Dorian Gray (2009)

The Picture of Dorian Gray, as penned by the Irish wit Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), is a tale of high-brow debauchery and limitless pleasures of body and soul and the corruption, by one Lord Henry Wotton, of the young, handsome and soon to be narcissistic 19th century rock 'n roll hell-raiser Dorian Gray.

Ealing Studios have translated Wilde's controversial novel into a celluloid den of iniquity that somehow comes across as rather shallow. Like the characters seen here too; it seems that as a work of symbolic gesture of how the upper classes conduct their sordid lifestyle of hypocrisy, deceit and lust it lacks any deep and thoughtful intrigue that any good 19th century Gothic horror story should be.

To fully understand the ethics of a Victorian London that Oscar Wilde has so wonderfully reflected with his novel here, we see, too, with this latest interpretation using, as Wilde may have done, the picture purely as a metaphorical means. Yes, we see the selling of souls here and the lamb to the slaughter and the hedonistic teachings of Lord Wotton, but toward the end, the whole sordid affair becomes predictable.

Penned with an undercurrent of realism and too fantasy of the love of sin. It's a dark, dirty, dingy setting of a self-indulgent Victorian London that we are lead to believe is prim and proper on the surface but lurking just below this weak, temperate society lies pure greed, greed for experience, experience that will transcend the mind, body and soul to the wondrous dealings of what life has to offer. For, as always, a price, a price both Oscar Wilde and Dorian Gray would pay the highest sacrifice.

It is with a taint of sorrow that this latest performance too has paid a price too high, sensationalism over content, ironies aside, the film seems too concerned to show the sordid details of this lifestyle and its inhabitants'. It lingers on too far in the bedrooms of London and strays too far from the mental anguish that may have been. We see the trouble mind of our young (looking) man but we see not enough of his fears, regrets, sorrows and repentance, which are cast aside and squandered. Welcome to the 21st century Mr. Wilde.

By the time the chimes of time are echoing in the distance we have Dorian fading into the far reaches of the eternal abyss of the afterlife. With all the time in the world we are still wanting more to feed our palates, it's all to aesthetically pleasing, but at the same time oh so unrewarding, a taster we are given but the full flavour we are, regrettably, spared.

This too may have its target audience and in so having picked its target out it may have trouble standing the test of time, due to its lack of wit, lack of diversity and a lack of daring and commitment of its original source. It is a sad loss that such a literary work of historical meaning and wealth should have been robbed of its qualities.

Fmovies: When a young aristocrat arrives in London and begins to indulge in a life of hedonism and excess, he finds he doesn't age physically despite trying to harbor a deadly secret that will shatter his image forever.

This was a dull, utterly horror-less Horror/Drama that, once again, falls victim to that one singular, nearly inescapable aspect of recent British horror films, a dreary pace that drags stuff out far longer than it should by showcasing scenes that have no horror in them yet are supposed to be presented as such. Watching a person drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in orgies with highly unattractive women while everyone around him wonders why he still looks the same isn't horrific, yet that seems to be the entire crux of what passes as horror in the film. That the mystical painting isn't shown at all until the end might have something to do with that, and the total lack of explanation for such an event is also glossed over, and it's not until the final ten minutes that something starts happening, and while it's good stuff with the reincarnated spirit and the grand old-school Gothic burning-down-the-house scenario, it's too little too late.

Rated R: Violence, Nudity, sex scenes and drug use.

Haven't read the book in years and was very much looking forward to watching this but from the opening shot I knew I was in for a big disappointment. It looked and felt like an episode of a period TV series, even making the first shot a quick flashback to last weeks episode. It felt like a cheap dated effect.

Drab lifeless lighting throughout the film managed to make some beautiful sets and costumes look flat and uninteresting. Surely the warmth of candlelight would give someone in the lighting department a bit of inspiration, a chance to increase the sensual feelings necessary for a lot of the laughable debauchery scenes? Pedestrian, bland, painted by numbers, adequate acting but it all lacked a decent script, an editor who gave a damn and grr maybe a bit of soul? Occasionally it lifted itself up out of the mire (probably scenes from the beginning of the project) only to come crashing down again as everybody got bored and even more disheartened.

I was astonished to find how quickly I got bored watching this which is such a shame as it could have been something so much better.

Dorian Gray fmovies. As is, The Picture of Dorian Gray is pretty much unfilmable. The 1945 version was close to doing it justice, but changes must be made whenever an adaptation is attempted. Still, when I see a new version coming out, I hope that it would bring more to the table than this sorry affair.

Oliver Parker is apparently thinking less of Oscar Wilde and more of himself with every adaptation. The very same director who did a fantastic job with very loyal and conservative adaptations of An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Earnest, strayed this time so much from the source material that it's barely recognizable - and I mean less the plot, and more the atmosphere, the message, the smart dialog and the fascinating characters who made the original novel so compelling. Parker chose instead to focus on the horror and erotic elements of the story, making it a pretty standard Dark-Side-of-London Victorian era horror film, perhaps in a feeble attempt to cash in on the success of From Hell and Sweeney Todd - and at its worst moments, it feels almost like a Twilight follower. Though the production values are clearly pretty high - cinematography, costumes and sets are all pretty good - they're also uninspired and completely lacking in originality.

Even worse are the cardboard characters and the shallow horror-movie dialog that replace the witty and dark banter Wilde was famous for. Ben Barnes is a very weak Dorian, showing no emotion or development over the course of the movie, but it's not solely his fault; Colin Firty gives his whole to a very complex and interesting character, but it's not enough to make the dialog ring with any kind of depth.

Thanks to a solid production and a couple of good actors, Dorian Gray is watchable, but just barely; and when it's supposed to be darkest, it's the most ridiculous. A pointless adaptation of a classic piece of literature.

There's not a single thing inherently wrong about adapting old stories in new and surprising ways. Unfortunately the writers removed all of the original class and gender subtext in the original story and then added naked ladies. Really that's all there is to this adaptation. Some unusually bland acting goes with the bland writing. I have a feeling the actors knew the movie wasn't going well, took the paycheck, and just went a long for the ride.

I have to express some discontent that some others say this adaptation does justice to Wilde's story. I just don't see that at all sorry. This is "lowest common denominator" kinds of movie making. The good news is that this is the sort of movie that disappears in a heartbeat after a quick release to DVD.

When I first heard about the Picture of Dorian Gray becoming a movie I was excited and overjoyed. I thought with this new technology the 21st century has, The Picture of Dorian Gray will receive the justice it deserves. However, I was very wrong. I just finished watching the movie and I felt compelled to write a review about it.The movie was horrible. A grand disappointment which had such potential to be great. Firstly, the movie should have claimed to be inspired by the novel not based on it. I say this because the movie was very different from the novel. All of Oscar Wilde's wit and beauty which truly made the novel classic was ruined and overshadowed by the changes the movie made. I understand that there can be biased when reading a novel before seeing the movie adaption, but this movie adaption was appalling. I wont give anything away but the movie seriously ruined Oscar Wilde's vision and above all his memorable characters. Once the movie changed aspects in the novel the whole thing became horrible. Trust me, you'll agree if you've read the novel first.

Ben Barnes is simply gorgeous but he hardly brought any character development. I never felt pity for him throughout the movie compared to the novel. The novel brought the characters to life and described the reality of London life. The movie made the classic novel very shallow. I must add that as much as I love Colin Firth he was not convincing as Lord Henry. The character was someone who was vindictive and unchanging. He drained Dorian and was never affected by the consequences of his own evil; Colin Firth failed at reincarnating the abhorred character. Whats worse is that the whole ending is changed, which ruins the whole message of the novel. In the end, Oscar Wilde's masterpiece remains legendary in its pages as opposed to its film adaption. Seriously, I think my rate of 4 is being to generous.