See, I’ve got this issue about books that are made into movies – especially if they’re books that I particularly like. To me, the movies can be outstandingly well done but they just can’t rate as good as the book(s). When I read a book the settings and scenes are built in my imagination, the characters are painted in all their glory in my fantasies, and the pages of the story flip through my mind like the frames on a reel. I don’t need a movie to see the story, all I have to do is read it. Yet at the same time, I do love a good movie.
So let’s get to the point...
Dakota Johnson. Jamie
Dornan. And Fifty Shades of Grey. 
It’s been one of the most talked about movies of the year so
far – for reasons both good and bad. It’s
been the topic of countless talk show segments, blogs, human and women's’ rights
debates, and God knows what else. Even I
have written about it here on Ups, Downs,
Ins and Outs. It opened in theatres just
before Valentine’s Day and has been leading in box office sales since, despite,
or maybe because of the controversial nature of the movies content.
That’s my, ha, $0.50 synopsis, and here are my feelings
about it after seeing the movie.
The movie’s good. It
was decent. For me, it was neither
really great, nor completely horrible.
There are really great bits and there are some parts that appeared very
awkwardly done – and surprisingly they weren’t the sexual scenes. (I’ve read interviews done with both lead
characters and both described filming the sex scenes as uncomfortable and
difficult. No real surprise there.) To
be perfectly honest, the thing that sorta killed parts of the movie for me, was
the lack of solid on-screen chemistry between Dornan and Johnson. The baffling
part is that their connection wasn’t lacking in every scene, but ironically was
missing in the scenes that should have been the simplest for them to perform.
(Granted, this could be explained by the actors’ apparent dislike of each
other, something I’ve also seen reported in recent weeks.) The cinematography
and music were extremely well done, and the casting of the actors in their
particular roles was, I believe, also well done – it’s just that somehow these
things just didn’t all mesh together to make the movie that I think many of us
were expecting.
And what about those sex scenes, you’re probably wondering?
After all, it was the erotic nature of the sex, the BDSM lifestyle, and the supposed
“pornographic” extremes of the film that were causing the loud outcry and vast
extent of debate and criticism for the movie.
In the 2 hour movie there was roughly 20 minutes of sex – and this
includes everything from the most vanilla, to the most harshly erotic of the
scenes. And of the scenes depicting BDSM
behaviors, these really weren’t all that extreme. Not if you really know anything about BDSM,
anyways. Also, as the first (at least to
my knowledge) movie in mainstream cinema to really broach the BDSM topic, I
just don’t think they did a very good job of really depicting the way a BDSM
relationship works or would work. They
tried, sure, but, to me anyways, I feel they missed more than a few key tenants
of the relationship, and since a good part of the movie is supposed to be explaining
a BDSM relationship/arrangement to Anastasia, I see no reason and no excuse why
they should have. My only conclusion as
far as this is concerned is that the writers were either lazy or ignorant. Or both.
There’s really no other plausible excuse.
So when all is said and done, I did like Fifty Shades of Grey – the movie, and
yes, I would probably recommend it to interested and/or like-minded friends. I may even buy it when it comes out on
DVD. But it’s not a movie I’ll pay to go
see in theatres again.
Do with this what you will.
It’s just my opinion.
... And now I’m off to read the book.
