50 Shades of Grey

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

50 Shades of Grey

Release Date:  13 February 2015                                                                    Runtime:  125 Minutes  

Review Date:  29 March 2015                                                                         Rating:  4 (of 6)

      For being based on "erotic" subject matter, 50 Shades of Grey is rather tame.  Sure, there may be a little more nudity than other films but it doesn't come across as sexy in the least --you probably get steamier fare with a whole host of popular TV programs on cable.

     Also, movies usually have climaxes and even mini-crescendos, tension and anticipation building, drawing in the audience and getting them involved.  This film is rather even-keeled, just is, droning on, no highs or lows, towing the middle for 2 hours.

     Speaking of climaxes and lack thereof, one of the main parts of the book is Anastasia Steele's sexual awakening.  Yet on film, not once is she seen or heard having an orgasm. 

     Which brings us to how the movie fares as an adaptation.  Anastasia's orgasms and her sexual anticipations, in general, were a HUGE part of the novel so their absence here is felt and mystifying.  (Additionally, she is a very inexperienced virgin who is overwhelmed by how big she perceives Grey's penis, it mentioned several times over the course of the novel and not mentioned at all here.)  The movie also downplays Christian Grey's overwhelmingly controlling personality.  In the book, he's constantly hounding Anastasia to eat and her diet is part of the contract he presents.  It's a point of contention, going back and forth throughout.  His gifts usually demonstrate his controlling nature as well but in the movie they are also glossed over.

     In the novel, when Grey discovers her mode of transportation he, over-reacting, freaks out and insists she not drive her Volkswagen Beetle.  They argue about it.  Then he goes ahead and gets her a new car anyway, the argument continuing when he goes behind her back against her wishes.  Here, he just buys her a car as a graduation gift with little protest.  In the novel, Grey makes Anastasia so confused and unhappy that she cries and cries, prompting her to go visit her mother across the continent to get away from him.  Here, there's no upset, she just, out of nowhere, decides she's going on the trip.  And, in the novel, while there, she starts drunk texting Grey, causing him, to once again, admonish her for drinking before the reveal that he is there, too.  Here, there's no drunken back-and-forth, just an "another Cosmo?" to serve as his suave introduction of being on the premises.

     The other major problem on the adaptation level is the casting, all the way around.  Grey is pretty much supposed to be the living embodiment of Adonis--it's not just a character flaw of Anastasia, the whole female population melts over this guy's looks.  While I don't think Jamie Dornan is a bad looking guy, he falls far short of his counterpart's description.  Anastasia is supposed to be an attractive girl who doesn't realize her own beauty, uncomfortable in her own skin--imagine Rachel Leigh Cook's character in She's All That.  Sorry, Dakota Johnson, your portrayal is that of an average Plain Jane, far missing the mark.  Her roommate and best friend Kate is supposed to be quite the looker, someone you might expect to find on the arm of someone like Grey to compliment his perfection.  Here Eloise Mumford is little better than average herself.

     Overall, though, other than these sticking points, as an adaptation 50 Shades of Grey is actually quite faithful.  Taking a 500 page novel and condensing it to 2 hours is not always an easy feat but is nicely done in this case by Kelly Marcel.  The other cuts were probably a good thing, a lot of her internalized thinking that can't be shown on screen, her incessant and annoying "oh mys", her talks with her "inner goddess", her confounded repeated reference to her genitals as "my sex"--I get the character is studying English Lit and maybe she thinks using that phrase makes her sound sophisticated, but what American woman uses that?  She'd say pussy, plain and simple.  Vagina if she was uptight.  Cunt if she was a little vulgar.  Lips or clit.  But not "my sex".

     I had caught headlines that mentioned a problem with the ending of the film and I can attest there were those in my viewing audience that found it problematic, too, but I wasn't one of them.  It's abrupt to be sure, but it is a final solid conclusion.  And, pretty spot on with the book, so kudos.  I guess those making a stink didn't actually read the novel and it came as a surprise.

     For my part, I wouldn't necessarily recommend the novel.  I had no inclination to read it myself but knowing that my girlfriend would eventually drag me to this movie, I opted to be versed in the source material.  After the annoyances I mentioned 2 paragraphs back, I had no desire to continue the trilogy and that feeling crosses over to the cinematic world should they move forward with future films.  (And, who are we kidding?, the vampires will milk it for all they can...)



Taken 3

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 Taken 3

Release Date:   9 January 2015                                                           Runtime: 109 Minutes              

Review Date:  24 March 2015                                                             Rating:  4 (of 6)

     Unlike with the previous installments, I wasn't very taken with Taken 3.

     Nor does the title really live up to its name.

     Here we have the nice addition of Forest Whitaker to the cast.  However, his Franck Dotzler is a very, very mellowed out version of the Tommy Lee Jones character in The Fugitive and U.S. Marshalls.  So mellow in fact that he's almost like an absentee dad.  Unfortunately, he's not too commanding a presence when he isn't.

     While there is action to be sure, that almost seems laid back, too.  The formula in the past films was a kidnapping, plenty of action and a foreign locale all nicely edited together.  This time around, even the foreign locale is absent, everything taking place in L.A.  And at 109 minutes, this has the longest runtime in the franchise.

     To their credit, they've kept the same writers on the entire series (though that's probably because one of them is the producer).  While this is something I'd normally applaud, here it may have been more of a hindrance, their idea stale.

     The only real bonus here is the appearance of Jon Gries, limited though it was, me always happy to see him since his days on The Pretender.  (In fairness, Leland Orser was also in The Pretender guest starring in several episodes but I didn't much care for his character there, though I enjoy him in Taken.)

Interstellar

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Interstellar

Release Date:  7 November 2014                                                        Runtime:  169 Minutes              

Review Date:  3 March 2015                                                                Rating:  4 (of 6)

      Interstellar gets off to a slow start but, if you stick with it, you may enjoy the ride, even though it gets trippy near the end*.  (What something equally trippy?  This Lincoln commercial with star Matthew McConaughey could easily, and freakishly, serve as the trailer to the film: http://youtu.be/NcGhLcVqxf0. No joke.)

     It does have a notable cast.  John Lithgow, Ellen Burstyn and Matt Damon to name a few.  I actually began thinking it was The Dark Knight Rises Redux at one point with Anne "Catwoman" Hathaway and Michael "Alfred" Caine, not remembering till the end credits that both movies shared a director.

 

 

 

     *SPOILER: I'll try to make this as generic as possible in case you have a wandering eye and have yet to see the movie.  If, over a hundred years into the future, mankind has made crucial advancements as evidenced by what is shown, why wouldn't they have already been able to get word to a solo astronaut and procure their return?

     Actually, after letting it stew overnight, more should bother the viewer than just that.  How is Plan A ever viable?   Cooper makes a big deal about not forsaking those still alive on Earth.  However, Plan A was just to get off the planet on a space station which was to be populated by NASA employees, who were currently working and living there, and their families.  That's it.  How big are we to believe this underground station to be launched into space was?  Even by a stretch of the imagination, maybe it would be able to house a county's worth of people but certainly not a state's worth, a nation's worth, a continent's worth or the entire earth's population, even if you make allowances for a drastic decrease due to the blight.  So, in that light, humans were already essentially forsaken except for a select few so Cooper's indignant stance really doesn't sit right.  While it is possible I missed something, if something that important is hard to catch, then maybe you should spend more time on it.