Fifty Shades of Extreme Disappointment

Let's give some quick context to this: a) I watched a Chinese online version, so the sex scenes were heavily edited and chopped up which may have affected my enjoyment b) I actually enjoyed the book (despite some of the mawkish dialogue e.g. "laters, baby", shudder) and really found the character of Grey compelling c) I found Ana to be a rather capricious and uninteresting mainstream figure d) I would have killed to play Christian Grey myself.

Now, why doesn't this film work?

Let's start with the source material; my theory on why the film has been roundly critically panned (and more importantly by women, it's hitherto chief audience) is that what was safe to enjoy as a fantasy and purely in the headspace of millions of housewives has now been made flesh, made real, and the reality is Grey, in person, is kind of scary and distasteful.

Does any woman truly want to give over all her personal power to a rich, stiff arsehole? In the book and film even Ana didn't.

Also, BDSM has always been a marginalized, fringe culture, a proclivity best enjoyed in private, so when you're trying to marry that with a Twilight-esque romance craving audience, it will always jar. You're trying to marry sexual violence with mainstream viewing; on page, as fantasy, maybe acceptable, realized on film, awkward and unsettling.

The film has done well at the box office, but I imagine this has more to do with the existing fan base and people's anxiety and gravitational pull towards sex.

Now, the director: Sam Taylor Johnson, apparently one of the Young British Artists (Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst et al.), famous for a serious of photographs ("Crying Men") of high-profile actors in tears (Laurence Fishburne, Robin Williams, Benicio Del Toro etc). She also produced one of the most dry and uninspired sequences in "Destricted" (2006), Death Valley where a guy has a wank and cums in the middle of the desert.

Where is the sense of playfulness or experimentation here? Did author E.L. James's reputed heavy handedness in this film kill that as well? Johnson shoots this in the most rudimentary, kitchen-sink fashion imaginable. It reeks of Twilight blandness. Why did she not play with more extreme close-ups of the principal character's lips and eyes; the book relies on these details to create the heat between the characters; Grey's subtle smiles and blazing eyes observed by Ana - there was so much leeway here for Johnson to experiment with editing and amp up the tension between them.

As it is, there is very little sexual tension on display here, and, as observed by other reviewers, seemingly no chemistry between the stars.

Performance wise, Dakota Johnson makes for a remarkable Ana, like Elijah Wood before her with Frodo, she manages to realize the reader's (Or at least this readers) impressions of Ana, while still keeping her performance alive. The lip biting is never mannered or affected which it could have been. For me at least Ana had stepped off the page and I even liked and sympathized with her more than I did in the book.

But Grey. Alas, Jamie Dornan just didn't pull off the Grey I imagined. As I prefaced, I'm jealous of the cat, but I also don't envy his position: this is not an easy assignment. Not only does he have to pull off reader's expectations of the character, he has to be impossibly handsome (Dornan is hot, but he doesn't 'embody' sexiness), cold, icy, mercurial, tortured, smooth and debonair, but above all Grey must have a kind of calculating, animal intensity that leaves you breathless. Dornan just never has that animal force you'd expect of this character, not even burning or bristling underneath the surface. He also isn't scary, just kind of doe-eyed and stiff. Dornan also seems uncomfortable with the trappings of power and control (Granted Grey is meant to be struggling with this as he falls in love with Ana, but Dornan portrays this struggle flatly), he just doesn't seemed to come from this entitled, efficient world.

This part would have been perfect for actors like Sean Penn, Ed Harris or Ralph Fiennes (And yes I realize they're all way too old:p), intense actors who have that innate 'animalistic' sense to them, who can portray characters with complex interiors and are comfortable with power, enjoying power and displaying power on screen. Dornan isn't powerful, he doesn't make you WANT to give over power to him.

However, as I continued watching, what I noticed he is very good at is humanising and attempting to make likable this potentially shady and repulsive character. Dornan grounds and attempts to make a charming romantic lead out of twisted, child-abused CEO who enjoys torturing women. As I said before, no easy assignment for an actor.

Despite the eroticism and Twilight-esque romantic leanings of the book, I always felt that Fifty Shades was primarily a character study of Grey and Ana's compatible and conflicting traits. This is what I was hoping to see on a screen, a scorching whirlwind of passion, love and conflict between two characters. This is a largely dull and tepid affair. The leads don't ignite and the entire film just falls short of any expectations.

Ultimately Gilbert Gottfried's reading of the book remains infinitely sexier;)

Jupiter Ascending? Stop Wachowskis, I want to get off...

A beautiful failure? I felt that way about Cloud Atlas but not this:p

(I will preface this by saying I had a really shitty experience at the cinema before going in to watch this and I'm certain that colored my viewing)

To be honest, and I realize this is total conjecture, but I just don't think the Wachowski's hearts were in this. They may even be still hurting from the failure of Cloud Atlas.

The production design and look of this film is fantastic, but Andy and Lana have always had a gift for making beautiful images on screen, even as far back as "Bound". The problem here is it's just a convoluted, often confusing muddle - both in terms of story and tone. It took me a while just to work out who were all the different parties involved, who they were working for and what they were after. I understand that this is a stab at a potential franchise, which goes some way to explaining why characters like Doona Bae's are introduced and then promptly ditched, and the inexplicable and jarring scenes of the "Brazil"-inspired bureaucratic nightmare - we are being introduced to worlds we will no doubt be revisiting in the sequels. To me however that's bad storytelling - only introduce what's important for THIS film, not the films that may follow.

On the note of the red tape scenes, I did get a thrill out of seeing director Terry Gilliam play a small and vivid part (and the "Brazil" reference to "27B-6":D). He protests to not being an actor but he's always an interesting and manic energy on screen.

The action scenes are uninspired and tedious. The seven minute chase sequence from 'Grey' aliens just stops the film from moving forward and quite frankly bored me. And I'm sorry but jet-powered shoes are dumb, just dumb. (I liked them in "Guardians of the Galaxy", which suited the irreverent, Buck Rogers tone of that film but here they are clumsy)

Eddie Redmayne is genuinely creepy and unsettling in his role, although the ashen voice is occasionally annoying and the Wachowski's should have pulled him up on his explosive shouting choice (Nearly everyone in the cinema groaned) Seriously though, what the fuck does everyone see in Channing Tatum? Even the bloody Coen Brothers are using this git in their next film! Am I the only one that sees the wooden, emotionless void that is this jumped-up himbo? He was 'there' in "21 Jump Street" and Danny McBride's sex toy in "This is The End" - why does anyone care? (I haven't seen the Jump Street sequel or Foxcatcher) He's a jock who got lucky; it wouldn't surprise me if Hollywood grew him from a skin scraping of Chris Klein.

Mila Kunis is the sole grace of the leads, she is a genuinely warm, solid and engaging presence (Yes, this film made me hot for her, I'll admit it) as Jupiter and a good choice for the central character. Her acting can't hold a flame, however, to Sean Bean who manages to outact everyone else who features in this film in the few scenes he's in. Seriously, I'm worried when complex, real and interesting old guard actors like Bean, Oldman etc. eventually die, who the hell will we be left with? Tatum and Chris Hemsworth? Jezuz, paint the walls with my fucking brains now:p

Sorry, I'm getting off topic now. To sum up: Jupiter Ascending falls flat.

The Monuments Men. Meh.

There's no questioning the quality production of this film and the star pull. As usual Cate Blanchett is excellent and Clooney and Damon both solid. Murray does his Murray thing, but seeing as everyone seems to be crawling up Bill Murray's arse these days I will refrain from doing so. The problem with this film is one of tone; it has to be light and whimsical for the comedy to work (It's not terribly funny at that) but still give reverence for the realities of war. As such death and senseless loss are treated with sentiment rather than with impact or consequences that push the story forwards.

It never really strikes a tone that engages. It's not a gritty, ugly action fest like The Dirty Dozen, nor a drama like Guns of Navarone - there is no drama (Let's clarify: edge of your seat drama) You never really feel a sense of danger in this film and that's where it falls short, there's very little tension and it remains flat throughout; a crime especially for a film of this running length.