The second instalment of the âFifty Shadesâ franchise hits cinemas this weekend, just in time for Valentineâs Day.
But those hoping âFifty Shades Darkerâ will be the perfect film to watch with their other halves will be disappointed to learn it has been almost universally panned by critics.
But itâs not all bad news for the film and its stars Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan, as prequel âFifty Shades Of Greyâ didnât exactly have rave reviews either, but still went on to be a huge commercial success.
Hereâs a round up of what the critics are saying this time around...
The Telegraph **
âThe awkward middle course charted by new director James Foley (âGlengarry Glen Rossâ, âHouse of Cardsâ) and his cast is unsatisfying in terms of head, heart and, well, elsewhere. Itâs an alleged 18-rated, adults-only filth-fest that behaves like a flustered PG.â
New York Times
âGiven how Ms. James and Ms. Taylor-Johnson are said to have clashed over the making of the first movie, it is easy to guess who the dominant player was in âFifty Shades Darkerâ, and it probably wasnât the new director, James Foley. Heâs a professional with real credits, so I assume that heâs not finally responsible for the ineptitude of âFifty Shades Darkerâ, which ranges from continuity issues to unsurprisingly risible writing. There are also abrupt swings in tone, dead-end detours and flatline performances, including from Ms. Johnson.â
The Mirror
âIf you want to watch a movie about a billionaire playboy with a penchant for darkness, inflicting violence and dressing up in masks, youâre far better off seeing âThe Lego Batman Movieâ.â
Daily Mail *
âTheyâve gone and done it again, with a mid-February release for a sequel that far from being 50 shades darker than the original, is even more pale and at times downright limp.
âIt tries to present itself as a sweet romance, with supplementary nipple clamps. But whatâs the point of making a film about sado-masochism if nobody is prepared to whip it into shape?â
Vanity Fair
âYou wonât believe just how dumb the dialogue is in âFifty Shades Darkerâ, and, yes, thatâs even if youâve seen the first one. Still, Johnson makes it work. With anyone else in the lead, these films would be condemned and sent to Guantanamo. Instead, weâve got the greatest Valentineâs Day movie in years.
âThe sequel works because its creators didnât set out to make camp; they were simply true to the source material, with few airs about making great art.â
Guardian *
âTaylor-Johnsonâs genius was to handle such batty trash with pace and class. This time round, thereâs neither.
âThe sex comes suddenly, like someone elseâs drinks â all blow-out, no build-up. Christian is so accomplished he can bring Anastasia to the brink of orgasm fully clad in a crowded lift which isnât going far and whose muzak is Van Morrison. âDeep down inside me,â explains Anastasia in the book after this sort of thing, âsweet joy unfurls like a morning glory in the early dawn.â On film, we just get a grin and a gasp.â
The Hollywood Reporter
ââDarkerâ? James Foleyâs âFifty Shades Darkerâ, the second big-screen outing adapting E.L. Jamesâs best-selling S&M fairy tale, goes rather in the other direction, replacing most of the first installmentâs talk of master/servant dynamics and contractually delineated sex play with more lovey-dovey hoohah than most self-respecting rom-coms are willing to deliver.â
Evening Standard **
ââI thought it was going to be worse!â I heard a man say after last nightâs premiere. Talk about low standards. The second film adapted from EL Jamesâs BDSM trilogy feels like something farted out of the backside of the eighties.
âNo one ever made a feature-length version of the TV show âDynastyâ. But thatâs what this supposedly modern piece of erotica amounts to.â
Digital Spy **
ââFifty Shades Darkerâ, the sequel to âFifty Shades of Greyâ, promised us that the franchise which began as âTwilightâ fanfic would be âsexierâ, more thrilling and take us to new levels of mild arousal. But sadly the worst thing about it is that itâs kind of boring. Better, funnier and more self-aware than âFifty Shades of Greyâ, itâs not awful â this is an affectionate two-star review - but honestly, it really could have done with a bit more naughty shagging.â
Rolling Stone (half star)
âAs for the sex, itâs utterly joyless. Yes, the bodies of Johnson and Dornan are â wait for it â beautiful. But the only conviction the two stars bring to their roles comes in their mutual awkwardness and eye-rolls that suggest going down on each other is an endurance test they canât wait to be over. (Will Arnett and Rosario Dawson generate more erotic heat in âThe Lego Batman Movieâ. And theyâre made of plastic.)... This softcore swill is hardcore awful.
âNote to masochists: This team with return to film Jamesâ third book, âFifty Shades Freedâ. You have your work cut out for you. â