Infinite Shades of Beep-Beep

Rating: 1/10 (11 February 2015)

Back in 2011, after media cogently pressed me, I read Fifty Shades of Grey. Despite its extremely poor prose, I enjoyed the novel. When I finished it, I tried to not be judgmental about it. But now after watching the movie, I have to be. For lay-men and erotica-loving audience, this movie is their "Lord of the Rings" and "The Clockwork Orange". For ticket-not-available-for-any-other-movie unfortunate stakeholders, this might work as well. But for critics, dilettantes, and intellectual people, it's mostly a piece of beep-beep.
Not just that, even the cast was pathetic. Although Dakota Johnson fills the countenance of my imagery of Anastasia Steele, she didn't do justice to her role. She was overly dramatic, artificial, and didn't fully understand her character's prerequisites. She's pretty and all, and perfectly looks like "Anastasia" but doesn't feel like her, except when the main couple is frolicking, but that's not acting, only sensual mingling, is it not? Throughout the movie, she tries to appear foxy and overly-sensual through her dialogues and expressions, but miserably fails. It all seemed made-up; the kind you come across with when you're watching a college-level theater play. When I hadn't seen the movie, only the trailer, I actually thought Dakota would make the best Ana, but to my bad, she was utterly disappointing. Nonetheless, she was bearable, and somewhat likable, as paradoxical as it sounds.
And Jamie Dornan, or the pathetic-Christian-Grey as you'd all know him by—I literally laughed seeing him (hiding the urge to scream or express my depression). The guy is not slightly the kind anyone predicted. He doesn't look like a magnate; he looks like a third-class, high-school, and hey-my-name-is-Swag guy. There's billionaire neither on his face nor in his gait, although I'd have to appreciate his vocal chords, but they hardly complement the other drawbacks. Halfway into the movie, he starts gaining momentum and stability in his character. By then, it's too late. The impression has already been delivered. I had two choices in mind when I heard that a movie was being made of the book—Stephen Amell and Matthew Goode. I'm happy that people actually considered these two choices. Stephen, especially, was immensely appropriate. Nobody could do it better than Stephen. His incandescence evidenced in Arrow, where he shows all signs auspicious for Christian Grey. Matthew Goode. He would have been a great choice too, given his gait, his voice, and sophistication, as per his performances up to date. But no, they were stubborn on showing their lack of professionalism throughout. I don't know where the senses and credibility of casting supervisors went that they became so lame during the casting process.
I might not have been disappointed had the cast been suitable. The couple devastated the movie in a manner reminiscent of Kristen Stewart devastating "Twilight" and "Snow White and the Huntsman", you see what I'm saying?
Now comes the director. In modern film-making, direction is no longer a separate department with separate responsibilities. Director is practically in charge of everything going on with the movie. Sam-Taylor Johnson, just like her husband, is pretty mundane, and banal, the only difference being the different departments both handle. She's nothing extraordinary. I mean it's not evasive; she doesn't have that in her. Such directors can only finish the project, not gloom it. They stick with the hard-lined facts, and produce in millimeters, never thinking about the immaterial perspective of film-making. But then, how good can you direct a movie that sucks so badly at content?
This might be the first time I'm criticizing Universal, which for this movie, wouldn't agree on a NC-17 rating because that would lead to a loss of potential audience. Seriously? Fifty-Shades-of-Grey-fans would have loved it. Even R is explicit enough for parents to stop their children from coming to cinemas. What difference would NC-17 have made? Let me answer this "rhetorical" question: it would have allowed the movie to elevate the otherwise below-ordinary script. Screenplay writer Kelly Marcel didn't really have any other option than to use explicitness of the novel in the movie, but everybody rejected it. If they had stuck to the originality of the novel (which by the way sucked too), they'd have been able to pull out something that both entertains mass audience, and gets appreciated, if only a little, by true aesthetes.
I would still say that I enjoyed my time watching it. The erotica sure was catchy, and don't be judgmental, everybody gets a turn-on on something that explicit. Also, there's always something sentimental and lovable about romantic movies. The ethereal sexuality was highly complemented by the score and songs. Beyoncé, in particular, nailed it. In fact, the main reason why the movie is ruling the media nowadays is her exquisite performance. The last trailer, for example, exhibiting Haunted, enjoyed a massive fan following, later providing an esteemed platform for the movie itself.
In my opinion, screenplay writers should have had the audacity to change the theme, mold it to perfection, make it more sound and logical, and not make something that only shows a guy proving mainstream feminists true. The audience, at least the post-modernist one, does not follow a strict line. It's only looking for the line of best fit. Plus, it wasn't the adaptation of a sci-fi novel that there might have been a chance of all logic and equations gone awry.
Fifty Shades of Grey made James's life a heaven; maybe she was good at luck. The book didn't deserve an applause, really. The movie? Well I'd give it something, considering the effort it takes to make a movie with this much and this kind of sex without turning it into porn.
Five Shades to Grey; I think that'll suffice.