Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) User Reviews (1,698)

If everyone hates the film and it has a 4.1....why did it make so much money?!

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 25 September 2018]

I never had any intention of watching "Fifty Shades of Grey"...none. However, when IMDB recently revamped their Bottom 100 List and I saw the movie was now on the list, I felt I had to see it. After all, I constantly am checking out the list to see what new additions there are so I can watch them. I do occasionally like seeing a bad movie...they can be very entertaining and unintentionally funny. Now "Fifty Shades" is very different from any other film on the list (with the exception of "The Last Airbender") in that it WAS a mega-hit and lots of people liked it...though at the same time its score of 4.1 on IMDB is anemic....making it a love-hate sort of picture.

Anastasia Steele (great name, huh?) is a dim sort of lady....and I'm sorry but there's no better way to describe her accurately. When she goes to interview a big-shot businessman, Christian Grey, she has no idea what she's doing, hasn't prepared in the least and asks him only banal questions. She seemed rather dull and with little personality and it was difficult to see what he saw in her. Yet, despite this, inexplicably Grey is now obsessed with her. In some ways, he seems like a nice guy--such as coming to her aid when she's drunk in a dance club soon after this meeting. But in many, he gives so many signs that he's not normal in the least...and rather creepy and possibly very dangerous. He's incredibly controlling and in response to her getting drunk he says "If you were mine, you wouldn't be able to sit down for a week". In other words, for getting drunk and behaving stupidly, he'd paddle the crap out of her! He then has her sign a non-disclosure agreement--saying she'll never tell anyone about him!! Soon, they are embarking on a weird S&M relationship...and that's when the film shows a lot of nekkidness, though it's of the soft-core variety. But he is clear...this is NOT love and he doesn't want to be close to anyone...and he doesn't even want to actually sleep with her...just have his way with her.

What I find so bizarre about the whole "Fifty Shades" phenomenon is that in the 21st century, the actions of BOTH Anastasia and Christian are the exact opposite of what society is telling us folks should be like or what romance should be. There really ISN'T any romance...and he doesn't want to date her. It's not so much just the S&M aspects that I found bothersome...it's more that you have a man who dominates a woman and controls her and she is passive and does whatever he says. Her needs are also not particularly important and he wants to control every aspect of her life and breaks into her apartment when she isn't home. This is NOT the feminist idea of today...at least not what folks SAY they want in a relationship. I simply do not understand this dichotomy...nor why folks loved the books and films...yet also claim to hate them! I also worry that a film like this could set the stage for date rapes, as here in the film it's supposed to be romantic...but in real life, it could get you imprisoned. Weird.

So although I found the message strange and possibly dangerous and the writing occasionally silly, what about the techincal aspects of the movie? The movie is very polished--with lovely and very appropriate music, excellent cinematography and is very artistic. For this reason alone, although I didn't like or respect the message, the film deserves more than a few stars on IMDB.

I should add that although the film features a lot of nudity, I really didn't find it all that exciting to watch...mostly because the film was just creepy. It also didn't come off as sexy....just creepy. And, it probably would NOT be a great date night film...as your date might think you are...just creepy. Watch it if you'd like...I just didn't particular enjoy it nor understand WHY it made so much money...I just found it, believe it or not, to be rather dull.

Review based on the movie, I haven't read the books

[melancholicmoon · 4/10 · 12 February 2015]

There was absolutely no chemistry between the main actors.

The sex is about as sensual as a log of wood thrown on the road.

The sets and art direction are excellent and create the perfect ambiance.

The music is all right in terms of theme and pacing.

She was irritating and there were way too many close-ups of her. Neither her features nor her mannerism could hold it.

He was every bit of gorgeous, but with a rather wooden performance; no pun intended, because he's as sensual as last year's sock.

Will I be watching Part II ? NAY.

Will I be reading any of the books ? NAY.

More Tease Than Sleaze

[zardoz-13 · 5/10 · 9 March 2015]

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.

Yeah, I'm sorry, it is that bad

[blanche-2 · 1/10 · 12 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.

My god.. this was awful

[gangstah_vino · 1/10 · 10 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!

Fifty shades of $hit

[nxxnne · 1/10 · 30 May 2021]

This movie, clearly sucks, I personally couldn't recommend it to anyone, it's cringe asf the acting is well, not so good it's pure cheesy garbage.

Oh this film was just DREADFUL!

[bubab2 · 1/10 · 12 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.

Flippity-flop.

[hayleyhillis · 1/10 · 12 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.

Erotic? Not At All. Laughable? Oh Yeah.

[Michael_Elliott · 18 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.

A Fascinating, Erotic Film Perhaps Better Than We Give It Credit For

[thale05 · 7/10 · 15 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

100 Shades of Terrible.

[ajscotland · 1/10 · 12 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.

I don't see what everyone's problem is

[lauren142003 · 10/10 · 15 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.

"Fifty Shades of Grey" explores much more than sex festishes.

[CleveMan66 · 7/10 · 13 February 2015]

Seldom has an R-rated movie arrived in theaters with more pre-release hype, anticipation – and misunderstanding – than "Fifty Shades of Grey" (R, 2:05). What is billed and understood (at least by those who haven't read British author E. L. James' novel) as simply a story of a young woman being introduced to one man's sexual fetishes is much more – and much deeper – than one might expect. Nevertheless, the nudity, sex, and eroticism are on full display throughout the movie. This film, the book on which it is based, and this review are not for the faint-of-heart or the easily offended.

Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson, daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson) is an attractive and intelligent college senior in Washington State who fills in for her sick roommate, Kate (Eloise Mumford) in interviewing billionaire business magnate Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) for the college newspaper. Anastasia (Ana to her friends, except to Christian, who consistently uses her full first name) gets flustered in the presence of this young, sophisticated, supremely-confident and mysterious man. For his part, Christian is quite taken with Ana – and take her is what he soon decides he wants to do. He shows up at the hardware store where she works, takes her out to coffee and even comes to "rescue" her when she drunk dials him from a bar. Despite how obvious it is to the main characters and to the audience that these two are very, very different – and despite the title character's own conflicted resistance – these two twenty-somethings cannot resist each other.

In most love stories, after setting up the situation like I did in that last paragraph, I'd say "romance blooms" (or something to that effect), but Christian very clearly states, "I don't do romance." That doesn't stop Ana from being drawn to this man and wondering about the "various physical pursuits" he says he likes and his "singular" tastes, as he describes them. As Ana discovers more about the cipher that is Christian, she learns that he is wounded – both emotionally and physically – by his childhood. She seems to want to comfort this man who acts as if he needs no comforting and begins to love this man who tells her that he is only interested in her for sex.

Being the woman in Christian Grey's life means submitting completely – sexually and otherwise – to his whims. As he eases her towards an understanding and acceptance of his lifestyle, she has to sign a non-disclosure agreement, he convinces her to have sex (actually "f--- hard", as he describes it) and then shows her his "playroom." This usually locked room is painted dark red, has a bed and is filled with various restraining devices and implements of sadomasochistic sex play. Ana is shocked, but not necessarily repulsed. She's… curious.

Christian presents her his thick contract which describes Ana's prospective role as his submissive. He urges her to read the contract, educate herself on being a submissive and "keep an open mind." She does all that, while Christian waits impatiently for Ana to make a decision. What follows is a complicated dance in which both parties kid themselves about how it's going. He seems confident that she's warming to the idea of being his sex slave and she is convincing herself that he is becoming boyfriend material. Ana does draw closer to Christian's world in fits and starts and Christian seems to be working harder to draw Ana in than he has probably ever worked before. No spoilers here, but eventually the true nature of each character does come out and the film ends with two words that carry more emotion than any six syllables I can remember hearing in any movie in a very long time.

A given audience member's reaction to this movie will likely be influenced by how she or he feels about Christian's lifestyle, but evaluating this film solely on those criteria misses the point. Yes, the nudity and sex are enticing and anyone paying to see this movie for those scenes will be more than satisfied, but you'll get more than eroticism for your money. Much like "Boogie Nights", director Paul Thomas Anderson's engrossing 1997 meditation on the 70s porn industry, this film is an examination of human relationships. "Fifty Shades of Grey" is a love story, a parable of male and female emotional and sexual roles in the 21st century and an exploration of a lifestyle which many people know very little about, but very few know much. Basically, this is simply an entertaining movie. Casting little-known actors in the main roles is very effective and both show more emotional range than I expected from simply watching the movie's theatrical trailer. Director Sam Taylor-Johnson paces the movie well and she skillfully balances the film's salacious nature with its deeper meanings. "B+"

This used to be call porn.

[Westeire · 1/10 · 10 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.

Terrible to BDSM Community and to Women.

[lycaniism · 1/10 · 9 February 2015]

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.

Fifty Shades of No.

[versispefende · 1/10 · 12 February 2015]

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.

My Faith in Humanity Has Gone

[Old_Man_From_Scene_24 · 1/10 · 13 February 2015]

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...

Not worth the time

[kimmy-240-732937 · 1/10 · 16 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.

Keeping it short

[rsw7703 · 1/10 · 11 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.

Do not watch this film, it is bad.

[0U · 16 February 2020]

Well I thought I would see what all the fuss was about and boy did I wish I hadn't I have seen very bad romantic comedies that are better than this film

Not perfect but does not deserve to be vilified

[sarahcargius · 7/10 · 14 February 2015]

As a fan of the books, I have been looking forward to this film for a while. Yes, the books are flawed, God forbid anyone should be allowed to enjoy a book that is easy to read, about a gorgeous, unattainable, flawed Billionaire and a seemingly submissive brunette who manages to tame him. Forget the sex, it is repetitive. Every woman wants to be the woman who changes a man & makes him settle down. So the film...well maybe my hopes were too high. However, Johnson & Dornan do have chemistry. It's funny, perhaps even when it shouldn't have been, but there is an element of comedy to the book, so thumbs up on that one. The problem lies with the lack of detail. The first book is thin on plot really. It's all about will she sign the contract? No? How about a weeks free trial of life as a Christian Grey Submissive? Hmmm, yes please! Now will you sign? Er no. The End. The book is written from Ana's point of view & is composed of a lot of her inner monologue, which may not have won the book critics over, but is essential to the plot. This isn't in the film & it suffers for it. It's too rushed & unless you have read the books or are really easily pleased, you'll struggle to root for this relationship, as you can't quite see why she fancies him (despite the obvious), let alone falls in love with him. It needed another half an hour to put some important parts in from the book. Where was the interview with Jack Hyde, setting the scene for Film 2? Where was a proper meal with Christian ordering her to eat; we needed to see more of his issues. The belt scene was great but the ending, which nearly made me shed a tear in the book, was cut short with barely a whimper from the leads or the audience. More sex scenes wouldn't have been beneficial, it's a LOVE story, not a porno flick. Dornan seemed uncomfortable with some of the more 'honest' statements Christian declares: "I don't make love, I f**k hard" If you look carefully, you can see him cringing, as was I. In the book, it's quite hot. In reality...well perhaps some things are better left in between the covers of the book. If you love the book, you'll enjoy the film. I wish I had read no reviews prior to seeing it, as I feel I went into the cinema looking to pick holes. I will go back and see it again, more relaxed & knowing what to expect. It doesn't deserve the slamming it's getting from critics. Dornan is a talent & Johnson is exactly the Anastasia I imagined. It's too long a book for every detail to be included and that's always going to be a problem with book adaptations, but vital plots & character depictions were left out. The next film script needs serious consideration. Less art, more true to the book. It's a romance with kinky sex, not an abusive relationship. Christian may be rich and experienced, but Ana has the power in this relationship. Those who say otherwise, do not 'get' this series & would be well advised to steer clear.

Two minor pros far outweighed by several massive cons

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 5 December 2016]

Hopefully, as a heterosexual female student in her twenties with a love of film that spreads across all genres and decades, this will come over as a fair assessment of a film that genuinely did nothing for me.

Have not read the books, though have heard conflicting opinions that has mostly been intense dislike. The reason for watching 'Fifty Shades of Grey' was not due to wanting to hate on it, being a negative person, curiosity but for the reason of being at a film night with friends recently and 'Fifty Shades of Grey' happened to be the film choice. Just for the record, the general consensus ranged from indifference to hating it with a passion.

There are two minor pros. The best thing about 'Fifty Shades of Grey' is most of the beguiling soundtrack, that has a soothing nostalgia and appropriately amorous quality, this is all for the song choices though. 'Fifty Shades of Grey' also looks good, nice use of scenery and very nicely shot.

On the other hand, Danny Elfman's score is one-note and repetitive, as well as too derivative of his recent work. He has composed some wonderful stuff ('Edward Scissorhands' is magical) but this is really not his best work. The direction has slickness but overall is too mannered which really affects the film's tone and pacing.

Regarding the acting, none of the supporting cast are of note, including Marcia Gay Harden, but a larger issue is the two leads and their complete lack of chemistry. Understated can be a lovely quality to acting, as long as it also becomes nuanced and with believability given to the dialogue. Dakota Johnson, especially in the first third, is too understated that it feels more like there is a lack of personality or emotion. Jamie Dornan looks uncomfortable throughout, delivers his cringe-worthy lines awkwardly and is just bland as dishwater with no charisma whatsoever. Chemistry is non-existent.

'Fifty Shades of Grey's' dialogue does them absolutely no favours, dialogue so bad that absolutely nobody (even the best actors and actresses) can do anything with it. It causes unintentional laughter throughout, is embarrassingly clunky and is pure smut. Then there is the story that is so thin structurally, heavy in repetition, so badly plodding and without style or atmosphere that the film feels twice as long, with the sexual elements done far too tamely and the BDSM portrayal deceitful. None of the characters are engaging or interesting, practically ciphers.

All in all, a very poor film with two minor pros and the rest of the film massively flawed. 2/10 Bethany Cox

I actually love this movie..

[enyarutte · 9/10 · 12 July 2015]

After reading a few reviews, I actually felt bad for loving this movie. I wanted to go and see this movie in the cinema, but all my friends trusted the reviews and just didn't come, so I went by myself. To be honest: I ended up crying for about 2 hours after watching the movie because I was extremely touched by Christian Grey's traumas.

I feel like a lot of people don't get the point of this story. This movie is absolutely not about the erotics. It is about 2 people finding each other and falling in love, even though they both have no idea what it's like to have a 'normal' relationship. Anastasia actually sees Christian as a person, while Christian only sees himself as a monster.

I do not have an opinion about any film technical aspects, simply because I do not have any knowledge about that.

I can highly recommend this movie. But I must say: try to get to know the characters instead of focusing on the sexual action.

Contrast to what the haters are saying, I actually find this film OKAY.

[romneyranjo · 7/10 · 7 March 2015]

I saw this film last month and to be honest, i actually liked it. I mean first and foremost you have to know that the book itself isn't really good so you shouldn't really expect a lot from the film.

I've read the book and comparing it to its film adaption, I can say that the film's way better. They made it LESS about the s*x and MORE about the "romantic" love story of Grey and Steele. Also, they gave Steele's character some humor which for me was such an important element.

In terms of technicalities, the film wasn't "over-the-edge" it's okay. Nothing special.

In terms of soundtrack, the film has superb songs! It' actually sets up the mood quite well. I cried a bit when Ellie Goulding's "Love Me Like You Do" started playing. Weird right?

In terms of acting, Dakota did an okay job. She started a bit off (her character was supposed to be awkward-cute, but she made her seem awkward in a bad way). Jamie's portrayal of Grey on the other hand was less than okay. He pulled of the sexy and "let's f*ck" part but the INTIMIDATING part not quite well. The way he talked also distracted me i don't know why.

All in all, I think the film's still worth watching and is not as bad as to what people/haters are saying. I'm actually giving it a 6- 7 over 10 grade.

Really really bad

[remibgoldstone · 1/10 · 12 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.