User reviews

Anyone who read this book can tell you there is better smut and better writing out there. The movie is right there on par with it. There are better sexually based movies with better acting but, I didn't go into this thinking it would be the movie of the year. I'm not understanding a lot of the hate from other reviews. This was never going to be an Oscar worthy film. The book was not a literary gem. I was actually surprised to see that they seemed to give Ana a bit more of a spine which, helped the movie to not just feature her crying from start to finish and, added a little humor at times. They were also able to incorporate lots of little details for the readers that will pick up on the conversations or inner dialog that happened in the book but, just show up as details in the film. Overall, as rumored the film lacks some chemistry but not so much that it is painful. The cheesy dialog was there at times but, it was straight from the cheesy book so no surprises there. If you want to see how they interpreted it on screen I say it's worth it, as long as your expectations are in line with the book this was adapted from.

Why do some ppl keep saying 50 shades of rape/abuse? I thought that was when someone forced themselves on you? Did that definition change? Same with the whole abuse thing? These are 2 consenting adults who decided to partake in some kinky freakiness that some of u may not be down with. Point blank. Peroid. Ana wasn't down with some of the stuff he liked which led her to break up with him but because he had fallen in love with her he wanted to try again and they eventually back together. They worked through his issues and hers,got married and had some babies.Now as for the movie. Yeah it could've been better but it was OK imo. I've seen a lot worse.

Fifty Shades of Grey was a film that was looked down upon very heavily by movie critics and journals all around the country. Right from the get-go, when the film was announced, people who had read the psycho-erotic book about the man who tortures women for pleasure all knew that revamping the book into a film was going to be a horrendous idea.

The film got very cheesy and boring at times (especially with all the times Christian mentioned that he had to "go back to Seattle" because he was confused, or move to some other place because he is a "monster" and is incapable of love, and other loads of crap), as well as a bunch of other cringe worthy scenes, like the first time he took off his shirt and randomly leaned in and took a bite of Anastasia's piece of toast. Like can someone please explain to me why(?)...

But with that being said, the film was actually very suspenseful and aroused curiosity heavily many times throughout. The acting was looked down upon by all critics everywhere, and to be completely honest, it wasn't actually that bad. The plot was the one thing that was a bit repetitive and "back and forth", but in the end, it was a very interesting story about a man who had a very rough childhood and let his past grow on him into adulthood, making him the quote-on-quote "monster" that he is. Not to mention all of the deep erotica scenes were portrayed very well. It was definitely way further from any sort of BDSM pornography I've ever seen, but still managed to show how much of a sexually obsessed monster Christian was. In my opinion the film deserved a 5 on 10 because, much like The Interview (getting a 9 rating in the first 3 weeks of it's release because of biased reviewers), this film needs to be evaluated at a personal standpoint because everyone has different taste in these types of "unique" and sort of contrasting types of films. Also make sure you go watch this movie in a packed theater because your experience will be much more enjoyable if everyone is watching it with you right by your side.

I was intrigued. I haven't read the book and I probably never will. There must be better fanfiction about the "plot?" than the actual novel, written by people who do understand the power play and the complex psychology behind the BDSM world. There is just none of that here. The author didn't do her homework at the time. Wikipedia is just not enough or me or anyone, and probably highly offensive for members of that community.

Storyline aside (nonexistent), I am surprised at what Taylor-Johnson accomplished with such poor base material. There was little she could do to hide the flaws, as some of those are actually inherent to the story itself. (multi-gazillionaire and helicopters? seriously?) But I believe she did a pretty good job and I admire her for it, all things considered. Sam, get the money and run. Or stay to earn more, it's up to you. You are a free individual. Respect.

Dakota Johnson did great work, she gave a strong performance. Those who don't think so probably forget that these characters are quite shallow to begin with. To me, she gave the shy submissive a nuance of playfulness more than appropriate. (I might be biased because she is a cutie pie. OK, she's the only reason I watched this)

The role of the dominant is clearly fantasized over the top of the highest Dubai hotel. Jamie Dornan did what he could. Could have been much better, though. But again, this is not a faithful BDSM representation of sex. This is just extrapolating the kinky side and adding a troubled millionaire with mommy issues to the mix. 0 personality. Grey is not a real person. How to bring a fantasy to life escapes my understanding. Clearly didn't work.

Regardless, I watched it to see what this was all about. I get the fuss. I really do. Many ladies out there who are not sexually satisfied. But there is so much better erotic literature out there that it's painful. The story is sloooow, meaningless and often just plain idiotic. Ladies, raise your vibrators and claim your right to be satisfied. Tell your partners what you want, where to touch you. Communication is the key to pleasure (even with yourself). Something Grey doesn't seem to understand. Regain control. Give up control. Whatever works best.

Anyway, if this film brought you happiness, I'm happy for you. I truly am. That's the goal. But bear in mind it's Twilight fanfiction.

I'm going to admit that I didn't have very high expectations when it came to "Fifty Shades of Grey". I went in figuring it would be quite the experience to see what I estimated would be a ridiculous erotic drama with a lot of sex, made for its audience of 30-something lonely housewives. Actually, and you can tell this is me telling the truth because I'm admitting this, the movie is better than you think it would be. I'd even recommend it if you're the audience it's targeting. The film stars Dakota Johnson as Anastasia "Anna" Steele, a naive woman who becomes infatuated with the world's most eligible billionaire, Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). There's drama aplenty when she discovers that Mr. Grey has a very peculiar sexual appetite.

I really thought that this picture was going to suck and that if anything, I'd get a kick out of it by chuckling to myself (quietly, to avoid being noticed by the adoring fans surrounding me on opening night) but I really was pleasantly surprised. At least on a technical level, this is a very competently made film with an eye for good cinematography, some decent erotic sequences and a story that leans more towards pleasurable than agonizing. What I didn't foresee was that whoever was in charge of putting this project together really knew what they were doing. It's as if they read the novel and instinctively knew that there would be some significant backlash towards the film simply for existing and they asked themselves "what can we do to work around some of the weaknesses in this material?" Firstly, I felt like director Sam Taylor-Johnson knew that to make the story (which is very melodramatic, and not in a good way towards the end) bearable, some humor had to be injected in it. I can't really give any examples off-hand, but the movie felt self aware. It knew that people were going to make fun of certain passages of dialog, so dodges a bullet by poking fun at itself. Not too much, just the right amount.

Even if you find that you have trouble swallowing the story and you can't stand the numerous sex scenes throughout, there won't be any denying that the cinematography present is quite good. There are three scenes that really stuck out for me. The first is a "business meeting" between Anna and Mr. Grey in which they are sitting in an office as the sun is setting. The diminishing sunlight peering through the windows and reflecting off of the glass table looked absolutely gorgeous. I loved seeing the warm glow reflect off of the two characters as they discussed their relationship in cold, calculated ways. The numerous sequences where Mr. Grey shows his would-be submissive some of the perks of living the high life were also very pleasing to the eye and there are a couple of shots where we see Jamie Dornan framed through objects that I thought showed a real eye for composition. Looking quickly at the cinematographer Seamus McGarvey's body of work, it comes to my attention that he's done a number of films. If I take one thing away from "Fifty Shades of Grey", it's that when I take a look at some of his works (which includes 2014's "Godzilla", "Atonement" and "Anna Karenina") I'll pay special attention to his shots.

The faults, I pin mostly on the original source material. It's pretty clear that this movie is based on an elaborate fantasy put onto paper that just happened to hit the right note with certain audiences. Like in so many of these quasy-abusive romance-driven stories we've gotten since "Twilight", the main character is plain, kind of dim and can easily be substituted for the reader. For this reason I didn't find myself to be particularly drawn into the romance in the plot. While I found Mr. Grey to be interesting because of his mysterious past and exotic tastes, the pure virginal Anna is so wishy-washy about what she wants that I came to strongly dislike her. At over two hours, this movie is also way too long. If I can learn everything I need to know about a world as wacky as the one in "Existenz" in 97 minutes, there's no reason for "50 Shades" to eat up this much of your time. On a personal note, I was also disappointed to see that there really aren't that many big, memorable scenes in the film aside from the erotic ones (which, surprisingly, didn't really do it that much for me, despite the ample nudity). People have been protesting this film because of "sexual violence" and "deviant behavior" but come on... really? This is not that scandalous when you consider that the internet has been around for how long now? This movie was not made for me. I saw hardly anything that even looked like a glimpse of anything resembling a giant monster, a time-traveler or a crazed serial killer. It doesn't really appeal to my more refined tastes of solid dramas and soul-crushing honesty with romance thrown in either. You already know if "50 Shades of Grey" is going to be for you based solely on what you know about the plot, even if it isn't much. The picture already gathered far more attention than it deserves because it doesn't strike me as particularly good or bad. For what it is though, it is well made and I do think that the legions of ladies who gobbled up the novel (or want to give hints that they might want to try some bondage themselves) will not feel like they wasted their time with it. In a way, I'm disappointed that viewing "Fifty Shades of Grey" on opening night was neither a catastrophe or a wildly erotic romp that ended up with me grabbing more phone numbers than I would know what to do with. Oh well. (Theatrical version on the big screen, February 12 2015)

I actually don't understand why everyone here were so displeased with the film, it was exactly like the book and if you didn't enjoy that, then why did you go see it? I know this will seem funny to you but as a Muslim I just red the book simply to see what all the commotion was about so I just skipped all the sex scenes because that just disgusts me and in the movie I just closed my eyes every time they had sex. I admit it's weird falling in love with such a perverted maniac but he did have some really good qualities, I mean he was always honest with her, he took her on that glider (and I actually loved that scene), he visited her in Georgia. Not to mention that he is ridiculously hot! But his acting were 1 of the few things that were not so good! Every single time he said "laters baby" in the book I thought of it as cute and casual but it was just awkward and laughable in the movie. I really liked her acting though, she was exactly like I pictured Ana, funny and doesn't look weird when she bites her lip. The scenery was splendid, I have to give that 10/10 and the soundtrack was flawless ( I loved the helicopter scene with "Love me like you do - Ellie Goulding". Rita Ora and the guy playing Elliot were there for like 2 second so I'm not even gonna review that. So overall I liked the script (kinda funny, respecting the book, and ending exactly like the book but was more like a cliffhanger), most of the acting was good (when he crawled on the the bed without a shirt and ate some of her sandwich and when he was in her room right before they started having sex was kinda good, so he wasn't all bad). The plot was good but in the book she did sign the contact so I don't get why they changed that. So in general I liked it.

One must try - and inevitably fail - not to adopt a patronising tone when reviewing FIFTY SHADES The novel, whose literary merit is neither here nor there (and certainly not there) - launched a new genre of its own - Porno Lite - and so, I fear, will the movie. I'm pretty sure bondage involves more than a few smacks on the bum and lots of kissing, which seems to be about as far as an 18 rating allowed Sam Taylor-Johnson to go.

The movie's fatal flaw is the lack of chemistry between the two leads. They are acting out an attraction they clearly do not feel. Dakota Johnson tries to play it feisty and vulnerable but comes over as a bit bland. Jamie Dornan, who was glamorous and creepy as the serial killer tracked down by Gillian Anderson in THE FALL on BBCtv, is not glamorous enough here - and rather deficient in creepiness. Apart from his under- used dungeon playroom, even the furnishings in his billionaire bachelor pad (and his suits) look as if they came from the high street rather than high-end designers. The whole movie is - sorry about this - more M&S than S&M.

If there is to be a screen sequel - FIFTY SHADES DARKER - I wonder, without much enthusiasm, if some of the contraptions briefly glimpsed in Christian's chamber of horrors will be brought into play. How far can the line between porno and mainstream be blurred? It was much more stylishly crossed in 9 1/2 WEEKS.

I haven't read the books, but I had read a lot of the reviews before going to see this with my wife, so I could give myself a head start on what to expect. I found that a lot of the reviews were actually really unfair and based on a pre-conceived idea of whether the film would be good or bad - which is no way to review a movie. Open your eyes and be honest with yourself about how it made you feel, not what the media hype and controversy says! So, with an open mind I watched. I was entertained in parts, intrigued in others, and disappointed in a number of places. The main problem for me (having not read the books) is that there are too many questions/things that didn't add up, which made it frustrating to watch, and there were some parts of the movie where I was starting to get a bit bored...

The screenplay isn't great, but I hear the book isn't exactly a masterpiece, so that makes sense. That did limit some of the acting in parts, but on the whole the character portrayals from the key names were superb. I 100% bought into the character of Christian Grey because Jamie Dornan made him believable, genuine, and intriguing - he is clearly a very deep character with many layers that unfortunately weren't explored enough (not his fault). I was less convinced with Dakota Johnson's character, mainly because she spent more time biting her lip than doing anything useful - but I understand the reasons why. The problem with her wasn't the acting, but again the character didn't have enough background to convince me - her behaviour confused me because I think key details about why she thinks/feels the way she does weren't explored.

The contract scene was fantastic - it was slick, smart, well acted, and by far the best scene in the movie. The sex scenes weren't bad, leaving just enough to the imagination, and not so over-acted that they seemed cheesy.

The stand out piece for me was the soundtrack, which was moody, seductive, modern, and set the mood well for each scene.

Overall, the film left me with too many questions, sure they might be answered by the sequels, but at this point there's just blank space. It definitely promoted healthy discussion, and some of the acting was impressive. Bottom line, it is far from a classic, but a guaranteed money maker (as opening weekend proved).

This movie wasn't at all as bad as people make it out to be. It's kinda vanilla, not very kinky.

Fifty Shades of Grey is about a young literature student named Anastasia Steele. She meets a handsome billionaire for an interview called Christian Grey. They start a romance that is complicated by his sexual desires.

They made this movie out to be very kinky and it's not. It's a bit erotic but mainly I thought it was unintentionally funny. The dialogue and delivery makes it look more like a spoof than an actual movie. I loved the scene where they discuss the contract, that was very funny (and i think it was actually meant to be) if the rest of the movie was written that cleverly this would be a fun erotic romantic-comedy. Dakota Johnson isn't awful or anything but she's given very little to work with. Her character Anastasia Steele (her name alone) is so forced and just not a real human being. Jaimie Dornan as Christian Grey has even less development, he's a bit boring. Seeing as this movie is made for a mainly female audience I didn't understand why we had to see Dakota Johnson naked so often and Grey barely, that just doesn't seem fair to us girls.

I think that if you go into this movie with a bottle of wine expecting to laugh at the cringe- worthy dialogue, you could enjoy it. Don't expect anything good, it's not good, but it's also not the worst movie out there.

I rarely pick a part the acting in a movie. I usually give the actors the benefit of the doubt and just kind of enjoy the plot and overall story. The characters in this movie just did not seem believable. Both of the main characters look like they were just reading straight off a script. There was no emotion in their role.

The plot was also pretty ridiculous, but we all knew that going into it. I just do not believe anyone would behave like this.

There were some kinky scenes that redeemed the movie a little bit. They weren't over-the-top pornographic, but they were a step above the usual R-rated fare.

This movie was a lot better than the book if you can believe that.

I must be one of the few straight men to have read the book, but five years ago everywhere you went you saw women engrossed in copies of it (which charity shops are now awash with), so I thought it might provide some useful insights into what women actually seek in men rather than what they say they do. The suposedly all-important Sense of Humour is little in evidence in Christian Grey, unlike the vast quantities of dosh and very expensive presents that he liberally sprays about to facilitate the charmless and very basic advances that unless allied to fabulous good looks or or the sort of wealth that enabled Bruce Wayne to found the Wayne Foundation would never on their own have got Christian Grey to first base with Miss Steele. (Both book and film are extremely vague about where his vast wealth comes from, other than the fact that he is using it to attempt to End World Hunger; but the carbon footprint from his private helicopter alone probably undoes all the good work his philanthropic endeavours facilitate.)

There is actually more sex in the film than in the book (which not surprisingly devotes far more space to his billionaire lifestyle - and precious little to his supposedly busy life as a hot-shot businessman - and with the haggling over the contract before their sub/dom relationship can commence), but it remains as chilly as it's inscrutable anti-hero and it's presumably the undivided attention that she's getting that women reading the book - and watching this movie - crave rather than the sex.

Warning : Possible spoilers OK, so i've read all 3 books. Not the greatest piece of literature but i actually liked it, although found #3 the most interesting. Considering how explicit the books were I curious to see how they would bring this to the big screen without it just turning into a Porn film. Watching the film i thought it was much over-hyped about the s%$ scenes. The scenes are very short and these days, you see just as much nudity/action on a TV show like Game of Thrones. Now, these books were written as a romance, but it's a very confusing version of romance and a very confusing understanding of BDSM. Now, the film could have been romantic ... billionaire falls for Average Jane, they fall in love and the scenes in the Glider/helicopter are a bit romantic (hey, who wouldn't want a Billionaire to sweep them of their feet and take them on a helicopter ride) But... this is no romantic film and having now watched it on Blu ray, when you watch it again, you realise how controlling Christian is over Ana and it is really disturbing to watch. I found the final scenes in the film difficult to watch. The spanking thing was not out of pleasure or some kinky BDSM thing, it was out of control and it really was hard to watch. There is no real chemistry between the stars or that they geniuinely loved one another. I can see why people are up in arms that this film promotes domestic violence. Before i saw the film, i thought that was rubbish just based on the book, but the film just seem to potray a real control freak who just thinks about hurting his girlfriend for cheap thrills. It's sad that this film tries to disguise itself as a romance or even a film about BDSM, but it barely covers that sort of stuff. It really is just a film about a messed up guy and his messed up relationship. I thought i liked this film initially but watching it again, i'm not really sure. As for the acting well, there are heaps of well known actors in this film but they get barely any screen time. So many characters from the books, quickly slotted in for a few minutes screen time with no real purpose. I like Jamie Dornan but i didn't think there was any chemistry between him and Dakota Johnson. I don't think she was a very good fit for the role. Overall, not the worse movie i've ever seen, but it is definitely a bit on the disturbing side as a disturbed romance.

"Fifty Shades of Grey," based on the best-selling novel by E. L. James, ventures into the world of erotic romance, exploring the complex relationship between billionaire Christian Grey and college graduate Anastasia Steele. The film delves into themes of power, control, and vulnerability, set against a backdrop of opulence and mystery.

Dakota Johnson's portrayal of Anastasia brings a certain innocence and curiosity to the role, while Jamie Dornan's Christian Grey exudes a brooding intensity. Their on-screen chemistry is palpable, capturing the tension and intrigue of their unconventional relationship.

However, the film struggles with its pacing and narrative depth. The plot often feels stretched thin, relying heavily on the allure of its provocative themes rather than substantial character development. The dialogue can come across as stilted, and some scenes feel repetitive, lacking the emotional impact needed to fully engage the audience.

While "Fifty Shades of Grey" succeeds in creating a visually appealing and sensually charged atmosphere, it ultimately falls short in delivering a compelling and cohesive story. It's an intriguing exploration of desire and boundaries, but it leaves much to be desired in terms of storytelling and character depth.

Now that I have finally watched this film, I can understand all the negative reviews it received. Its only real purpose is to titillate, and it certainly accomplishes that, but there is no real story here. They give us very little reasoning for why either of the main characters are like they are, especially Grey himself. Oh, they hint at things, but only superficially. The biggest crime they commit is the ending. Knowing you fully intend to produce a series of films rather than a single stand-a-lone of a certain story is no excuse for ending it so obviously on a 'To be continued' note. Also, I never got the feeling that Grey was a billionaire with a b.... a millionaire maybe, but not a billionaire. He just didn't come across that way. I'm afraid this film offered the actors a nice paycheck but nothing to brag about.

As someone who has read the book and enjoyed it (yes really) I was intrigued to see how the movie matched up. It started well, but then quickly deteriorated in what I can only describe as numerous rushed scenes with absolutely no continuity. Many scenes important to the story were simply skipped and some changed completely. All in all the movie isn't a great success and I was left disappointed.

Avoid if you've read the book, you will feel very let down. If you haven't read the book you'll just be left wondering what the heck it was you just watched.

I loved the books and was looking forward to the movies. It was not as steamy as the book but it was still artfully filmed. The actors grew well through the film and played well to each other. I enjoyed the movie as a story of two people finding each other and working their way throughout many differences.

Fifty Shades of Grey has two main characters: Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) and Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). As in most love stories, they belong to two different social classes - the girl being a poor, beautiful student, while the boy is a rich, powerful, handsome billionaire. They meet each other by chance and fall in love. For now you might think that you've seen it hundreds of times and you are definitely right about it. Most things in this movie is so well known and familiar that it bores you. Accordingly, if you continue watching it as another complicated love story, you might walk out of theater or order a cup of coffee to keep yourself awake. What I tried is to look at this story in a different perspective, something alike to Nymphomaniac or even more, Blue Is the Warmest Color (the comparison does not necessarily mean they are equally good). At the end of the day, not many films, at least in Hollywood, talk about BDSM or dominant/submissive sex experience.

Having said that, I was very surprised that the film is R rated. And it's not only a rating, it perfectly describes what approach director Sam Taylor-Johnson took while filming it. To shortly say, it could have been much more erotic and as they say, book has lots of it.

I will try to talk about the love-story side of Fifty Shades of Grey. We all know it's shitty cause it's very average and not original. By saying that I mean everything, including relationship lineup, dialogues, character development and extremely predictable "twists". Instead, I will focus on Grey's fetish - BDSM.

Dornan's character is an absolute cliché of rich playboy - handsome, full of gadgets, self confidence and kindness. But his sexual life is nothing alike of others. The only way he gets sexual satisfaction is pain, pain of other partner who is always submissive. In any world, one can not easily find an absolute submissive person, who is ready to enjoy the physical stab because other person does. So, Christian has to negotiate with Anastasia step by step, tries to talk her into his dangerous game. Miss Steele is ready to try for sake of love. I don't want to spoil anything, if its possible, so I'll just generally tell the idea.

The film provokes many thoughts on BDSM: whether it's normal; whether it's naturally born attraction or later formed due to specific life events. Fifty Shades of Grey gives a definite answer, which you might not agree, just like me. But it does give an answer. Another deal-breaker is how another person can accept this sexual behavior and if the denial is really about the pain or humiliation.

For Grey, bandaging, spanking, slapping is a form of endearment, a form of loving and the only way to experience orgasm. He means nothing degrading by that. To the contrary, Anastasia perceives it in a different way - the way most of us probably would do. While she sometimes enjoys it, since Christian seems to be very professional/good at it, there is a part of her that feels wrong, as if being submissive has nothing to do with love.

As I mentioned above, this film has some similarities with Nymphomaniac, which also talks about masochist sex. But the latter is more sincere and open about it, showing sexual desires more naked and a it is. For me, Trier's film was sometimes too hard to watch, too explicit and very true. While Fifty Shades of Grey demonstrates BDSM in more acceptable way, which I enjoyed to watch. I mean, it maybe something most of us have never experienced, but I have to acknowledge that each sex scene was beautifully shot, perfectly shooting the pleasure of both parties. The biggest complain I have is that it could have been more +18. In it's core, dominant/submissive sex has nothing to do with shame or diffidence and filming this scenes with shyness does not feel frank enough.

As for Blue Is the Warmest Color it had more explicit sex scenes that, everyone agrees, was one of the most pleasant scenes in years. So what director Sam Taylor-Johnson could have done is to adopt the same attitude by filming her movie in more "pornish" way that would be equally acceptable.

Even though Dakota Johnson is an exact pretty face a girl like Anastasia should be, her performance was far below average. Her tears, drama scenes were somehow irritating. But Jamie Dornan was quite much better, especially in the last sex scene, where he finally gets what he wants and you can see it in every move, emotion and wrinkle on his face.

Danny Elfman, who has created some magnificent music for Good Will Hunting, Milk and Big Fish, did nothing special for Fifty Shades of Grey. In fact, at the end of the movie, I remembered none of track played during the film. Only Beyonce's memorable song captured the spirit of film perfectly.

Oscar nominee cinematographer Seamus McGarvey did not have much to do here, but he did picture several sex scenes in a very good way, focusing on important parts (!) sometimes, moving through bodies of lead characters and giving glimpse on their faces. It created an impressive motion that kept audience engaged in sexual act, at least, sometimes.

In conclusion, if you are looking for groundbreaking, philosophically deep discussions on sexual behavior, Fifty Shades of Grey will disappoint you. If you are going to watch it as a love story, it will disappoint you. But if you try to look at it as a discussion of BDSM and not generally accepted sexual life, it will definitely provoke some controversial thoughts

OK so being my first movie review that I felt I had to do, I thought the movie could have followed the book a bit more closely. If who ever decides the ratings on these movies wanted to make it nc17 the producers needed more flesh to be shown. The acting could have been done better and Ana was OK, but she just seemed awkward. The lip biting was very forced, at least it looked like it. There were a lot of things that was not explained in the movie that needed to be explained. The supposed emails they were writing back and forth did not look like emails bit rather like IM's. Having read the books, I feel that this movie did not do them justice. The books are not as poorly written as some say, they need to stop over thinking the writing and take the book for what it is not for a classic. I really wanted this movie to be really great but in the end it just left me shaking my head wondering if the producers had even spoken with the author or bothered to read the books. E L James, great books, but dear fight for your movie, it's worth it.

I can understand the bad reviews this movie got, since it had a bad scenario to start with. The book is pure example of trashy literature and I'm surprised that they even managed to make the movie that is more bearable than the book itself. To be honest, I'm so happy i didn't have to hear once again those stupid Anastasia Steel monologues all through the book and the famous inner goddess bs.. or the annoying remarks about price tags..

What I'm trying to say is, these guys who made the movie deserve a recognition for making it better then the book, which is very hard to achieve these days since it's always other way around.

It's not hard to enjoy this movie once you silence the desire to experience something uplifting or new or in anyway creative, and once you convince yourself to just want to be entertained by a fairy tail like soft-porn story.

My first attempt to watch the movie was a fail, I stopped after the interview part, annoyed by stupid , cliché like scene where she falls while entering his office.. After few days I tried again watching just to see then end, and after 30 minutes I'd say movie kind of hits on and might appeal to women just because you get the feeling..OK, she is not trying to be a complete dumb chick...don't ask me why, that is the only plus point that I see in this movie..

Both actors are in my opinion fine, for what is asked from them they did their part and I don't think other pairing would have done it better..I'd like just to express my condolence to them for making bad decision to be part of a movie that will just drag them down with it. Don't get me wrong.. there are worse movies.. just there is something about the thing when you decide to do a bad, almost pornographic movie...it kind of sticks in people's minds and we are easy to judge it if it fails to impress us.

And one last thing to add...the bad chronology of all three books will really mess up this movie..if they even think about making the sequel... First two books catch a time period of 1 month...:DD great job there!

First of all, I don't hate the book. In fact, I enjoyed reading it even though sometimes it can be boring, I know, but the movie is just dull on the whole.

A lot of important things are thrown out from the movie; the important things that make the story interesting. That's why I'm so disappointed!

No offense, but in my opinion, Jamie is not exactly the Christian Grey I imagine. I just didn't feel the charisma of Christian that I felt when I read the book. In the movie, Christian's expression is just flat, not like in the book where he can be so intense all of a sudden.

As for Dakota, oh well, she's pretty decent for Ana.

My expectation for this movie was too high, now I wish I have never seen the movie. I should have just let the story played in my mind. Now, the image of Christian Grey is ruined.

I am a lover of the books.Not a super enthusiastic fan of them,but I have read them and I liked them.I was looking forward to seeing the movie.. Then it was released and the opinions I heard were pretty much all the same : "It sucks"; "It was not what I expected"; "It's not worth watching it at all".. So I decided to wait..I watched it last night and I have to say that I am pretty disappointed.It was only 3 minutes after the beginning of the movie..that I was shocked..This was not the right choice of actors..I mean this "Cristian Grey" that was described in the picture was dark,cold,hurt,sex- appealing,intimidating and the Cristian we got on the movie is always smiling and worm and his voice..The voice is just easy,fun,light,childish even;and his eyes..they were always warm and kind .. This is just something you can't miss,if you have read the books.. In the movie,everything was quick and messy..and the end of it was just stupid ... The "Anastasia"role was really more good played ..But my overall opinion is that the movie was overrated and long-wanted,but the expectations were not justified.I think that the movie was failure and they should try really,really hard for the next one.