Fifty Shades Darker - a Romance Reader/Writer's review

As a romance reader and writer, it’s probably no surprise that I’m out and proud about having enjoyed reading the Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy. I also enjoyed watching the original movie…

Yes, it won a load of razzie awards, but I have a sneaking suspicion these may have been voted for by people who wouldn’t appreciate a romance novel if it knocked them over the head… That’s not to say there weren’t problems with that first movie - not least because it's remarkably hard to translate any pure romance novel to the screen, the story of a romance is mostly an internal one and well, movies can't exist inside someone's head (unless you're John Malkovich).. But I think Sam Taylor-Johnson did a terrific job of conveying the fantasy elements of the story and giving the film a distinctive look - in short she respected her material…

Remember folks, this is romantic fantasy. It’s not supposed to be taken seriously, it’s pure escapism. Whether you find it hot or not is a matter of personal taste of course… But one huge factor Taylor Johnson had in her favour, IMHO was the casting. Particularly of Dakota Johnson who brings a refreshing likability to what is at times a fairly daft role (if we’re going to take it seriously, which we’re not) as the virgin student with enough emotional maturity to fix a young and thoroughly broken billionaire with an S&M fetish.  Jamie Dornan too, for me, encapsulated a lot of what Christian Grey is about - gorgeous, brooding, traumatised and emotionally stunted.

So.. I’m not going to lie to you, when I heard Taylor-Johnson had been replaced by James Foley (whose big work was back in the 90s) and Saving Mr Banks scriptwriter Kelly Marcel replaced with EL James’ husband I was somewhat concerned about Fifty Shades Darker... The second in the trilogy of films.


So were my fears justified?

Well, yes in some ways. The film seems to want to have the story both ways, to concentrate on the developing romance between Christian and Ana - which despite that title is now less kinky and more playful as Christian begins to confront some of his many ‘issues’ - while also adding a daft thriller element, involving Ana’s new boss Jack Hyde and one of Christian's former subs. To be fair, James’s second book had the thriller element too, but in the film we get no build up and no pay off for either of the two thriller sub plots - like a Greek tragedy much of the action is conducted off screen, leaving the audience to feel cheated or simply confused. Spoiler alert: the film finishes with a dark, shadowy shot of Hyde setting him up as the villain for round 3 which left me and I’m sure most of the rest of the audience thinking WTH? Where did he come from? Why is he ominously smoking a cigarette in a park overlooking Seattle? I'm sure a few people might even have been wondering who he was!

Foley also has none of the wonderfully lush OTT imagery that made Taylor-Johnson’s first film such a guilty pleasure. This is at turns a very prosaic and yet rather coy handling of the material. And as usual with 18 films, we get to see lots of her and not a lot of him… Which is kind of a shame as eye candy choices go, because let’s face it, the main target audience for this film is heterosexual women...

Then again, the main strength of the first film is still there. Namely Dakota Johnson’s refreshing Ana (there’s a cute tribute to Dakota’s mum Melanie Griffith, see if you can spot it) and Jamie Dornan looks much more relaxed too, so his Christian is a less stiff (no pun intended).. Sadly though, this is the film where we want to see Christian and Ana actually start to fall in love. Ana challenges Christian to give her more, she wants to understand why he is so screwed up, but the film fails us. Both Marcia Gay Hardin as Christian’s adopted mother, and Kim Basinger as his former lover are totally wasted, their parts so cut down that they are reduced to cardboard cut outs - when in the books they help to explain a lot about Christian’s problems. And while Johnson and Dornan work overtime to inject the proceedings with humour - because surprise, surprise, folks there is actually quite a lot of humour in the books - very little of that is actually in the script.

All of that said, I still enjoyed this movie… But I think it was greatly helped by the two stars, my enjoyment of the OTT nature of the original books and also the fabulous venue where I went to see it and the company I saw it with… If you’re going to go for a guilty pleasure like Fifty Shades Darker, I’d highly recommend going with a fellow romance novelist (aka Abby Green) and seeing it at one of the Everyman cinemas, because not only can you share a sofa - putting you into your own little world - but they serve wine in bottles… And we needed it.

Henry Cavill and The Man of Steel Experience!

So, yesterday at work I got a fabulous surprise when my boss handed me two preview tickets for the much anticipated new Superman movie Man of Steel (so all my ponitifcating about how much I wanted to see it actually worked!!)

So I dashed down to Leicester Square after work, met up with Son1 and lovely reviewer friend who also had tickets and embarked on what turned out to be quite an experience...

In 3D, full Dolby Surroundsound and only two rows from the front (we got there a little late!!) at the Odeon's mammoth screen, it was an epic movie on an epic scale...

Henry Cavill was completely gorgeous (as expected) and gave a surprisingly subtle and nuanced lead performance, Michael Shannon also excelled as his nemesis General Zod. But all in all the film was WAYYYY too long, there was no chemistry between Amy Adams as Lois Lane and the gorgeous Henry and while the action was A-MazeBalls, it eventually became too A-Mazeballs (some guy behind us projectile vomited over the woman next to Son1! See what I mean about an experience!)...

The story of the alien child brought up by humans was told with a completely straight face - so straight in fact it could have been Mount Rushmore. There were few jokes, little banter and no irony whatsoever, which worked so well in Iron Man (and the earlier Christopher Reeve super-movies)... And after being preached at for over an hour by Superman's two Dads (Russell Crowe as the super one and Kevin Costner as the Kansas farmer!) about young Clark's place in the human world and the fall of Krypton and etc, etc, etc, I was crying out for a bit of levity. Even a smidgen...

There were also numerous plot holes - but I'll admit I was so bombarded by all the sensory stimulation I didn't actually pick them up until the tube ride home, so maybe they don't matter...

SPOILER ALERT FOR THIS PARAGRAPH: I also felt it was a mega-mistake to have Lois discover Superman's human identity in this movie... It would have been hard to work the plot out otherwise, so I can see why they did it. But there's a clear set-up for Clark to join the Daily Planet in the next film, but if Lois already knows about Clark's super-alter-ego, they lose all that delicious sexual tension. And talking of the Daily Planet, what the heck has happened to Larry Fishburne?? Almost didn't recognise him. And what's he doing in such a throwaway role as the Planet's editor, for such a great actor! But I digress...

I left feeling like it was a film from a bygone era with 21st-century trimmings. Superman perhaps with his invincibility and total, almost oppressive, moral perfection is not an easy figure for modern, more cynical audiences to identify with.... Basically, it's like trying to relate to a god!

Would happily go see it again just for the HC fix, (Henry does look mighty good in that suit sans underpants) but not sure that's what the filmmakers intended.



My takeaway: Henry should soooo do the Fifty Shades of Grey movie. Apart from the fact that he's clearly got the acting chops (and Christian Grey's boyish smile, extraordinary face and buff body), he does not want to get typecast as this exceptionally-straight-to-the-point-of-monolithic Mr Nice Guy! A bit of bad boy would do wonders for his resume. Would you agree?