This movie was actually pretty good for one of these type (sexy) movies. I thought it was sexually appealing and the chemistry between the actors was good. Of course if you have a problem watching S and M then you may not want to see this. All in all its a sexually appealing movie that's worth watching and Dakota Johnson looks great with no clothes on
shareit's a bad film
shareIn my view there was no spark at all between the actors and they were not talented or experienced enough to overcome it by their acting. Even though I knew the storyline I just could not believe what they were supposed to be showing.
And there is so much more to the book than was shown in the movie. The characters were shown as plain and trivial, not the complex ones they evidently are in the book. There's much psychology and struggle of the natures between Ana and Christian which was absent. The movie looked to me more like a comic book, showing a series of snapshots of the storyline, not opening inside it. It was not able to grab me as the book did from the first page. There was no continuity in it, itseemed they just jumped from one scene to another without thinking.
I'm sorry about that, I was really looking forward to seeing it. I don't know whether it was the author interfering, budget constraints or the actors who didn't like each other - but I do believe that it could have been done better even without showing more nuditiy or sexual scenes.
Me either. I thought it was good. I had never read or heard of the books prior to seeing it. But, I don't give a lot of merit to the IMDB ratings. It's just people's personal opinion.
shareI actually liked the movie. But for the viewers who never read the books, I can see why the poor reviews. Many important details in the book were left out of the movie. I said in another thread, that the movie should have also included parts from the book Grey (written from Christian's POV). That book explains a lot of how and why he did the things he did. Like how he tracked her cell, why he stalked her at the hardware store, why he had to leave Savannah quickly. The movie didn't develope his character very well at all.
sharef she is the director of a movie that was already released prior with different Directors is it safe to ask is Sam Taylor-Johnson (a female) jut she just a name or is she copying and crediting herself for someone else's work? Maybe that was the problem a female director ... its hard to screw up a great movie but she managed to do it. AMAZING
The reason for the low ratings is its a fraction of the movie it could be with the right actors playing the roles ...
Its a pretty terrible and flawed system that created a movie that allowed now upwards of 4+ actors all to be allowed to call themselves Christian Grey
1)Matthew Bomer : To be released in the Los Angeles area and Calabasas February 2013 but was recast and shot 1 month or less before release date
2)Charlie Hunnam : Rumored
3)T.J Dalrymple : I just saw his name on a poster in pinterest so its a new one to me.
4)Jaime Dornan : The final decsion after months of looking for just the right guy. The first movie 50 shades of Grey released Valentine Weekend in 2015. The 2nd movie 50 shades darker is scheduled for release in 2017. He Costarred with Dakota Johnson both no name beginers who were all wrong for each other and the attraction just wasn't there it felt almost forced and they were way to young and naive to play that kind of role... and the fact that she so closely resembled my younger sister Lauren (a one woman guy who married her boyfriend Jayson after 10 years and now I have a very adorable nephew Jaxson but it kind of makes me freak out a little when he was conceived during the filming of this version of the movie and born about 3 weeks before it came out in theaters (him 1/19/15 , the move 2/14/15) in a movie I felt that was made for me and a relationship that broke down all my defenses (in a good way) then came the part in the movie when she was negotiating the contract and she was very against fisting and said no way, well one of the most off the charts nights I can remember involved me on my bed him with a camera standing over me fisting me and being totally out of control with desire wanting him to stop but not because I was scared of such intense pleasure.
Then there's the character that played Elliot Grey in the version I saw with Jaime Dornan and who was a billion times hotter than Jaime and who I believe may have actually been the original Luke Grimes ... in the scene where Anna and Christian walk in and find her roommate with Elliot on the couch then they both go to leave and Elliot says "laters baby"to the roommate (hot) and Christian follows saying the same thing to Anna (weird and forced) which is why I never understood why the line was so famous with the movie... actually to me it triggered a longing for the guy who always told me to be good before leaving and I always promised him I would try.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I found it incredibly boring and cliche. Rich "sadist" with some not so far below the surface insecurities builds stereotypical and ridiculously tacky red leather room he doesn't know what to do with. No imagination. I didn't feel any chemistry and Christian was not compelling at all. Without some seriously intense chemistry and originality films on this subject just don't work.
It can't touch The Secretary or 9 and 1/2 Weeks.
Hi kerrielou,
The huge fan base might have made the film a hit financially, but couldn't make up for the glacial pacing, lousy direction, mediocre script, and lack of chemistry between the lead actors. I agree, without chemistry and originality, a film about dark sexuality won't work. I was shocked when I finally saw Fifty Shades. Except for the nudity, the film looked like a high-budgeted Lifetime movie, at least to me. Even though I like the leads, they looked remarkably ordinary in the film, just two twentysomethings you'd see walking down the street. The producers should have searched for sexier actors, but they'd still have the issue of the script and director.
Yeah, I found it very awkward and cringey to watch and yes, the pacing was painfully slow. I don't mind slow movies, but they need to be good and this one just wasn't. I also took a very long time before I finally watched it. I did not go in with high expectations, but I was still surprised at just how bad it was. It had a voyeuristic quality I didn't really care for. As if they're showing you a glimpse into this taboo world. Unfortunately, I just didn't find the world they portrayed to be very interesting.
I felt like I'd stumbled onto a bdsm dating site, filled out some surveys, hooked up with some guy also having a mid life crisis and started engaging in this sort of artificial behavior out of sheer suburban boredom and desperation. That should not be surprising considering the demographic that ate this book up. It didn't capture the chemistry that happens when you really do fall hard into one of these "unique" relationships. The props and the paperwork made it really cheap imo.
Hi kerrielou,
I don't mind slow pacing either, but the film has to be good. I'd read the first two books because I'm interested in the genre. Although there was a core story, I found the writing sub-par, and wondered if someone could adapt it into a coherent script. I had my answer when I saw the film.
By the way, your BDSM dating site scenario would make a decent novel and film.
It can't touch The Secretary or 9 and 1/2 Weeks.
I skimmed a few scenes of the former, found it disturbing so I returned the DVD to the library.
If someone watched the movie and didn't like it, and gave it a 0 or 1, I'd understand. Here many people rated FSOG 0, 1 without watching it.
Hi,
Say, I am allergic to certain foods whereas the same foods are perfectly OK to other people.
Same concept here.
I usually don't like certain movies (genres: horror, sci-fi - some exceptions, violence movies with scenes like the one in Scarface (watched once never watched again)), or movies where a son plans to have his dad killed or a man has his brother killed - I don't even like the story behind it let alone something graphic).
I don't like the kind of relationship in the 2 said movies, so I just avoid them the same way I avoid the foods that trigger my allergy. I understand other people like and enjoy them and have no problem with that.
Actually my post was about I don't understand when someone rates a movie 0/10 or 1/10 without watching it, where the rating means acting bad/good, directing bad/good, etc., and not "How do you think about this movie when you heard about it? (You don't need to watch it to rate it". I shouldn't have quoted your post about the 2 movies. My bad .
You can't prove that everyone that gave it a poor rating didn't see the film, in fact in the last few months its rating has gone down again, which could easily mean more people have seen it and not like it, now that its more accessible on cable, Sky, Netflx, Amazon Hulu Etc!
Why would I think or say all the 0s, 1s, 2s were from people who didn't watch it?
My earlier post:
If someone watched the movie and didn't like it, and gave it a 0 or 1, I'd understand. Here many people rated FSOG 0, 1 without watching it.
[deleted]
By the look of your post you were replying to my post, so here is my reply to you:
You gotta respect others opinions and if you like it, why are you so worried about ratings?
[deleted]
The low ratings are simple, everything tperkin52 states about chemistry the exact OPPOSITE is true. The chemistry between the main actors is poor and very obviously forced. It's a really bad movie.
share[deleted]
Forced, as opposed to natural, because they are acting. I don't know how that fact could go right over your head.
share