Chloroform In Print = Chloroform In Celluloid

Rating: 1/10 (7 July 2015)

The emperor has no clothes. Or rather he does, they're just really really dull.
Behold the sexploitation film. The bottom of the barrel in exploitation sub genres. And it's a deep barrel! Sexploitation is just one step short of outright porn. Except sexploitation doesn't rate as high a porn. At least pornography gratifies its audience. But 'Fifty Shades' doesn't even rate as high sexploitation.
Behold the great American novel, the bottom of the barrel in print. Based on the recent successes of 'Twilight' and 'The DiVinci Code' and 'The Hunger Games' (the first novel to ever advertise itself as being plagiarized) the American reader is dumb as rocks. Raised on 'Sweet Valley High' and 'The Babysitters' Club' the American reader cannot be expected to comprehend any type plot, character development, or writing prose. It has to be dumbed down, mashed up, and spoon fed to them.
When I first heard about the 'Fifty Shades of Grey' novels I was just as much up for (no puns intended) some good erotic fiction as any other reader. I read the first twenty pages of a bootleg version before I fell asleep. To sum it up in a single word it was "juvenile." It read like stereo instructions, as if the words had merely been randomly assembled by a computer program rather than a typing monkey.
The mere names of the characters are laughable. Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele? Seriously? Were the names Hester Prynne and Seymour Butts already taken? How can any reader take this seriously after reading those names?
The setting is equally as cardboard. An office. Move over 'Claiming of Sleeping Beauty' this erotic novel takes place in an office.
So no matter what your personal tastes the last thing you want anything to be is boring. That's what 'Fifty Shades of Grey' is, boring and juvenile.
Then came the media sensation! The novels were plugged left and right as being "erotic" and "controversial." As I already stated they're as "erotic" as stereo instructions and the claim of controversy would be more convincing if these novels weren't SOLD AT THE CHECKOUT LINE IN GROCERY STORES!!! Come on! How "controversial" can it be?
Finally last night I chose to embrace the horror and get it over with and finally watch a bootleg version of this movie. How bad could it possibly be? I figured, if I could endure 'Cannibal Holocaust' 'Cannibal Ferox' 'Riki Oh' 'Salo' and ALL THREE 'ILSA' movies I could certainly survive this.
I braced myself (no puns intended) for this "controversial" "shocking" "erotic thriller" which barely got an R rating to see..... bare breasts. That's right! The most shocking scenes in the movie feature bare breasts. That's it!!! That's the big "shocker!" Bare breasts! Dakota Johnson's flat as a board bare breasts. I can name PG movies that feature bare breasts!
Staying true to the novel it was boring as sin. Well I guess I should have expected as much.
This only reinforces what I've said all along. Who is the target audience here? There's no shortage of actual porn. And porn fans will be bored to tears. The only way they'd enjoy this is if the role of Anastasia Steele was played by Tanner Mayes and the role of Christian Grey was played by ten black men.
At the same time other people won't be interested in seeing this trash. So who was the target audience to begin with?
'Fifty Shades' is pure hype built on nothing. The emperor has no clothes. Or rather he does, they're just really really dull.
I was very saddened to learn that this film was produced by Michael De Luca. The Michael De Luca? The same screen writer of one of the greatest films ever made 'In The Mouth of Madness'? Now I hate 'Fifty Shades of Grey' even more!