CharlieGreenCG

It has sold over 100 million books in over 52 languages worldwide. It has become the UK's fastest ever selling book. It is the most talked about literature subject of many years. Heard of it? Yes! It is Fifty Shades of Grey!

Given this success, it was almost guaranteed to be adapted into a film at some point. So Hollywood obliged and churned out a film quickly for fans. Presented with a world-premiere at this years Berlinale film festival, we have just seen. So ... what is the film like?

For those unaware of the book's narrative, it follows the story of Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson), a college graduate who takes her friend's place at an interview with a young, billionaire tycoon - Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). But, what Anastasia soon finds, is that Grey is not all he seems, as she is invited to join him in sexual encounters.

Brought back to the basics, it is essentially a story of a prince meeting a princess - just that the prince has several strange passions. 'I don't do romance, my tastes are singular' he says ... which is an merely an innuendo for over-the-top sexual endeavours, which include - but not limited to; bondage, whipping, ropes, dominance and submission.

Obviously this is the talking point of the adaptation given its nature. So, how has this been translated from the book to the screen? Mainly it is slow-motion effects, close-ups and aerial shots with heavy breathing. Not to say that this is restricted from the novel's original ideas, as there are many nude shots in its twenty- odd minute sexual scenes (in the total running time of two-hours).

The two leads of the film, Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey are also noteworthy of some mention. When first announced, names such as; Clooney, Gosling and Pattinson came to mind for the role of Grey, with Johansson and Lawrence up for the role of Ana'. Ultimately the roles went to Dakota and Jamie Dornan ...

Visually they both look the part. Dornan as Grey; the Bruce Wayne- like billionaire, who lives within the finest luxuries (yet a dark twist). And Anastasia, as the awkward college grad who seems out of her league. It starts shallow with some awkwardness, conferences and business formalities. But soon transforms into bulk sex scenes with some small intercepts between.

Helicopter rides, skyline view hotels, and kinky sex-rooms (playrooms) are all the range, as the film pushes erotic boundaries like no other. Where most dramatic romances have about one bedroom sex scene, this, by comparison has at least eight. Likewise in the comparison, Fifty Shades' is more explicit than them too.

Visually, director Sam Taylor-Johnson has shot it with style. In terms of sound it also compensates from Danny Elfman's backing, plus tunes from Beyonce, Ellie Golding and many others providing lyrical pleasure.

Raising questions such as why is the sex-weirdness so important, and what are the Fifty different Shades of Grey? Much is left on edge and - as fans of the novel will know, it ends of a cliff-hanger. Which, conveniently gets you to read the following two books (which have just been announced as upcoming films too).

The big question, should you see it? Yes, other than divulging fans of the book, it does actually contains some potential of intriguing story too - other than the erotica, come pornography headlines.

Read more at: http://www.gonewiththemovies.com/reviews/fifty-shades- of-grey-review.php

James Dean, although the lead-star of only three films, concreted himself as one of the cinema's golden age legends quite quickly in the 1950's - mainly through his unconventional approach to Hollywood's rules - this is, all before his premature death quite soon later.

Portrayed by Dane Dehaan, LIFE is a satirical chronicle of Dean's rise of an unknown to his Hollywood acting debut of success and fame. Yet, the film is not directly told as a documentary of his life - but via the lens of Robert Pattinson's character, Dennis Stock, a rookie photographer for a photo-agency with aspirations of becoming known.

Set in the 1950's, director Anton Corbijn's take on Dean's life is admirably applaudable as it takes us on an inside look of Dean's short lived fame and anti-fame. The sets, the cinematography, the music and the atmosphere all cipher the 50's pose, as smoking and larger-than-life LA are the standard.

First meeting at a party in 1955, Dennis (the photographer) approaches Dean; a young, sophisticated individual wearing a melo- polo, slicked hair with thick framed glasses and asks who he is. For Dehaan, the performance, both visually and in terms of acting is undeniably suited as he resonates Dean's moody and unique approach, showing him as a person, not merely an icon.

Forming sturdy relationships with Jack Warner (Ben Kingsley), of Warner Brothers Pictures, Dean's talent is soon spotted, and through several frustrations of the individual's motives, he told to 'play the part, follow the rules' and he would be made a star.

For Robert Pattinson, his take on iconic photographer Dennis Stock is equally as impressive as he enters the world of Hollywood from the other side of the carpet (and at bottom). Spotting Dean's talent early, Stock, in the two-hour running time attempts to get photographs of Dean before fame kicks in. Deadlines, pressure and awkwardness soon mount-up, and Pattinson expertly presents it onto screen.

Shot-by-shot, we capture each of Stock's photos of James Dean - but, rather than just a photo and what point it was taken - we are inclusively taken into a perspective of why it was taken, the setting and how they were so important - and now, in retrospective of our present - why so iconic.

http://gonewiththemovies.com/reviews/life-review.php

Creating films since the early 1970's, Terrance Malick has earnt his right as an auteur film-maker. Yet, it does pose the question - are his films actually any good, or do they just get carried along? Often they feel about forty-five minutes too long, seem to have no understanding of what they are actually about, yet always do very well. His latest film, Knight of Cups, seems to follow that trend.

That said, Knight of Cups is not so much a conventional type of film, but more of an experience. This particular experience follows Christian Bale's character (Rick), through the wanders of L.A, as he tries to make sense of what is occurring around him. It's philosophical, it's dazing and completely bizarre. Put into simple context, it is essentially Christian Bale wandering around and doing celebrity-type stuff, all whilst narrated with allegories, riddles and meaningful - yet forgetful, quotes. Trying to make sense of it as an audience is already complicated, let alone Bale's character trying to do it too.

Filmed like a travel advert, Malick's film-making style remains good - even if the substance doesn't.. Vistas, slow motion, calming piano tracks and narration all squeeze into the mixture as the non-linear narrative imposes its poetic words onto the screen visually (or attempts to).

No shortage of stars, Knight of Cups entices us in with the big names such as Bale, Blanchett, Portman and Poots - plus another ten- or-so cameos inbetween - but that aside, much of the film is random, misplaced nonsense that the main character is trying just as hard to understand. At several points you get to a point that you think you understand it, but soon realise you don't.

Asked at the Berlinale Press Conference of the film - Bale was asked what the film was actually about, to which he replies; 'The very nice and very interesting thing in Terence's approach was that he didn't tell us what it was about... We talked an awful lot about different things, but he really just gave me a character description and a background of who he was - then he would torpedo us in'...

Granted it looks very nice - even if at points it feels like a Lady GaGa video - yet, what Malick does confidentially with Knight of Cups is leave a lot open to interpretation and / or confusion.

http://gonewiththemovies.com/reviews/knight-of-cups-review.php