Few redeeming qualities.

Rating: 4/10 (13 February 2015)

I'm not a FSOG hater. For all the book shortcomings I couldn't put down the first book and half of the second. I didn't start the third but I understand why so many women would find this romantic. It's the same love story that has been favored by female readers for centuries in a way or other. From Cinderella, to Beauty and the beast. This fantasy of taming a not approachable man with your love. Unrealistic and unhealthy as this is, those kind of books bring the kind of drama that keep some people turning the pages. I thought the concept even if not original had potential. No inner goddess, no holy cow, no graphic scenes (because they wanted to stick to an R rating) no repetitive scenes, and you could end up with a decent story. Add that to Nowhere Boy director, a Danny Elfman score, and a visually appealing setting and I thought the movie could be one of those cases in which the movie is better than the book. The book is more character driven than plot driven so I wasn't going to complain about the lack of a beginning a climax and an ending.
Well, I was wrong. The movie is not as bad as I thought it could be but Kelly Marcel lost a great opportunity to get rid of the horrible dialog. One thing is Reading ridiculous lines like "I don't make love I f*** hard" "I'm going to f** you into next week" "What have you done to me?" and another seeing them in the big screen. Ridiculous! Everybody knows that EL James is not the best writer and she wrote this piece for fun but I thought the scriptwriter would have a Little bit of respect for her reputation and try to get her name attached to a decent script. I know that giving the nature of the material she couldn't do much but still, something could've been done at the scrip department.
Besides I thought that the whole point of the story is that these couple who are very different from each other, who don't know how to have a healthy relationship, who try to get what they want through manipulation were slowly falling in love. Nothing that I saw in the movie made me feel they were really into each other. Part is that the actors have no chemistry but also that the script gives them little to no room to create characters that convincingly convey how much they are into each other. Scenes that were supposed to be romantic (yes romantic, because disturbed people like Christian fall in love too) turned out to look cheesy or creepy.
The only redeeming quality of these two is how they fall into each other but Kelly Marcel seems to have been more interested in presenting sex scenes. There are plenty and they are not particularly graphic but with the exception of a couple of sex scenes outside the Red room the rest is just...meh! I felt like they were there just trying to say, "look we are presenting sex scenes in an artistic way!"
Also I can't believe I'm going to say this but Christian Grey in the book I can totally understand and is better written. He was hurt, had certain vulnerability, he was a good mix of arrogance, Jack-ass attitude and mystery. Kelly Marcel and Sam Taylor didn't bother to give him more background, more sass, a hook for the viewers to understand why Anastasia was drawn to this man. It looked like she was after the money because other than that, what else is there to draw an intelligent manipulative college graduate into a world she doesn't like?
Talking about the sex scenes. It was really necessary to insert a pop-song in each of them? Danny Elffman's score is one of the few redeeming qualities of the movie and you get distracted by the pop songs.
I thought that Sam Taylor Johnson had good intentions with this film.The scene in which Ana and Christian are discussing the soft and hard limits was brilliant. Besides she inserts some themes here, some themes there. Those themes are part of the book but the sub-par prose doesn't let you appreciate them. Kudos to that but she missed the opportunity of making this movie more Secretary and less twilight.
Dakota Johnson's Acting is decent and in certain scenes she displays a strength that Anastasia didn't have in the books. She's very expressive and carries the movie well. I think her performance is another redeeming quality of this train-wreck. A lot of book readers are always claiming how Anatasia is easy manipulated but I think any woman who wants to change a man for whatever reason has a tendency to manipulation, too. That's not unconditional love. If you love some one take him for what he is and if he is not what you're looking for leave. But if you stay it's because you're as damaged, controlling and manipulative as he is. Dakota plays this woman who tries to turn a disturbed guy into her prince charming quite decently.
Dornan's casting was a huge mistake. His horrible performance reinforces this idea that the only reason Ana is after him is his looks and his money because he gives nothing sexy, interesting, intriguing, magnetic about his character. People who haven't read the book would be wondering why so many women fell in love with Christian Grey. If Charlie Hunnam (who I think could have saved this movie from the disaster it became) wasn't available they should have postponed filming till they found a guy who could portray the role. I've seen Dornan act in the fall and he's not good but he isn't as bad as he is here.
So overall I'm glad I didn't pay to see this movie but saw it in an advanced screening.