Neither as good or as bad as so many commentators seem to think. It has high production values. The direction is unobtrusive. I haven't read the novels, so cannot really comment on the source material. Dakota Johnson hit the corruptible ingenue character pretty well, and looks smashing while doing so. Jamie Dornan, though... In my comments on the first movie, I compared his depth of emotion to a terminator. In this one, he at least attempts some emotional scenes. He doesn't do them very well, but he tries. Supporting cast, especially Marcia Gay Harden, were pretty good, with the exception of Kim Basinger. There is really no reason to see this, except as a continuation of the first movie. It could never stand alone.

Stars Minnesota Johnson as the submissive girlfriend and Jamie Doorknob, as the dominant, controlling boyfriend. This is soft-core porn for girls and I noticed that the screening I attended was almost entirely a female audience. Though be aware that the erotic scenes are not the kind of sex girls want to see or probably enjoy.

I didn't care about the lead actors, who had very little chemistry in between the sex scenes and even those were pretty dull, the elevator scene is a good example of what I mean.

The plot is poor, the drama is rubbish, the acting is wooden, and the dialogue is laughable rubbish. The film is unintentionally funny when supposed to be serious, and boring when supposed to be sexy. Although sexier than the original film (my wife tells me) not as graphically sexy as the book. I sat through the pain of this and at the end felt glad I wasn't Christian Grey, though being a billionaire is always very appealing.

So in summary, this is a rubbish sequel to the original garbage but will do very well because it's been released over the limited window coinciding with the Valentine's period.

Hopefully, as a heterosexual female student in her twenties with a love of film that spreads across all genres and decades, this will come over as a fair assessment of a film that genuinely did nothing for me.

Like as was said in my review for 'Fifty Shades of Grey', have not read the books, though have heard conflicting opinions that has mostly been intense dislike. The reason for watching 'Fifty Shades Darker' was not due to wanting to hate on it, being a negative person, curiosity but for the reason of being at a film night with friends (who liked the books) recently and 'Fifty Shades Darker', like with 'Fifty Shades of Grey', happened to be the film choice. Just for the record, the general consensus ranged from indifference to hating it with a passion.

'Fifty Shades Darker' is a small improvement over its predecessor but not by much. The flaws are still the same but it's not as quite as near-irredeemably bad, and it at least tries to give some raunchy edge while not exactly succeeding.

Once again, the beguiling soundtrack, that has a soothing nostalgia and appropriately amorous quality, is the best thing about it. It also looks good, nice use of scenery and very nicely shot. There is one acting bright spot, which is Marcia Gay Harden who does very well with her role.

However, the same flaws are all here. Like 'Fifty Shades of Grey', Danny Elfman's score is one-note and repetitive, as well as too derivative of his recent work. He has composed some wonderful stuff ('Edward Scissorhands' is magical) but this is really not his best work. Despite the change of director, the directing style feels too mannered and there is a real sense that the director was ill-suited to material that is beneath him, after all he's done stuff like 'House of Cards' and 'Glengarry Glenn Ross'.

The rest of the supporting cast fail to stand out, with Kim Basinger having little to do, next to nothing actually. More problematic once more are the two leads, and the chemistry is next to zero once more. Understated can be a lovely quality to acting, as long as it also becomes nuanced and with believability given to the dialogue. Dakota Johnson, especially in the first third, is too understated that it feels more like there is a lack of personality or emotion. Jamie Dornan looks uncomfortable throughout, delivers his cringe-worthy lines awkwardly and is just bland as dishwater with no charisma whatsoever. Chemistry is non-existent.

Again, the dialogue does no favours, dialogue so bad that absolutely nobody (even the best actors and actresses) can do anything with it. It causes unintentional laughter throughout, is embarrassingly clunky and is pure smut. Then there is the story that is so thin structurally, heavy in repetition, so badly plodding and without style or atmosphere that the film feels twice as long. Even with attempts to give more raunchiness and kinkiness, as well as edge, none of it comes over naturally, feeling horribly contrived. The rest of it is done far too tamely and the BDSM portrayal is still deceitful. The characters are little more than ciphers.

Overall, a small improvement but still pretty dreadful even when giving it a fair chance. 2/10 Bethany Cox