Fifty Shades Of Grey (2015; d: Taylor-Johnson) S: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan
05-05-15, 08:16 PM
#451
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Fifty Shades Of Grey (2015; d: Taylor-Johnson) S: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan
05-27-15, 11:09 AM
#453
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Fifty Shades Of Grey (2015; d: Taylor-Johnson) S: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan
No...it's pretty much the same film with the same ending. There's a bit more nudity from Dakota, a few extra bits here and there, and a slightly different ending - although it still ends the same way, it just tacks on a montage.
I prefer the theatrical version.
I prefer the theatrical version.
06-05-15, 08:35 PM
#454
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Fifty Shades Of Grey (2015; d: Taylor-Johnson) S: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan
Believe me, I wish I'd known that.
I rented this from Redbox. Don't judge me, OK, I'm a very lonely man. I didn't think that in a thousand years I'd ever hear dialogue worse than a George Lucas movie. I was so, so, so, so wrong. I was an English lit major, and even I've never entertained a fantasy this outrageous. This sounds the daydreams of a 14 year old. Seriously, virginal English lit major is secretly an sex goddess and is seduced by an impossibly attractive person with tons of money? Yeah, still waiting for that.
And there is more consumerist porn in this than softcore porn. I have never seen such blatant product placement in my life.
The DVD of his has DVS track. How is that not a thing on the Internet yet?
Dakota Johnson's wishy-washy shy character who's scared of her own shadow is annoying, even though she plays the role well. I didn't have much of a social life and wasn't exactly the most socially capable person, but I was capable of speaking at a volume above a whisper, thank you.
This technically well-put together. Seamus McGarvey is a top-notch DP (Oh, don't make that joke!), and the film is shot well. It has that digital sheen and looks a little bit Antiseptic and deliberately cold. It definitely looks like it's put together with technically professionalism. Then shots of the city have a kind of fluorescent neon quality that's kind of pretty. The architecture, obviously designed to mirror the sort of obsessive qualities of the character, is also shot well. Some of the color palette looks quite rich too. The Arri Alexa no doubt deserves its reputation. That dinner scene where they talk about the contract looks particularly nice.
The way Taylor-Johnson tries to play up the power dynamics between the characters is kind of interesting, but she's hamstrung by the narrative and the ear-scrapingly had dialogue. The way he's sort of interested in someone so submissive and mousy to contrast with his own assertiveness might be interesting if it was actually well-written. The chemistry between the two leads isn't terrible, but it's hard to buy because at no point do the characters feel even slightly real or believable enough for me to buy into them. It does seem like the film is trying to have a bit of a sense of humor about itself, but it's hard when it seems like your laughing at the film rather than with it. That said, there are some bits of humor which slip through, and I think they're kind of funny.
Oh, and Anne Coates has an amazing editing career going back to Lawrence of Arabia. You can occasionally see some flashes of interesting editing, especially cut to Elfman's score.
You spent thousands of dollars on first editions to get into bed with a virgin? Because of course, liking books must mean that she sublimates all of her sexuality into literature! And yet she still does shots better than I do. Apparently she's brave enough to call him up though. Would a really, really conservative and virginal girl have a free-spirited and highly sexual roommate? When I was as judgmental as I was back then, I made it a point not to hang around "people like that." And who the hell has no sweat and immaculate hair after sex?
Swooping in to pick her up when she's already with friends isn't creepy at all. Nor is changing her clothes while she's fricking unconscious!
"Did we, uh?"
What're you, 14? Say the words!
Anistasia Steele? That sounds like a porn star who works at Disneyland.
This character comes across as an abusive stalker. How is that romantic? Following her around, trying to buy her affections, having her sign contracts, it's really, really creepy. There's fantasizing about someone sweeping you off of your feet, and then there's outright controlling and abusive.
The whole aesthetic of the film is strange. It's almost shot like a romance movie, lots of soft focus, walks in the woods, longing touches, and jangling romantic piano music in the background. If the film seemed to have any sense of it, you could perceive it as satirical, but mostly it seems straightforward to the point of being a little creepy.
Look, I have nothing against any sort of sexual proclivities anybody has, but don't you think it's kind of fucked up to take an innocent Virgin up to your dark playroom of hell? I get that the guy, as written, apparently has issues. But he can't associate with anyone unless it's is a S&M context in any way? WTF? Have you though about like seeing a therapist? You can associate with this woman in any way without whips and chains? For a virgin who's curious, that's like 0-60. So losing her virginity was orgasmic and totally painless?
Seriously, this movie is rated R for explicit sexual content, and we're doing the "covering yourself with a sheet when you get out of bed" cliche? With the mysterious sheet that's shaped like the letter L?
"Good girl!"
WTF? What is she, a dog? She seems to come every time he so much as touches her.
"Does your mother know that you were her friend's submissive for years when you weren't even legal?"
No, I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of thing I'd bring up to my mother.
If Mark Kermode will pardon my theft, from and industrial point of view, a film in which the Three central creative parties-the screenwriter, the novelist, and the director-are all women making a film about female sexuality should, at least from an industrial point of view, be interesting. It's a shame that the final product is so bland and dull. To be honest, I think anything Taylor-Johnson wanted to make interesting about the film had the edges sanded off of it by either the studio or having her hands tied (pun intended) by James' interference.
"Laters, baby."
Who the hell says that?
You know, Hellraiser presents S&M with a kind of dark eroticism. This movie treats it like a freak show. To someone like me, I totally ally understand why it'd be perceived that way, but I can see why the BDSM community isn't real receptive to it.
So she tells you no, and you go to her house? That's really, really, really creepy.
You know, it's fucked up that I know this, but they sell four-point harnesses and BDSM gear professionally. Why are you using ties and hardware store shit?
How do you fuck someone into the "middle" of next week?
College graduation, or "it's all downhill from here."
"You can't go visit your mother! You're all mine!"
Oh-kay, that's not scary at all.
The sex scenes are very dull, and I'm a notorious prude. I've seen way more spicy stuff in European movies or even in stuff like Verhoeven's American movies or 70s flicks. It wasn't steamy or erotic at all (part of that has to do with my discomfort at the abusive nature of the central character), to be honest. It actually formed a fairly small part of the overall film.
To be honest, I found the whole movie dull overall. I didn't really buy into the central relationship, so the fulcrum of the whole thing just didn't work for me. The narrative meanders all over the place, the central figure is rather unsympathetic, and the sex scenes, after all of the kicking and screaming, really weren't terribly interesting. As for Steele, mostly I found her wishy-washiness annoying. Why on Earth is she interested in him? If she's as super-hot as he keeps saying she is, she can have anyone she wants. Why not have a normal relationship? Why jump headfirst from being a virgin into BDSM? I don't think that the performances themselves are bad, though Dornan is rather stiff. I found Johnson kind of like able. The problem was that the characters were so annoying and unconvincing.
It wasn't terrible. I've seen way, way worse films-any of those sexy erotic thrillers from the old VHS days show how incompetently put together the whole thing could've been, and give the budget and the Hollywood sheen, this does look very good. The production design is slick, it's well-shot, the editing is good, the film just doesn't have any heat. And given that the subject matter is kinky sex, that's kind of a problem.
I'm not sure what this wants to be-a study of sexual awakening and mores, a character price, a twists 21st century love story-but it doesn't really work as any of them. In the end, it's sort of a story a twisted, fucked-up, abusive, unsympathetic guy and his relationship with a sweet and innocent to the point of being irritating girl who he puts through hell. Why did I spend two hours with these people? To what end? What the hell was the point of this movie? What did it want to be about? What was it trying to stay? I have no idea, and frankly, I wasn't interested enough to care.
I rented this from Redbox. Don't judge me, OK, I'm a very lonely man. I didn't think that in a thousand years I'd ever hear dialogue worse than a George Lucas movie. I was so, so, so, so wrong. I was an English lit major, and even I've never entertained a fantasy this outrageous. This sounds the daydreams of a 14 year old. Seriously, virginal English lit major is secretly an sex goddess and is seduced by an impossibly attractive person with tons of money? Yeah, still waiting for that.
And there is more consumerist porn in this than softcore porn. I have never seen such blatant product placement in my life.
The DVD of his has DVS track. How is that not a thing on the Internet yet?
Dakota Johnson's wishy-washy shy character who's scared of her own shadow is annoying, even though she plays the role well. I didn't have much of a social life and wasn't exactly the most socially capable person, but I was capable of speaking at a volume above a whisper, thank you.
This technically well-put together. Seamus McGarvey is a top-notch DP (Oh, don't make that joke!), and the film is shot well. It has that digital sheen and looks a little bit Antiseptic and deliberately cold. It definitely looks like it's put together with technically professionalism. Then shots of the city have a kind of fluorescent neon quality that's kind of pretty. The architecture, obviously designed to mirror the sort of obsessive qualities of the character, is also shot well. Some of the color palette looks quite rich too. The Arri Alexa no doubt deserves its reputation. That dinner scene where they talk about the contract looks particularly nice.
The way Taylor-Johnson tries to play up the power dynamics between the characters is kind of interesting, but she's hamstrung by the narrative and the ear-scrapingly had dialogue. The way he's sort of interested in someone so submissive and mousy to contrast with his own assertiveness might be interesting if it was actually well-written. The chemistry between the two leads isn't terrible, but it's hard to buy because at no point do the characters feel even slightly real or believable enough for me to buy into them. It does seem like the film is trying to have a bit of a sense of humor about itself, but it's hard when it seems like your laughing at the film rather than with it. That said, there are some bits of humor which slip through, and I think they're kind of funny.
Oh, and Anne Coates has an amazing editing career going back to Lawrence of Arabia. You can occasionally see some flashes of interesting editing, especially cut to Elfman's score.
You spent thousands of dollars on first editions to get into bed with a virgin? Because of course, liking books must mean that she sublimates all of her sexuality into literature! And yet she still does shots better than I do. Apparently she's brave enough to call him up though. Would a really, really conservative and virginal girl have a free-spirited and highly sexual roommate? When I was as judgmental as I was back then, I made it a point not to hang around "people like that." And who the hell has no sweat and immaculate hair after sex?
Swooping in to pick her up when she's already with friends isn't creepy at all. Nor is changing her clothes while she's fricking unconscious!
"Did we, uh?"
What're you, 14? Say the words!
Anistasia Steele? That sounds like a porn star who works at Disneyland.
This character comes across as an abusive stalker. How is that romantic? Following her around, trying to buy her affections, having her sign contracts, it's really, really creepy. There's fantasizing about someone sweeping you off of your feet, and then there's outright controlling and abusive.
The whole aesthetic of the film is strange. It's almost shot like a romance movie, lots of soft focus, walks in the woods, longing touches, and jangling romantic piano music in the background. If the film seemed to have any sense of it, you could perceive it as satirical, but mostly it seems straightforward to the point of being a little creepy.
Look, I have nothing against any sort of sexual proclivities anybody has, but don't you think it's kind of fucked up to take an innocent Virgin up to your dark playroom of hell? I get that the guy, as written, apparently has issues. But he can't associate with anyone unless it's is a S&M context in any way? WTF? Have you though about like seeing a therapist? You can associate with this woman in any way without whips and chains? For a virgin who's curious, that's like 0-60. So losing her virginity was orgasmic and totally painless?
Seriously, this movie is rated R for explicit sexual content, and we're doing the "covering yourself with a sheet when you get out of bed" cliche? With the mysterious sheet that's shaped like the letter L?
"Good girl!"
WTF? What is she, a dog? She seems to come every time he so much as touches her.
"Does your mother know that you were her friend's submissive for years when you weren't even legal?"
No, I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of thing I'd bring up to my mother.
If Mark Kermode will pardon my theft, from and industrial point of view, a film in which the Three central creative parties-the screenwriter, the novelist, and the director-are all women making a film about female sexuality should, at least from an industrial point of view, be interesting. It's a shame that the final product is so bland and dull. To be honest, I think anything Taylor-Johnson wanted to make interesting about the film had the edges sanded off of it by either the studio or having her hands tied (pun intended) by James' interference.
"Laters, baby."
Who the hell says that?
You know, Hellraiser presents S&M with a kind of dark eroticism. This movie treats it like a freak show. To someone like me, I totally ally understand why it'd be perceived that way, but I can see why the BDSM community isn't real receptive to it.
So she tells you no, and you go to her house? That's really, really, really creepy.
You know, it's fucked up that I know this, but they sell four-point harnesses and BDSM gear professionally. Why are you using ties and hardware store shit?
How do you fuck someone into the "middle" of next week?
College graduation, or "it's all downhill from here."
"You can't go visit your mother! You're all mine!"
Oh-kay, that's not scary at all.
The sex scenes are very dull, and I'm a notorious prude. I've seen way more spicy stuff in European movies or even in stuff like Verhoeven's American movies or 70s flicks. It wasn't steamy or erotic at all (part of that has to do with my discomfort at the abusive nature of the central character), to be honest. It actually formed a fairly small part of the overall film.
To be honest, I found the whole movie dull overall. I didn't really buy into the central relationship, so the fulcrum of the whole thing just didn't work for me. The narrative meanders all over the place, the central figure is rather unsympathetic, and the sex scenes, after all of the kicking and screaming, really weren't terribly interesting. As for Steele, mostly I found her wishy-washiness annoying. Why on Earth is she interested in him? If she's as super-hot as he keeps saying she is, she can have anyone she wants. Why not have a normal relationship? Why jump headfirst from being a virgin into BDSM? I don't think that the performances themselves are bad, though Dornan is rather stiff. I found Johnson kind of like able. The problem was that the characters were so annoying and unconvincing.
It wasn't terrible. I've seen way, way worse films-any of those sexy erotic thrillers from the old VHS days show how incompetently put together the whole thing could've been, and give the budget and the Hollywood sheen, this does look very good. The production design is slick, it's well-shot, the editing is good, the film just doesn't have any heat. And given that the subject matter is kinky sex, that's kind of a problem.
I'm not sure what this wants to be-a study of sexual awakening and mores, a character price, a twists 21st century love story-but it doesn't really work as any of them. In the end, it's sort of a story a twisted, fucked-up, abusive, unsympathetic guy and his relationship with a sweet and innocent to the point of being irritating girl who he puts through hell. Why did I spend two hours with these people? To what end? What the hell was the point of this movie? What did it want to be about? What was it trying to stay? I have no idea, and frankly, I wasn't interested enough to care.
06-05-15, 08:57 PM
#455
DVD Talk Limited Edition
01-28-16, 11:39 AM
#457
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Home of 2013 NFL champion Seahawks
Posts: 52,611
Received 1,015 Likes
on
839 Posts
Re: Fifty Shades Of Grey (2015; d: Taylor-Johnson) S: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan
Just watched this for the Oscar pre-challenge, and it was downright terrible. That said, Dakota Johnson's naked body was worth the price of a Netflix rental. She's pretty, but kind of plain-looking. And silly me expected some kind of ending then realized there would be sequels. 
It was set locally (but shot in Vancouver) so there was that, but yeah, just terrible.
I find it amusing that after all the initial discussion, this thread died for seven months. I guess hanshotfirst broke it.
It was set locally (but shot in Vancouver) so there was that, but yeah, just terrible. I find it amusing that after all the initial discussion, this thread died for seven months. I guess hanshotfirst broke it.
