True, Dakota Johnson does her best, and her semi-stifled giggles suggest that, unlike James, she can see the funny side of all this nonsense. You get dirtier talk in most action movies, and more genitalia in a TED talk on Renaissance sculpture. Think of it as the Downton Abbey?of bondage, designed neither to menace nor to offend but purely to cosset the fatigued imagination. It is gray with good taste - shade upon shade of muted naughtiness, daubed within the limits of the R rating. The New Yorker's Anthony Lane notes, "the film, by dint of its simple competence-being largely well acted, not too long, and sombrely photographed, by Seamus McGarvey?- has to be better than the novel.
What vitality Fifty Shades of Grey possesses belongs to Johnson, who is a champion lip-biter and no slouch at blushing, eye-rolling and trembling on the verge of tears." Altogether, "Fifty Shades of Grey might not be a good movie - O.K., it’s a terrible movie - but it might nonetheless be a movie that feels good to see, whether you squirm or giggle or roll your eyes or just sit still and take your punishment." has the bland affect of a model, by which I mean a figure made of balsa wood or Lego. Scott explains it "is, like the book itself, a wildly confused treatment of a perennial confusing subject," with "several moments in Kelly Marcel’s script that sound a little redundant, and more than a little silly, when uttered on screen." Dornan, "given the job of inspiring lust, fascination and also maybe a tiny, thrilling frisson of fear, succeeds mainly in eliciting pity. Read More'Fifty Shades of Grey': Watch 'SNL' Star's Awkwardly Steamy Spoof (Video) A few dom-sub contract details and a couple of online photos notwithstanding, the movie maintains an artful restraint even as it talks dirty the sex scenes suggest more than those of the standard Hollywood drama without quite going there." Their first use of his playroom is packaged in a montage-y way that feels nonthreatening and more than a little generic, complete with intrusive pop-track accompaniment.
Even so, the movie is, by definition, a stronger proposition than the book because it strips away the oodles of cringe-inducing descriptions and internal monologue that tip the text heavily toward self-parody.
Aiming to please, the filmmakers submit without hesitation to the bold yet hokey source material, with leads Dornan and Johnson breathing a crucial third dimension into cutout characters." Taylor-Johnson "depicts fringe pursuits within a familiar, reassuring romance-novel dynamic," and screenwriter Kelly Marcel "is ultra-faithful to James’ writing, and retains some of its most risible lines." And "Dornan creates a remarkable range within Grey’s tightly wound intensity," and "Johnson is captivating."Īdditionally, "It’s a slow build to the smutty bits, and one that’s disappointingly devoid of tension.
Although the book’s soft-X explicitness has been toned down to a hard R, this is the first studio film in many years to gaze directly at the Medusa of sex - and unlike such male-leer predecessors as 9? Weeks, it does so from a woman’s perspective.
The Hollywood Reporter 's Sheri Linden says, "The first in a planned trilogy of movies will stoke the ardor of James’ fans, entice curious newbies, and in every way live up to the 'phenomenon' hype.