of it is beyond me. Actually I don't think anyone believed they could make a good film, the producers just wanted the money that would come in from all people who for reasons known only to themselves read the book.

I had a free ticket and I had to go in order to do a story on it. Bottom line, I'm not doing a story on it.

Okay, here's the problem, and this is what breaks my heart. We no longer know what good or great is. I am no follower of Ayn Rand, but in The Fountainhead, she predicted the rise of mediocrity, mediocrity being considered great and the norm we shoot for. It only stands to reason that at this point, some things can't even rise to that sad level. This isn't mediocre, it's pathetic. I can't believe there are people complimenting the actors. But then I can, because they have come to accept mediocrity. Something I fight against with all my heart.

There is one other problem. The book sucked; in order to like it, one had to use his or her imagination. The success of this book lay in the fantasy aspect. Sometimes imagination is more powerful than just about anything and can give you an erotic experience. This film doesn't fulfill the most inane imagination, let alone someone who really has a wild and creative one. The only fantasy it can give you is how fast you can get out of the theater.

There were people around me laughing. The ones who weren't left, and from what I found out in the lobby, actually demanded and got their money back. When was the last time you saw people leaving a movie in the middle? I'm not sure I've ever seen it, and I'll guess I've been going to movies longer than a lot of you.

I lament the loss of artistic soul, of creativity, of going for the best. I miss the days when Billy Wilder was a writer and a filmmaker. What are we left with but a horrible book written on a first grade level and the resulting bad movie.
656 out of 855 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Yeesh, that was a whole lot of nothing.
gand712 February 2015
The only reason this movie gets two stars out of me is that, thanks to this mediocre effort, I'll be able to remind my girlfriend of what I put up with for her the next time I get to choose on movie night and I suggest a cheesy 80s comedy like "Weird Science" or "The Naked Gun". I don't really need to go into all of the details here because there are more than enough detailed descriptions of this thing to spare me the effort of doing so and to spare you reading the same thing over more times than necessary. Instead, I'll just go ahead and throw my lot in with the "haters", as the fans seem to be labelling us here.

What I will add because I haven't read it yet so far, and what I think should be an important point for perspective, is that every last "10 out of 10" reviewer I clicked on was a newly created account with only this film having been reviewed. I've been around here long enough to know that's always suspicious. I won't blatantly accuse them of being involved in the film's production or of being friends of those who were, but these new members sure are mighty keen on this rather sub-par film. You've been warned.
805 out of 1,076 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oh this film was just DREADFUL!
bubab212 February 2015
Okay. So I have not read the book, (being a male), and I went with one of my female friends who HAD read the book, (and she said she had enjoyed it) -- although having said that, she had read it a number of years ago.

We paid our money and we took our seats. The film began; and I have to say that the wooden acting, the cruddy screenplay, the corny dialogue, the ridiculous script, the highly improbable storyline, were all just TOO much for us! (And not just us it seems! As we could hear titters from the audience at large as well coming from dialogue within the story that were supposed to be serious scenes -- so not just us I hasten to add)...

We gave it half an hour and then I leaned over to my friend and said "Do you think there's any chance they will give us our money back?? What do you think to it?" -- and thank God she replied, "Oh thank Heavens you said that; I can't stand it another minute! Lets just get outta here!!!!!!! It's just terrible".

We got our money back. We complained it was nothing like the book and that we demanded a refund as had only seen half an hour of the movie, and hey presto they refunded my credit card! No questions asked!

I give this rubbish 1 star; and that was for the pretty outdoor scenery!

Don't waste your time with it -- it is Hollywood at it's worst.
1,410 out of 1,932 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Flippity-flop.
hayleyhillis12 February 2015
You simply can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The book was unquestionably the worst piece of writing I'd ever encountered, so what the hell were they thinking in making this rubbish? Apart from the tedium of the plod (read plot), the script is cobbled together with hollow dialogue, countless use of retch-inducing signifiers and cliché, a complete lack of chemistry between the characters and predictable scenarios and outcomes at every turn. I got the feeling throughout the film that both these actors were desperate to get off the set, go home (but certainly to separate houses), drown their shared humiliation with a stiff drink or ten, and set fire to their contracts. Woeful book. Woeful film. Don't waste your money on this drivel. There are Fifty Reasons to STAY AWAY.
844 out of 1,155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
100 Shades of Terrible.
ajscotland12 February 2015
I was in the mood for a great film about a young girl who meets a successful and seductive businessman with sexy results. This was not the case. This film was purely awful. No one can blame me for not being in the right frame of mind for the cinema, as some reviewers are. They see a film and end up having a bad night and they put the entire blame on the film, this is not the case for me. I was in a positive frame of mind, and really in the mood to see what I thought would be a somewhat good if not better than mediocre film.

This film is about two people who have no chemistry "falling" for each other. "Falling" like off a three story balcony leaving you without the use of your legs for the rest of your life. I'm just going to be blunt. This film is about GLORIFYING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and a little girl in over her head who tolerates it. The man in the relationship, Chris, in a career-ending performance portrayed by Jamie Doormat, is a control-freak who must be in control in everything he does, including the life of his BDSM buddy, Ana.

Not only does he creep onto her, HE BEATS HER, non-consensually while they have intercourse, he stalks her, HE INTIMIDATES HER and he shows no love for her. If this were any other film, he would be the antagonist. If you're in the mood for a movie that shows what true love is, I suggest you see Mrs. Doubtfire, as that film is about a loving family man who shows his dedication and support to his wife, even after they are separated, and his children, by dressing up as an elderly female babysitter.

50 Shades of Brown gets 1/10 stars from me as I am unable to give A BIG FAT ZERO.
1,001 out of 1,385 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This used to be call porn.
Westeire10 February 2015
Sorry but I can't get over Jamie Doran.. I mean he comes from playing a serial killer in the Fall (who tied up women and murdered them) to .. Well. 20 mins of sex. The movie is boring and predictable. The fine line between abuse and pleasure is so thin it's almost non- existent. Lacks any of the raunch or controversy promised, and is instead tiresome, banal and as thinly plotted as a porn. I haven't read the book.. and I have to say I didn't finish the movie. I don't think i missed much by leaving 20 mins early, but it was just boring. If a man had written the book he would probably have been jailed. Its beyond understanding what people see in the book/movie. Unless all the women I know are telling me lies and secretly want to be tied up and abused by a perverted man.
1,251 out of 1,759 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible to BDSM Community and to Women.
lycaniism9 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Another sad movie with a generic plot with the Mary Sue / Gary Sue relationship. A relationship so horrid that it reaches a limit when rape is involved. This book turned movie is a mere reminder that 'Hollywood' will create anything without investigating the rather obvious 'unusual behavior' -- which, lets be honest here, isn't unusual until you put a married man and a girl who cannot bite her lip for the life of her in the same room. It is more than evident there is no chemistry on set, and off set. Jamie, you could have done so much better. Dakota, no, just no. Thank you, EL for your horrible outlook on BDSM and your plagiarized mistake of a 'book'. You truly have given writers everywhere a reason to wish they'd never written, and a reason as to why actors never wish to take part in anything that relates to this horrible mess of a movie.
524 out of 733 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fifty Shades of No.
versispefende12 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
As an active member of BDSM community, and having been a part of it for six years, I am appalled by the 'blockbluster romantic movie' that everyone deems to be 'romantic'. You take a Mary Sue - also known as Dakota Johnson to whom lacks the ability to a) bite her lower lip in a 'sexual' manner', let alone say her lines as if she's been acting for several years ( lets be honest here, she cannot act ) / Gary Sue - seen as the bearded wonder that was Jamie Dornan, a married man outside of his acting career with a child - situation that holds no evidence of sexual tension.

The inability to further deepen the bond between Dominate and submissive was, how does one say it, horrible in effort. What appeared to be every 'womans' dream man became a man known for raping a woman purely because of his night terrors, a man to whom devoted taking the idea of BDSM and creating abuse rather than listening and allowing for someone - mind you, who had no sexual ID or preference until meeting him - who was about as 'vanilla' as the ice cream itself, to study and look at the idea of BDSM. To those whom have taken the books route and ventured into the dark abyss that is Wikipedia to figure out what BDSM is, needs to be caned.

The author, herself, takes an already published series turned movie, and makes it into her own idea. A 26 year old billionaire? Unlikely in this day and age with the way the economy is. A college student with a rather unnerving need to say 'oh my' every other second? Really? Is THIS what writing as the point of view of a woman has come down to? It seems like, although we argue against it, and we say that we don't condone it, that the women whom have read this book, have seen this movie, will and have ignored that there is rape, non consensual sex, and heavy amounts of verbal and emotional abuse. Who really wants a man who is going to control their eating habits, sleep schedule and more? Certainly not I.

To be frank, everyone knows this movie is going to gross millions upon its release; why? Because everyone is all hyped up to see a movie with little to no chemistry, to find that the 'unusual behavior' is just another way of life. We magnify all the little things in the world that we've yet to uncover, but BDSM should never be something in the movies, should never be written; especially by women in their 'mid life crisis' age with no idea what the sensation of a crop lashing at skin feels like.

If you want good BDSM, or to understand it, there are people willing to discuss it, websites you can go on - although extremely sexual in nature - to figure out what true BDSM looks like, what it sounds like. When this book was written, it was evident that EL James did not do her own 'research'.

All in all, it's a movie with no plot, with no true build to it with horribly written characters and nothing more. So why spend nearly good money seeing this sad mistake when you can spend that money on getting something to eat and staying inside? Complete and total thumbs down to the movie, the book, the series, and to the author.
256 out of 358 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
My Faith in Humanity Has Gone
Old_Man_From_Scene_2413 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
When the end credits began to roll, I was given a fleeting look by the people sitting next to me in the cinema. They were probably checking to see if I was still alive; such was my horror and, quite frankly, disbelief, I had not moved from the same position for at least an hour. A wide-opened mouth, bulging eyes and clenched fists on the armrests at my sides. No, I was not enamoured with the movie. No, I did not find the scenes of bondage shocking. I had simply lost the will to live.

One might remember a famous novel by a famous author, '1984'. Until I walked out of that movie house, I didn't know what had spurned Orwell's mind in the creation of his dystopian society, but now I have a vague idea. Orwell wasn't afraid of being stalked by the government - he was terrified that future society would become the way it is today.

I'm not referring to high-octane sexual fantasies, because we all have our own desires and it's not my place to judge. No, what Orwell envisaged, surely, is acting so terrible, movies so poorly made and producers so incompetent, that the likes of Hitchcock and Bogart are probably turning in their graves.

With laughter.

Fifty Shades of Grey is a mediocre work by a laughable author of FanFiction, meaning that without the abysmal Twilight series, the TRULY abysmal movie that I have suffered through today could not have existed. Someone get me a DeLorean and a Flux Capacitor; it's time to right a few wrongs.

There is only one sure-fire way to improve this catastrophe and that is, quite literally, with fire. Burn it. Burn it all to ash and spread the cinders across the resting ground of Cthulhu. Without this worthy sacrifice, surely the monster will rise up to wreak havoc upon us deserving mortals.

All in all, I have only one recommendation for the people who will, inevitably, be dragged (ironic term, given the movie) to the cinema/theatre to watch this complete abomination: therapy. Years and years of therapy. But avoid the groups. Once you see Mr. Grey's 'desires' for yourself, you'll probably be afraid to stand in the same room as another human being for, oh, several hundred millennia.

And there's worse to come: rumours talk of a trilogy, to keep things up to speed with the 'books'. What's that sound? Oh, it's just the splatter of the blood I'm currently weeping. I'm sure that's unrelated...

Right? Guys? Oh...
197 out of 274 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Keeping it short
rsw770311 February 2015
Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan had zero sex appeal, for me anyway. I hoped I was going to see something a bit more provocative than predictable. However, what unfolded on the screen was a story without enough substance. So I grabbed the first hard cover volume from my aunt's large collection of "literature." She warned me not to expect much and she was right. I somehow got through 150 pages of poorly written boredom and gave up. I'm glad I saw the film for free. On the positive side, I can report that the Music is by one of my favorite film composers, Danny Elfman. Plus, the soundtrack includes music from the likes of Beyonce, Ellie Golding and many others which helps but does not rescue the largely silly visual acrobatics. Maybe my opinion would be different were I a repressed housewife or middle aged spinster. But that is as stupid a remark as the movie itself, given I am a man.
501 out of 727 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Really really bad
remibgoldstone12 February 2015
One must ask, how is it possible that a movie company would bother to advertise such a disgusting movie. I consider myself fairly sophisticated, however this is not entertainment .This is not a sign of being in with the times. This is not art or a venue for good acting. This is pure filth, violence and an offense to women. This movie and I use the term loosely is worse than porn ,as it advertises itself as a main stream movie. At least with porn you know what your getting. This is the worst I've seen, because former sex torture movies, remained with the horror genre ,where they belonged. Disgusted is how I felt about this movie, and ashamed at the hype given it.
176 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not worth the time
kimmy-240-73293716 February 2015
This movie, and indeed the book, is NOT about BDSM. I'm 25 and have been involved with BDSM since I was 16, and this movie is about nothing but abuse, non-consent, and even has a scene that is nothing but rape.

Grey don't listen to his 'sub', ignores her feeling of safety, there is NO AFTERCARE whatsoever in the entire story, not even once in the book, which would make a REAL submissive have a mental breakdown after being treated the way this girl was.

Ladies, you've got mental issues if you think this movie is about BDSM. This guy is the exact thing you want to avoid if you don't want to end up in an abusive relationship. A real dominant, a real top, would never behave in the manners of this so called 'man', and a real sub would never accept this kind of treatment. This is abuse. This is non-consent. This is manipulative and even have a rape scene. Google BDSM for ten minutes and you'll see that I'm right.

That is all people - this movie is a pile of trash, the book is even worse trash.
53 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Fascinating, Erotic Film Perhaps Better Than We Give It Credit For
thale0515 February 2015
Before the review, I think I should address one important thing: I have never read the book. That being said, you will not read any comparisons or critiques of what was left out or what was done wrong in the adaptation. I went into this movie aware of the subject matter and judged it just like any other movie. Consider this a fair review of "Fifty Shades of Grey".

Honestly, I liked this movie. I know what you're thinking: "This guy just likes seeing people have kinky sex on the big screen." No, I don't. In fact, I think mainstream erotic films offer us more than just artsy porn; they can be a fascinating look into the human subconscious like "Eyes Wide Shut" and they can be pure garbage like "Caligula". I have come to learn that art is not safe whether it's in the horror genre, comedy or especially in the erotic subgenre. Strangely, I found "Fifty Shades of Grey" to be provocative of questions about love, compromise, and passion even if it borders on what most people would consider bad taste.

First off, what is the movie about? Basically it follows the relationship between an inhibited English student named Anastasia Steele (played by Dakota Johnson) and a mysterious, young billionaire named Christian Grey (played by Jamie Dornan). They meet for an interview and begin building an infatuation for one another but Grey keeps insisting he does not want a romance with Ana. Instead he offers her the chance to partake in a BDSM relationship in which he is the dominant and she is the submissive. When I look back, the roles match well with their personalities.

There is no real story I could find in this film; rather it's more about the characters. A lot of great movies focus on their characters more than plot; in this movie, it works out okay. Many of the supporting characters are snubbed for the two main players as if to say they are just there for the sake of some filler. Maybe if others found out about Grey's lifestyle and he was caught in media frenzy, the film would have a substantial plot.

I found Dakota Johnson to be incredibly dull in the first act but gradually she becomes more dynamic and confident as the film progressed. It feels intentional seeing how Ana starts off as a quiet, uninteresting woman only to morph into a more liberal persona. Dakota's character has a lot of those "whomp-whomp-whomp-whooooomp" comedic moments in the beginning which felt so forced and unnecessary to the tone. Jamie Dornan was decent as Christian Grey. Like his character, he feels in control.

The sex scenes are a lot tamer than I had anticipated going into this flick. Like the rest of the movie, they are shot surprisingly crisp and, might I add, nicely-paced.

It sounds like a simple movie but it wasn't until I asked myself one simple question that it all became interesting: Does Grey love Ana? A lot of Grey's actions I see points to yes unless it is part of a ploy to secure a potential submissive. He claims to require a written contract before ever touching Ana but blows off this condition to passionately kiss her. And once they get to the contract, they discuss their intimate limitations in an amusing, business-like setting. Ana objects to certain practices which Grey seems to willingly extract from their relationship kind of like a compromise in any other relationship.

One of my favorite parts is when Ana confesses her virginity to Grey after revealing his secret life. Even though he maintains he doesn't have normal sexual relations in the bedroom, Grey breaks this code to be with Ana. One might argue it is a selfish act to gain her trust so she may serve as his victim; I see it as Grey finding an opportunity to be with someone he could briefly connect with, someone untouched, someone he sees as good. In fact, at one point, he voices his concern of Ana changing his outlook on life and sounds scared of this prospect. Grey feels constrained by his past which shaped his present only to feel the need to constrain others to his level, literally.

Who knows? Maybe I'm overthinking too much. Some people might be turned off, some might get turned on, some might think little about it, and some might find something special in "Fifty Shades of Grey". I only know what I saw and felt.

My Rating: 7/10
101 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
More Tease Than Sleaze
zardoz-139 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Despite its unsavory sadomasochistic subject matter, this cinematic adaptation of author E.L. James' erotic bestseller "Fifty Shades of Grey" qualifies as puritanical. I can say this because I managed to get through ten chapters of the book before I saw the Universal Pictures release. "Nowhere Boy" director Sam Taylor-Johnston and "Saving Mr. Banks" scenarist Kelly Marcel have sanitized James' novel and turned it into an antiseptic, "Cinderella" fairy tale about an affluent Prince Charming and a book-wormy English Lit major. Not that it matters, director Sam Taylor-Johnston is a woman rather than a man. Johnston and Marcel have forged a film that features simulated sex scenes without steam and cardboard characters without souls. Mind you, "Fifty Shades of Grey" isn't as abysmal as the amateurish "Addicted." Johnston stages several sex scenes where actress Dakota Johnson bares only her breasts, while actor Jamie Dornan displays little more than his carefully sculpted abs and buttocks. Ladies hoping for a glimpse of male genitalia are going to be sorely frustrated because "Fifty Shades" is R-rated rather than NC-17, like both "Shame" (2011) and "The Lover" (1992) where full frontal nudity was conspicuous. Comparatively speaking, little if anything risqué occurs until the concluding scene. You won't see anything like the candle dripping sex in the Madonna movie "Body of Evidence" (1993); the kitchen sink sex between Michael Douglas and Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction," or the infamous "Last Tango in Paris" where Marlon Brando improvised on Maria Schneider with a blob of butter. Subsequent adaptations of James' two novels may pass up on the prudish approach after Universal studio executives have analyzed audience tolerance. Altogether, this soft-porn entry in the trilogy shouldn't hoist anybody's eyebrows.

Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnston of "The Five Year Engagement") is a shy, virginal, doe-eyed brunette who majors in English Lit at Washington State University and works at a hardware store. She shares an apartment with her best friend, blond-haired Kate Kavanagh (Eloise Mumford of "In the Blood"), who serves as the campus newspaper editor. As the action unfolds, woebegone, pajama-clad Kate is wrestling with a cold. Kate persuades Anastasia to pinch hit for her on a newspaper assignment. She sends her out to interview bachelor billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan of "Marie Antoinette") who rules a colossal corporate empire. Basically, Christian is the Bruce Wayne of hanky-spanky. An orphan who survived the death of his crack-addict mom, Christian has amassed a fortune, but he harbors a deep, dark secret. When she enters 'The House of Grey,' Anastasia knows little about him. Anxious about her assignment, Anastasia makes a klutz of herself when she enters Grey's office. No sooner has she crossed the threshold than she stumbles and crumples to her hands and knees. Realizing she hasn't made the best impression, Anastasia recovers her confidence and begins the interview. Initially, Christian adopts an icy attitude toward her, but he thaws out once they start talking. Christian finds the way Anastasia chews her lip so irresistible that he cancels his next appointment. Some of Kate's questions shock Anastasia, particularly when she quizzes the tycoon about his sexual orientation. A life-long bachelor who has never been photographed in public with a woman, Christian explains that he has little use for conventional romances with hearts and flowers. A relieved Anastasia leaves Christian behind in his phallic monolith of a building and cruises home. As it turns out, Anastasia is just as captivated with Christian as the latter is with her. Later, they go on a date, and eventually he deflowers her. He wants Anastasia to join him in a sexual liaison as a 'submissive' to his 'dominant.' Christian and she negotiate terms of a contract. For example, the open-minded Anastasia has no problems with being tied up and titillated with a peacock feather, but she draws the line at vaginal fisting and genital clamps. Meantime, Christian does everything he can to corrupt Anastasia, buying her a Mac notebook and replacing her classic Volkswagen Beetle with a shiny red Audi. Ultimately, Christian convinces our heroine to let him show her how bondage can be enjoyable. Nevertheless, Anastasia isn't as gullible as she seems. At fade-out, she gains the upper hand in their bizarre relationship.

The casting in "Fifty Shades of Grey" creates half of the problem. Dakota Johnson makes an ideal Anastasia. She gives a believable performance as a naïve college student who has just graduated and treasures the kind classic 19th century British fiction that Thomas Hardy wrote. The Austin, Texas, born actress seems wholly comfortable with her casual nudity, and it is interesting to note that "Miami Vice's" Don Johnson is her dad and Melanie Griffith of "Something Wild" is her mom. She isn't as goofy as her literary counterpart. Sadly, lean, handsome Jamie Dornan doesn't cut the mustard. He doesn't behave like a ruthless cutthroat who owns a billion dollar corporation, and his performance is considerably less spontaneous. Although he wears his apparel well and delivers his dialogue with crisp precision, Dornan looks more like a callow amateur. In all fairness to Dornan, he impersonates a character that doesn't seem remotely believable, and his lack of personality underlines his lightweight performance. The other big problem is the film seems as impersonal as a bargain basement torture rack. Basically, Johnston and Marcel have designed it as a bondage primer that cautiously advances from one elaborate interlude to another without drumming up any melodrama. Primarily, the filmmakers rely more on winks rather than winces as our heroine navigates the dire straits of Christian's sexual calisthenics. Keep in mind, Anastasia doesn't say no until she knows better. Gradually, Christian peels back the layers of his paranoia, revealing himself as an onion that initiates our heroine's tears and fears. When director Sam Johnston shifts the focus from the game of sexual chess between Anastasia and Christian, the film sacrifices suspense. Undeniably, "Fifty Shades of Grey" will keep your eyes wide open, but it dwells more on tease instead of sleaze.
23 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Erotic? Not At All. Laughable? Oh Yeah.
Michael_Elliott18 February 2015
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 audience 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 erotic-ness 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.
37 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Jamie
finnbarr_is_cool12 February 2015
We are revoking Jamie Dornan's Irish citizenship.

Awful movie. Awful acting, shouldn't be in cinemas. I have washed my eyes out with a mixture of battery acid and white spirits and the burn is less then watching that attempt of a movie. Now I just need to fill space so people can see the review. You should go see Spongebob with your other half on Valetines Day. avoid watching this movie at all costs. I'm a little teapot short and stout here is my handle and here is my spout.These reviews need more lines then Charlie Sheehan. I'm nearly running out of things to say, nearly but not quite. I believe in a thing called love ah ah ah yeah. C'mon Barbie let's go party oh oh oh yeah. Thanks for reading, Irish Passport Office
176 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
About that special place in hell...
SongOfFall12 February 2015
Remember I said there was a special place in hell where they torture Hitler with Twilight and Nicolas Sparks movies? Yo dawg, we based a movie on a book based on a Twilight fan fiction so you can remember the horror of Twilight while memorizing the new horror of 50 shades of gray.

While advertised as a BDSM erotic movie/book, 50 Shades is rather a rape fantasy. I am thankful the tampon sex scene was not included; that would be an extra nail in the movie's coffin.

But I guess the bad writing is not so visible in the movie form; and the average sexually dissatisfied overweight housewife might still enjoy it.
198 out of 309 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
50 shades of the best marketing ever
marcodias1013 February 2015
I've never read the book and the marketing around the movie was so good that I had to see it. But the movie is so bad, it is not worth it. The actors are really terrible and the dialogues couldn't even exist in real life. You'll be siting for two hours to watch nothing happening in the movie besides 2 minutes of sex scenes. I can say that I laughed the whole time because it was ridiculous. The only good thing about the movie is the soundtrack which really matches the whole thing on the screen.

50 Shades of Grey is one of the worst movies I've seen and if your girlfriend asks you to take her to watch it, she doesn't love you.
118 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I don't see what everyone's problem is
lauren14200315 February 2015
I don't know what people were expecting. I hadn't read the books before seeing the movie and I am assuming that maybe this was a good thing. I enjoyed the film. I do not agree with the lack of chemistry either. There was a weird chemistry which I believe made sense because of the unusual relationship. He is an odd character and she is intimidated and is also very innocent therefore it isn't going to be the usual sexual chemistry that you would find in a romantic film. A lot of people have said there was not enough sex or it was not raunchy enough. Firstly, if there were any more sex scenes it would have got quite boring, and instead we got to see a bit of a story line. Also there is only so much that they can show in a film, surely? What were people expecting? Also one final point in relation to the comments I have seen regarding the film giving S&M a bad name; I don't agree. This is a specific story about one guy who is into specific things and goes about things a particular way. It was all consensual (and it is made clear that it must be). The whole point of the story is that Christian Grey's sexual desires are confusing for Anatasia to understand and that the relationship is quite complicated due to their mutual feelings for each other. I have also seen comments that this film is sexist and degrades women. This film does not promote that at all it merely shows a story of someone who practises in S&M and in this instance the man is the dominant. She has a choice as to whether she wants to engage in this and the film does not say "this is okay" and "woman should do this". The character was not forced to do anything. I do not get why people feel the need to accuse films of implying or portraying such things.

Obviously this film is not perfect and there are things that could have been better but I enjoyed this film and personally would recommend it to others. I can get quite bored in films but I was not bored at all, I have paid more to see films that are A LOT worse than this.
178 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A terrible movie that had to be made.
mkittappa-239-31944114 February 2015
Fifty shades is an awful film no doubt, but it had to be made no question, and here is why. Purely from an economic standpoint Comcast, that owns Universal had no choice. How could they say to their share holders that they passed on such a cash cow, allowing Warner, Fox or Sony to rake in the profits that this movie is guaranteed to make. The board meeting probably went something like this.

"We have an option on this book 'Fifty Shades of Grey- Now this one of the worst books ever to be written, but bear with me here, because this book is selling like hotcakes to desperate housewives everywhere. It's a no brainer we have to make this movie. The great thing is that we don't even need to make a good movie, it only has to be almost as good as the book, and since the book is so bad to begin with, that means that the bar is already set very low. We just can't fail.

It's not Lord of Rings, the fan base isn't looking for great quality, if they were they wouldn't have bought the book in the first place, and that means we don't need to spend much money developing the script. Neither do we need to waste money on any A list talent. Forget Tom Cruise, and Keira Knightly, just get a couple or relatively unknown actors, they don't even need to be that good as long as they can remember their lines. And we don't need to budget for a great director either. Let's face it we are not remaking Citizen Kane here, so keep Spielberg and Scorcese for another project. Heck, we don't even need to pay out for someone like Ridley Scott and he'll pretty much do anything these days. No an unknown mediocre director will do, but make sure that the director is a woman as it will help to deflect any negative PR from those folks that think fifty shades glorifies domestic abuse and the like.

Now here is the best part. Here is how we can make a ton of money out of this steaming dung pile. There are two days in the year when even the most Jockiest of alpha male guys who normally only watch action movies will happily take their significant other to see a chick flick. One is on her birthday, and the other is Valentines day. Since birthdays fall every day of the year, then February 14th has to be the release date.

Oh and as luck would have it, Valentines day this year falls on a Saturday, so not only will all the male schmucks who think taking their girl to see this pic will get them laid later, all the single ladies who don't want to be stuck inside on this evening will come out to see this movie in droves with their girlfriends.

Seriously guys, we've been handed a gift horse. Let's green light this thing and make ourselves a huge pile of cash".
64 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
OMG, this is SO bad.
MsMovie13 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say right from the start that I read the entire first book and that I thought it was absolutely horrible - badly written erotica at best with a lame plot and a horribly pathetic female lead and a very unlikeable hero (who was no hero to me).

That out of the way, I saw Jamie Dornan was cast and heard they changed a lot of the story for the movie script and thought maybe it would be OK, but it wasn't.

I counted 10 people who left at some part during the movie and never came back, which is rare these days as people tend to stay to get their money's worth out of the price of the ticket.

The settings are nice at times and so is the music, but the acting (Jamie what were you thinking????) was so wooden. It was almost like a Saturday Night Live skit, except they weren't playing for laughs in this movie they were serious, but it was cringeworthy at best.

Christian Grey is no hero, and Dakota Johnson was so understated it was like she wasn't even there at all.

Not a good movie - definitely not a date movie (I was so irritated by it by the time I left, no one was getting lucky!).

The good parts of the movie - really the music is the best part and the end, because it was finally over - could have been a good 20 minutes shorter! The bad parts - the script was like a really bad 1960's Mills & Boon romance, and it was so slow you could honestly fall asleep if the acting weren't so painfully wooden.

If you are looking for a good mainstream movie to watch to get turned on, find one on Netflix, Google movies that are sexy, you'll find something much more titillating.

I am so glad some of the actors who were originally considered decided to say no, this movie could be a career killer! I hope it isn't the number 1 movie this week purely because it would be a shame if this drivel is what Americans actually want to watch and think is sexy. Men of course will enjoy the naked parts, of course they will, Dakota has a nice body, but as a woman, I don't ever want to be as wussy as Anastasia and I sure don't want women in general thinking it's OK to be abused by a guy in the name of sex.

Being tied up is great in a committed relationship, it's fun, it's NOT abusive - BUT in this movie, it's creepy, borderline degrading and just uncomfortable.

The funniest part for me (apart from the script!) was how uncomfortable the men who had clearly come in with their wives thinking they were going to get lucky later, and clearly wanted to leave and couldn't. Hilarious! I gave it a 1 out of 10 because you can't go any lower and the music really was quite good, but everything else, give this one a miss and wait for the UV code to come out - at least you won't waste as much money as 2 movie tickets, drinks, popcorn etc, and there's an OFF button on the ROKU, so you can switch this crapola off and just go have sex with your partner instead.
113 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
50 Shades of Bruising...
Rob_Taylor14 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
50 Shades of Grey. The title suggests a nuanced film where nothing is black or white and motivations are murky and changeable.

Nothing could be further from the truth, I'm afraid. Jimmy Dorman, who plays the titular Mr Grey, has all the nuance and subtlety of a sledgehammer. Further, his supposed sex appeal is non-existent. He's about as appealing as Pennywise the clown, from Stephen King's It, but about twice as creepy! Anastasia Steele, by contrast, gives the impression that she is of sub-par intelligence and is exactly as interesting as listening to your Grandpa's old war stories... for the hundredth time.

There is an utter lack of anything like chemistry between the pair and their entire "relationship" is based around him abusing her and her supposedly enjoying it. Now, I don't have a problem with BDSM whatsoever, but the thing I do know about it is that it is entirely consensual between both parties. If it isn't, then it isn't BDSM, it's plain and simple abuse.

Of course, there are those that would argue that, in the context of the movie, the "consent" was clear and obvious because the woman was content to let it happen. But that is treading on mighty thin ice, friends, and sounds more like justification, than any real argument as to consent.

In short, this movie offended me and made me laugh all at the same time, which is rare for a movie to do. I think I was more non-plussed that anyone would find it entertaining and that, along with the awful chemistry and poor acting, made me find humour in it. But I suppose I'm an old fart because I find something distasteful about the subject material. I know, it is a work of fiction, and we should all be able to distinguish fantasy from reality, right? Well, yes, but I have the sneaking suspicion that, despite its "R" rating, an awful lot of young girls are going to see this movie and if so, then the message this movie sends to them is entirely the wrong one.

But, enough of my preaching. It sucks. I looked at my watch many times during the film and went for a stroll around the foyer about half way through so that I might let my eyes witness more interesting things. There was a discarded movie stub that occupied me for several minutes, before I felt obligated to return to the auditorium for the second half of this dreary non-event.

The fact that they released it the day before Valentine's Day just leaves me speechless with disbelief.

EDIT: Of course this made a ton of money at the box office, so there will be a sequel, and plenty of similar, ripoffs. Remember when we all bemoaned the "new" craze of Young Adult, Dystopian fantasy films? Welcome to the next big genre folks! Soft-porn at the cinema!

SUMMARY: Ridiculous, badly acted and lacking anything like entertainment. No chemistry between the two leads. Glorifies abuse and then tries to tell you that is what you wanted all along. Just a waste of your time. Trust me.
55 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible
sombiethezlaya12 February 2015
I viewed this film and my immediate thought was, "How come this movie has no storyline?" This was a film comparable to a nickelodeon cartoon series, or quite possibly worse. If I could rate any lower, it would be a -3 out of 10. All this movie is doing is exploiting the emotions of women across the globe, and ts ripping things that started on tumblr, this just makes the cinema that much worse. I saw a movie by Disney and i vomited during the first five minutes of it, and that was better than this film. >Go on a date with girl >Take her to nice restaurant >She orders a shrimp cocktail and several drinks >Ask for the check >The waiter places the check in front of me, not in front of her, not in the middle of the table >Look of horror comes across the girl's face >I reach for the check and place my credit card inside >She begins to tremble >Tears well up in her eyes >I can tell she is paralyzed by fear at the oppression she is experiencing >I chauvinistically place the check with the my credit card on the table in front of me, daring her to do something about it >The power of my oppression of this woman surges through my body as I lean back in my seat and stare directly at her >She is shaking with fright, the oppression strangling her voice away >The waiter returns to take the check away >All is lost to her now >Men at other tables begin to stand up and clap >Women all over the restaurant begin to shriek and cry >I feel my erect penis lift the tablecloth in front of me >I ask my date, "Did you enjoy your dinner?" >"Y-yes... thank you", she says behind a mask of tears >I lean forward, a devious, patriarchical smile spreading across my face >And I tell her, "It was my privilege."
154 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed