Fifty Shades of Grey

I have read reviews of this movie both good and bad. Having read all the books I was looking forward to the movie. I was not disappointed, both main characters are exactly as I had pictured. The movie is fantastic and exciting.

didn't realize I watched this on Jamie's birthday! lol

It took me three times to finally read the first book. I could not get into it. The movie in comparison was meh. The actors have no chemistry at all. Sounds like they were reading the script word for word instead of going with the flow and making the dialogue believable. Jamie's accent is too strong in the flick. I never envisioned Christian Grey with having one, but everyone envisions stories differently.

i actually quite like that it's less graphic then the book series. It makes me want to connect more with the characters instead of watching pornographic scenes.

What to say, that hasn't been hammered to death by critics and press already?. For starters, if you try at any moment to take this film seriously, you'll be seriously disappointed. But, if you approach it with an open mind, it's actually a really light hearted and goofy comedy. I couldn't help laugh or chuckle most of the movie, and I like that. Both Johnson and Dornan are good performers, but can't help that their dialogues are unintentionally funny, and some are more than laughable. Well, I happen to find that a great redeeming quality that I wasn't expecting to find. The dozen little nods that try to break the fourth wall (like a serial killer reference to Dornan's role in The Fall, and the Crazy In Alabama little nod), the fact that the featured luxury items (expensive but not exclusive) are what any under-2-billion nouveau riche would try to acquire, kept me watching it (the photography and art direction are also top-notch). This film has the best non-score soundtrack I've heard in 2015 so far, and I've to admit that I paid for it as soon it was available in iTunes (great choice of songs and placement in the scenes). As a romantic comedy of sorts, it works up to the first moments of the third act, when everything hits the fan. However, we all know 50 Shades Of Grey isn't marketed as a comedy. It's a huge failure as a sex thriller (less than 10 minutes of sex scenes), that is light years away from any resemblance of what a true & healthy BDSM relationship should be for its participants. Grey breaks so many conventions and rules that the BDSM community holds close at hand, that it made me cringe and dismiss him immediately as a cartoonish single-sided character (and I have to accept that Dornan tries his very best to deliver his lines as straight as possible). On the other side, I did find Steele's character sparkly, funny and charming, empowering at times, incredibly naive, but dead-pan honest. That confers a certain tenderness to Johnson's performance, that isn't lost to me. Anyway, we all know that the film's producers are laughing from critics all the way to the bank, and the officially licensed products (from pencils to sex toys) are selling better than candy (somewhere close to $1 billion, so far). So, I'm enjoying it as much as possible you can with any pop-corn flick and waiting if they can improve the characters in the next instalment, while keeping in the back of my mind that I might be able to edit this movie and turn it into a bad-ass great comedy.

(972-word review) I went into this expecting something abhorrently terrible or oddly comedic, and from what I've noticed, they're the only takes regarding this film; it wasn't either of those things for me, and I'm confused. If anything, it was a little ineffective in its landing overall, and the BDSM stuff seemed tame.

But I can understand the massive (box office; $269.7 million from a $40 million budget) success and appeal to the average viewer who likely finds the tamest sexual acts too risqué, hence the success. There's also the production value, potential intrigue and investment in the story, and the romance and drama angles of the story. That's the perfect concoction.

The way I saw it, including reading about how this was a poor: and dangerous, I suppose, precedent, should the uneducated venture into this world based on this instead of seeing it as entertainment above all else and doing their due diligence in researching everything there is to know from more trustworthy sources, depiction of a BDSM dynamic in the past, and I'm not that knowledgeable when it comes to BDSM, it didn't seem that "horrific."

A thing that stuck out to me was the lack of aftercare, especially with [spoiler] the final three sessions at the end; it was all about him. Doing acts to do them, then moving on. He was selfish and immature, insensitive to a degree, instead of facing everything and maturing. [/spoiler]

He has baggage concerning Mrs. Robinson; he either 1.) doesn't see it as a problem, or 2.) it's eating away at him subconsciously; it's distinctly shaped him. Ana (the writer, Kelly Marcel, although I don't know if E. L. James did so herself in one of the novels) even called it for what it was.

He was also [spoiler] slightly controlling, then possessive. [/spoiler] That aspect became too much after the family scene, which was alarming and when the downhill began. Everything between them before that was fine. The helicopter scene before that was excellent. So was the one with the glider after it.

Another thing that stuck out was [spoiler] her virginity. [/spoiler] Her "journey" into [spoiler] sexual activity to be this sort of thing was iffy; it shouldn't have been like that. [/spoiler] But that's the point, or is it not? This whole thing is a series, not a one-off; it's the beginning. There are issues, and they're prominent, but there can be character development in the future; more importantly, an accurate and less damaging depiction/representation of BDSM, and if that's not the case, fair enough.

What interested me immensely was the negotiation scene. At the end of it, Ana took [spoiler] the underlying theme of that scene from Christian, taking control; she even bit her lip, riling him up, only to leave him hanging/with nothing. [/spoiler] That was a good, possibly underrated/underappreciated, or glossed-over scene.

Her initial assumption/question from [spoiler] seeing his "playroom" was if women "do this to you." [/spoiler] It could be nothing, but I'll choose to see that in a particular way; their dynamic should've been like that, and I'm also aware that's something some people have expressed themselves; there could be some exploration in that direction in the third film, based on the poster.

Something else I noticed was the incompatibility between them. They're in two different places. They aren't the right person for each other. Ana [spoiler] wants to touch him, for him to be in the same bed at night and willing to be emotionally open with her, an emotional connection, on top of the BDSM elements. He's opposed to those things, emotionally detached, and more BDSM-extreme, especially in the ignorant, immature way, which probably stems from his inappropriate, underaged icky dynamic/"relationship" with Mrs. Robinson. [/spoiler]

I know the point is that they're going to cause "improvement"/evolution in each other (although his part with that wasn't well-done), and she's causing him to change: all that stuff. That's potentially what the writing is going for, but it would have been better to do things differently somehow, on some level, even if that meant a significant change from what we got.

Concerning the comedic side of things/that take, I can see through the lens some people are, where (likely unintentional) comedy is somewhere in this: Ana biting her lip in the beginning montage, as if to show/say, from a writing perspective, that she did it before meeting Christian but now has a reason for it, then the iconic clumsy/"endearing" showing of her tripping over nothing.

Beyond that is the dialogue. I mean, come on: "I don't make love. I fuck. Hard." Actual comedians strive to reach that level; spoiler alert: they fail again and again, and it's because they make love. Christian Grey should punish them with feathers and drum their bottom with a belt like a tanggu, setting them straight. Jamie Dornan's performance, specifically his line delivery at times, akin to Patrick Bateman, also contributes to the comedy.

Besides that, the performances by Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson were sufficient. However, he was bland and uninspired (both the direction by Sam Taylor-Johnson and the writing likely contributed to this), while Dakota, despite those elements, felt more flowing and unconfined; still, their chemistry could've been better. The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey was good. The soundtrack was even better; it was so good, so props to the music supervisor, Dana Sano. And I had a good enough time watching this.

I apologize for the much longer-than-usual review. Here's an olive branch.

TL;DR: Decent enough performances by the leads, but a lack of chemistry, with Jamie's coming across as flat and Dakota's coming across as natural. Great soundtrack and cinematography. Inaccurate (to a significant degree), potentially dangerous depiction of BDSM, and a likewise dynamic. A film that's not as terrible as the masses say but with issues and insulting BDSM representation, nor immense laugh-out-loud hilarity. I enjoyed it enough; it has a peculiar charm.

Not a master piece but it was better than I expected. I enjoyed it.

I was suprised that I liked this film. It was entertaining, though it ended a bit wanting. Of coarse I hear it will be a multi-part, what else is new. Decent story, a little shallow, but worth a look 7/10

Much better than expected, but not a classic by any means.

Dakota Johnson is no great actress, but the body is perfect for the part.

Rewatched it.All the characters are deep and I love this and have to disagree with the majority