Posted on 02/14/2015 6:50:26 AM PST by Kaslin
The film 50 Shades of Grey is likely to be financially successful no matter what. The film—which is likely the first part of a new franchise—is an adaptation of the unbelievably popular E.L. James novel.
Few would’ve guessed a few short years ago that there was a huge untapped market for this type of story, which originated as Twilight fan fiction. But there undeniably was a big market for this. Millions and millions and millions of copies were sold. The book became a massive bestseller and the new cinematic adaptation of it will likely dominate—pardon the pun—the box office this weekend.
It’s unfortunate though that this movie, which superficially sounds intriguing, never tries to exert anything of depth into the shallow story. For those who haven’t read the books, the story’s main character is Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson), a painfully naïve college student, tasked with interviewing Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), a wealthy Washington billionaire.
We’re led to believe that Anastasia is smart despite how in every scene, she seems overwhelmed by everything that happens to her. (When she walks into Grey’s huge office, she falls in the doorway as if she’s never walked in a straight line before). For someone with life experience, she also doesn’t know how to interact with others, a situation that is on display when she interviews Grey and stumbles over every question she asks. She’s like a deer in the headlights who, when one car passes her, rushes to be in front of another one.
Grey, meanwhile, is a control freak. It’s easy to see that because every other line he utters focuses on how he’s the master of his own universe. “I exercise control in all things, Ms. Steele,” he says. A few seconds later, he notes, “I’m used to getting my own way.” A few minutes pass. “I’m here because I’m capable of leaving you alone.”
When a little later, he notes he’s a dominant, it comes as no surprise. It’s like Hannibal Lecter announcing at the end of Silence of the Lambs that he’s a cannibal. Of course he is. The question is: is he anything more than that one thing? Grey isn’t.
Of course, the story proceeds from there as the dominant Grey seduces the naïve and vulnerable Steele. The idea is that this is supposed to be sexy and—dare I say it—romantic. (Considering the fact that the movie comes out Valentine’s Day weekend and the holiday has been a prominent part of Universal’s marketing campaign, it’s undeniable that “romance” is supposed to be a key part of this equation). Yet, there’s nothing sexy or romantic about this relationship. In fact, it’s quite boring.
Grey chases Steele around. Steele pushes him away. Grey seduces her. Steele pushes him away. Grey buys her things. The story beats just repeat over and over again.
If you’re wondering if there are other characters in the film, I was too. Loosely speaking, other characters do appear as the story drags on. Luke Grimes appears as Grey’s brother. Oscar winner Marcia Gay Harden has a cameo as his mother. Victor Rasuk has a role as Steele’s obnoxious friend who secretly longs for her. I would note the names of these characters here but the movie treats like more like props than as actual people. Pretending they have personalities or add to the plot would be like bringing attention to one of the plants that sits in Grey’s office.
The plant just sits there and so do these characters.
It’s inevitable that the movie Fifty Shades of Grey will be controversial. Its subject matter is risky; its main relationship is defined by Grey’s oftentimes-violent sexual fantasies. It’s also disconcerting that this movie is the Valentine’s Day movie of 2015. But despite all of the controversies about its subject, this film stands alone as a cinematic catastrophe.
Many people will likely see it because it exists. They won’t see it because they think it’ll be good. It isn’t. In fact, there’s no shading or hiding the fact that this is one of the worst movies of the year.
You answered your own question. There is a difference between fantasy when it's consensual, and having someone force themselves on you.
Having said that, someone else can make the producers of that movie rich. I'll find something else to spend my money on.
Absolutely hilarious and devastating review. I read it twice.
Mommy Porn
It's like the SNL skit "Sexual Harrasment and You"
Announcer: See? It can be done. You can have sex with women at work without losing your job, by following a few simple rules:
Be Handsome..
Be Attractive..
and Don't Be Unattractive.
But the schools are free.
bkmk
Porn by another name.
I’m glad someone posted that. It seems like the perfect review & plot synopsis for someone unwilling to read the book or watch the movie.
What a great review for a movie they say is better than the book (an odd sort of observation for fiction).
My prediction: after the initial onslaught of weirdos, the movie will languish, as do copies of the books cluttering the shelves of my local library, unwanted and unloved.
It’s like the gun thing. They all hate guns in Hollywood, yet they make movies where guns do things people who use them in real life know they would never do and would never even try to use them for.
Their lack of experience on the subject leads them to fantasize about it and become mesmerized about it, but also hate it. It’s sort of strange. Normal sexual relationships ditto. They don’t know what they are. I’ve noticed gay men often portray women the same women. They don’t understand them at all, they portray a twisted fantasy of them that doesn’t exist.
I actually read the book, simply to see what the fuss was about and because I read a ton of stuff. I’m not a porn reader. But it’s basically porn about how a defective man seduces and abuses a young, inexperienced girl, and the writer tries hard to make it seem like he is being “understanding” and she is trying to “help” him - but he is really intoxicating her with liquor, making her sign a contract to not tell anyone, etc. You step back from it, he’s a classic abuser. It’s a bad story made intoxicating. Not good for the soul.
Australian review of 50 Shades of Gray (Lisa Wilkinson’s Review Absolutely Destroys 50 Shades Of Grey):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMh-ou0TKXk
A psychiatrist’s view of the books/movie:
You've come to the same conclusion as the psychiatrist in the link I posted in #32 above.
How could the movie be any good when the book it's based on is total garbage?
For some reason, this reminds me of all the hype about the movie Titanic. I was so eager to see that movie, and then the story turned out to be so shallow—it was a romanticized account of a one-night-stand, basically.
From everything I have heard about it, Fifty Shades of Grey doesn’t have enough substance to it to make it worth seeing, even if it was free.
My take as well. I'd add "neurotic". The very last thing a real D/S practitioner wants is to be involved with somebody who is as mentally unstable as these people are.
It's just the new frontier of titillation for a jaded Hollywood in search of the next sensation. We're lucky it isn't cannibalism. Yet.
Sounds as if you found the book as much of a bore as I found the movie, “Raging Bull”. I tried to watch it three different times on TV and it put me to sleep every time. For some strange reason the two gay boys called it the greatest movie of the eighties. Maybe it is if you can stay awake through it.
Yes, it would seem that this “story” is yet more proof that if you appeal to people’s prurient interests they’ll put up with or otherwise overlook the fact that everything else about it is garbage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.