---
title: "Fifty Shades of Grey"
year: 2015
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/fifty-shades-of-grey"
fi1m_score: 49
critics_score: 53
critics_reviews: 18
published: "2026-09-16T15:13:14.525532+00:00"
updated: "2026-09-16T15:13:14.904539+00:00"
region: "US"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

Directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson · 2h 05m · MPA R · Drama, Romance, Thriller

**Fi1m score: 49** · Critics 53 from 18 reviews

*In a sentence:* Dakota Johnson deserves someone who can flirt without consulting the paperwork

> Dakota Johnson brings wit and curiosity to a romance that keeps confusing control with allure. Sam Taylor-Johnson gives the material a careful polish, but the repetitive courtship and subdued sex make this difficult to recommend.

## Synopsis

Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) meets Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) in a romance whose other characters include Kate (Eloise Mumford). Anastasia’s curiosity about Christian brings her towards a sexual relationship, but he has conditions to discuss. A contract makes their courtship a negotiation over limits and control, requiring her to think about what she wants and what she is willing to accept. Their encounters include a meeting in a lift, while their conversations turn attraction into a question of terms. Getting closer to Christian means deciding how much say he can have over their intimacy.

## Review

*Fifty Shades of Grey* is a disappointing erotic romance with a good performance at its centre. Sam Taylor-Johnson, directing Kelly Marcel’s adaptation of the novel by E.L. James, takes Anastasia Steele’s interest in Christian Grey seriously, which is a sound place to start. The trouble is that the film struggles to make his appeal felt once the expensive surroundings have registered. We can understand curiosity about a man who wants to negotiate intimacy through a contract; spending 125 minutes with him requires rather more persuasion.

Dakota Johnson supplies much of what is missing. She makes the first meeting awkward without making Anastasia seem empty-headed, and her humour briefly gives the attraction a sense of pleasure. We laughed during the contract discussions, because Johnson makes Anastasia’s questions sound sensible beside Christian’s solemnity. It matters that she can consider what he proposes and find parts of it faintly ridiculous; we have someone on screen capable of an opinion, rather than simply waiting for instruction.

Jamie Dornan has a less rewarding task, and does less to rescue it. His Christian maintains such a firm seriousness that the role has little room for surprise, despite Johnson’s efforts to provoke a response. Keeping a character closed off can create tension, but here it too often means watching one performer supply the curiosity for both of them. The dialogue does not help: Kelly Marcel gives the pair plenty to discuss about their proposed arrangement, yet their conversations become less revealing as they accumulate.

Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography is controlled and flattering, particularly in the discreet handling of bodies, and we would not mistake that restraint for incompetence. The difficulty is that the images remain so carefully composed that the sex seldom feels spontaneous. David Wasco’s production design makes the luxury credible and gives the eye something to settle on when the conversations stall. There is nothing wrong with enjoying handsome surroundings in a romantic fantasy, though here they become a substantial part of Christian’s personality. Danny Elfman’s music encourages us to take the attraction seriously, without supplying the excitement missing between the actors.

Lisa Gunning, Anne V. Coates and Debra Neil-Fisher share the editing credit, and the larger difficulty is repetition rather than confusion within scenes. Encounters give way to disagreements, then another encounter starts the same discussion again. At first, this seems a reasonable way to show two people testing what they can accept. After a while, the questions stop developing, and the film keeps asking us to invest in a relationship it has given little fresh reason to care about.

As an erotic romance, it need not provide a model of sensible behaviour, and sexual fantasy is allowed its improbabilities. The problem is that its pleasures are so cautious while its treatment of power remains muddled. Taking Anastasia’s desires seriously ought to mean giving her uncertainty as much attention as Christian’s rules, and Taylor-Johnson only intermittently manages that. We wanted more time to understand what Anastasia enjoys about this particular man beyond the attention he pays her.

Anyone drawn to the premise may find enough in Johnson’s performance to tolerate the stops and starts. There are flashes of a more playful film in the exchanges, and we wished Taylor-Johnson had followed them further. The 18 certificate should not be mistaken for a promise of daring. For an evening that depends on erotic tension, we would look elsewhere.

*Fi1m score 49, published 16 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

The reviews are evenly divided between approval and disappointment, with a smaller group finding mixed results. Praise centres on Dakota Johnson, whose humour, strength and questioning approach to Ana give the romance more life than many critics expect from the material. Several also credit Sam Taylor-Johnson with a stylish, controlled adaptation that improves on the novel, finding escapist pleasure and a credible story of sexual self-discovery beneath the silliness.

The recurring reservation is how tame it all feels: even sympathetic reviews describe coy sex scenes, while detractors find the romance repetitive and the treatment of sex and power confused. The disagreement extends to basic craft and characterisation: Deadline praises Taylor-Johnson’s filmmaking and the sharpness of individual scenes, whereas The Independent finds little personal stamp and cartoonish leads. The spread is substantial, turning largely on whether the restraint makes the fantasy accessible or drains it of erotic interest.

### Reviews we read (18)

- **Screen Daily** (70/100, inferred): The film makes a pact with its audience to deliver escapist pleasure as a genuinely sexy yet somewhat silly and relatively timid romantic drama. It pushes the envelope on explicitness in a major studio release while remaining chaste and sanitized. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/fifty-shades-of-grey/5082944.article)
- **Sight and Sound**, Jane Giles (70/100, inferred): The adaptation is neither a boundary-pushing female Shame nor the golden turkey some hoped for, but a singular phenomenon and romantic fantasy of sexual awakening aimed at a female audience. Dakota Johnson is terrific as the reluctant, questioning Ana. [Read](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/review-fifty-shades-grey)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Sheri Linden (70/100, inferred): The film is a well-cast conversation starter that is by turns provocative and romance-novel gooey. It benefits from strong lead performances that give dimension to the characters while balancing atmosphere with action in the sex scenes. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/fifty-shades-grey-film-review-770402/)
- **Time Out**, David Ehrlich (3/5): A watered-down, hopelessly softcore adaptation that fails to match the books' titillation but works thanks to the director's finesse in navigating prudishness and framing the tepid scenes with a sensitive story of self-discovery. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/fifty-shades-of-grey)
- **Empire**, Ian Freer (50/100, inferred): The film is neither so terrible as to be laughable nor so brilliant as to be powerful, delivering a sparky first third before bogging down in repetitive romantic drama and antiseptic kink. Dakota Johnson brings strength and humour, giving the movie more colour than it deserves. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/fifty-shades-grey-review/)
- **The New York Times**, A.O. Scott (50/100, inferred): The adaptation is a wildly confused treatment of sex and power dynamics, much like the source novel. The film is competent in acting and photography but ultimately muddled and anti-romantic. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/movies/submitting-to-the-power-of-a-runaway-best-seller.html)
- **Evening Standard**, David Sexton (2/5): Taylor-Johnson has eliminated most of the book's worst writing and turned the material into well-shot pictures that improve on the source, with discreet and creative sex scenes. The dialogue remains dire and the film is middle-of-the-road, though it renders the rubbish much less ridiculous than expected. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/fifty-shades-of-grey-film-review-dakota-johnson-is-a-decent-ingenue-and-jamie-dornans-torso-is-perfection-10038625.html)
- **Radio Times**, Alan Jones (2/5): An antiseptic adaptation that reduces the pop-culture phenomenon to a straightforward soap-opera romance beneath its bondage shackles. The kinkiness is tame, the nudity softcore, and the S&M more M&S than edgily erotic. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-4kokku/fifty-shades-of-grey/)
- **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (40/100, inferred): The film is better than the book due to its competence but remains gray with good taste and muted naughtiness within R-rating limits. It is unromantic and anti-romantic, focusing more on luxury and contracts than genuine eroticism. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/pain-gain)
- **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (30/100, inferred): The film is a prim, tasteful and softcore take on sadomasochism that fails to deliver on its erotic promise, resulting in something more comedic than sensual. The critic highlights the absence of any explicit male nudity and the overly contractual, mainstream approach to the material. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/feb/11/fifty-shades-of-grey-review)
- **The Independent** (30/100, inferred): The film adaptation turns out to be anti-climactic on almost every level and fails to deliver as either a guilty treat or a romantic drama. Sam Taylor-Johnson puts no personal stamp on the material, resulting in flimsy characterisation and cartoonish leads. [Read](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/fifty-shades-of-grey-movie-review-jamie-dornan-s-christian-is-like-a-chippendale-dancer-10053692.html)
- **Deadline**, Pete Hammond (75/100, inferred): The adaptation improves on the source novel with witty and sharp scenes. Director Sam Taylor-Johnson brings style and strong filmmaking skills to the story. [Read](https://deadline.com/2015/02/fifty-shades-of-grey-movie-review-jamie-dornan-dakota-johnson-1201370942/)
- **Digital Spy**, Emma Dibdin (70/100, inferred): The adaptation is elegant and striking as a romantic drama with smart dialogue and appealing leads, but fails as erotica due to coy sex scenes and adherence to the source material's flaws; praises the chemistry and humor. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a628655/fifty-shades-of-grey-review-elegant-adaptation-of-an-inelegant-novel/)
- **HeyUGuys**, Stefan Pape (70/100, inferred): The film is nonsensical and absurd but good fun if approached with an open mind. Dakota Johnson steals the show as the relatable Ana, while the repetitive structure of sex and arguments creates tedium. [Read](https://www.heyuguys.com/fifty-shades-grey-review/)
- **The Wrap**, Inkoo Kang (70/100, inferred): The stylish film is a mostly satisfying adaptation that will leave fans content despite some missteps. It skillfully distills the book while capturing the thrill of fixation, though it is essentially porn without plot. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/fifty-shades-of-grey-review-dakota-johnson-jamie-dornan/)
- **Eye for Film**, Jane Fae (60/100, inferred): Fifty Shades is a romcom without much comedy and an old-fashioned soft porn flick. It features some very nice sensual sex scenes but is otherwise an ordinary tale that benefits from an unlimited budget for its fantasy elements. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/fifty-shades-of-grey-2015-film-review-by-jane-fae)
- **Collider**, Matt Goldberg (D+): The critic finds the film tame and inoffensive in its depiction of kink, criticizing the bland direction and weak male lead performance. Praises Dakota Johnson's performance as the saving grace. [Read](https://collider.com/fifty-shades-of-grey-review/)
- **Den of Geek**, David Crow (2/5): The critic finds the film surprisingly conventional and earnest in its romance despite the BDSM elements, praising the chemistry between leads Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan but noting it feels like limp Valentine's Day role-play. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/fifty-shades-of-grey-review-dakota-johnson-jamie-dornan/)

## Details

- **Director:** Sam Taylor-Johnson
- **Director:** Sam Taylor-Johnson
- **Screenplay:** Kelly Marcel
- **Novel:** E.L. James
- **Cinematography:** Seamus McGarvey
- **Editor:** Lisa Gunning, Anne V. Coates, Debra Neil-Fisher
- **Music:** Danny Elfman
- **Production design:** David Wasco
- **Costume design:** Mark Bridges
- **Producer:** Michael De Luca, E.L. James, Dana Brunetti
- **Cast:** Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele; Jamie Dornan as Christian Grey; Jennifer Ehle as Carla; Eloise Mumford as Kate; Victor Rasuk as José; Luke Grimes as Elliot Grey; Marcia Gay Harden as Dr. Grey; Rita Ora as Mia Grey
- **Runtime:** 2h 05m
- **Certificate (MPA):** R
- **Release (the US):** 13 February 2015
- **Genres:** Drama, Romance, Thriller
- **Budget:** $40 million
- **Box office:** $570 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FDTMRK7-24

## Where to watch in the US

- Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, hd
- Apple TV: rent $3.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy $7.99, uhd
- Apple TV: buy $7.99, hd

*Checked 2026-09-16.*

Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HU, ID, IE, IL, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, TH, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture 2015: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture (won)

## If you liked this

- *Secretary* (2002): A stranger, funnier courtship that makes negotiation and mutual desire matter.
- *Belle de jour* (1967): For sexual fantasy allowed to remain unsettling, private and difficult to explain.
- *The Duke of Burgundy* (2014), Fi1m 84: An exacting look at the work involved in sustaining an erotic arrangement. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-duke-of-burgundy.md)
- *Bound* (1996), Fi1m 80: Desire gives a tightly plotted thriller its urgency, rather than interrupting it. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/bound.md)
- *In the Mood for Love* (2000), Fi1m 91: For the charge that restraint can produce when two performers share it. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/in-the-mood-for-love.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/fifty-shades-of-grey