Dorian Gray (2009) User Reviews (184)

watch this for Ben Barnes and Colin firth

[archwordsmith · 7/10 · 25 March 2011]

I have never read the real novel on which this movie is based but am well acquainted with the legacy of Dorian gray. so when i sat down to watch this movie i wasn't having any pre screening expectations like i had for da vinci code, harry potters and countless other films based on novels and stories i have read. so i sat and watched, and i sure loved this one. its a well made movie with some stellar performance by 'prince Caspian'. mark my words folks, given the right opportunity he can be the next breakout star of Hollywood, he can be cause in this movie he has shown such a myriad of emotions as his character gets transformed from a simple handsome youngster to a devilish man.

and the 2nd reason i loved this movie is cause it has Colin firth in it..need i say more?

Wilde about the boy

[Lejink · 7/10 · 31 May 2012]

The darkly amoral Oscar Wilde novel "The Picture of Dorian Gray" is one of my favourites and naturally lends itself to both theatrical and cinematic dramatisations with its gripping story-line and sharply-drawn characters. This latest adaptation takes some liberties with the story-line in giving a possible reason for Dorian Gray's headlong dive into hedonism in the form of a bullying father who locked and beat his young self in the attic where he's forced to hide the offending portrait, introduces Henry Wotton's daughter as a love interest and moves the action on in time to the First World War, although the source is so strong, I don't think it needs embellishment.

The Gothic element in the story is frankly maxed out as Doran descends the slippery slope to corruption, in short order corrupting a young actress who falls in love with him, deflowering a young virgin at her coming-out ball (and her mother too!) indulge in a homosexual act with his artist friend, before bottoming out with outright murder. These scenes are lurid in their depiction and justifiable I suppose in demonstrating the levels of depravity Doran Gray has sunk to. Less convincing for me in particular were the back- story of his troubled childhood as it weakened the influence on his character of the Machiavellian all-talk-no-action Henry Wooton character plus I think the action should have been contained within the Late Victorian London era, even allowing for Dorian's ageing.

All the British cast acquit themselves admirable, Ben Barnes very good as the eternally young devil-may-care Dorian, Ben Chaplin, fine as the doomed artist Basil and especially Colin Firth as Wooton, who initially inspires and encourages Dorian's increasingly heartless actions but who realises in the end the monster behind the facade that he as helped foster.

The key climactic scene where Dorian confronts his own self-image is excitingly done and indeed the film plays like a thriller in terms of pace.

In general though I think the director placed too many logs on the fire and sacrificed narrative flow and character motive in so doing, but at least the film was exciting and always trying to move forward, the London exteriors of the 1890 in particular

Enjoy it for what it is: A picture show and nothing more.

[Cinema_Fan · 5/10 · 15 September 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.

Thoroughly enjoyable

[kester_gillard · 7/10 · 15 September 2009]

I've been puzzled by the negative reviews i've seen for this as i really enjoyed it. It looks superb, with some excellent atmospheric Victorian locations. Ben Barnes is perfect as Dorian, good looking but not bland & still sympathetic throughout the film. The character of Emily which has been invented for the film works very well, and Colin Firth is magnificent in his pivotal role. Dorians gradual deprivation is well shown without heading off into exploitation and he is given real depth. His tragedy is very obvious.I must admit to not having read the original book as yet, but I do intend to now. I really enjoyed it but for its full benefit I recommend seeing it at the cinema.

What a waste of pretty costumes

[ModroMore · 6/10 · 2 August 2014]

Well, it seems they have taken some liberties with adapting the story from the original novel, which sadly for Hollywood films, almost always leaves the movie just a bit worse than than the book. My first thought about the movie after the ending was : "well they had some gorgeous outfits".

Though Dorian depicted here wasn't what I expected (I expected a life- size porcelain doll), Ben Barnes was nevertheless charming and did keep my attention during the film.

The portrayal of Lord Henry was exactly what I expected and fun to watch, but not as nearly as interesting as reading his words from the book.

The actress playing Sibyl Vane was beautiful, but her storyline was completely ruined, she wasn't given any personality and they cut out one of the best parts from the book: the real reason why Dorian breaks off the engagement(which is not her nagging about him going to the club, but her obsession with his love) which signifies the start of him becoming shallow and eventually evil.

What lacked in this film was more of Wilde's philosophy, charm and Lord Henry's paradoxical opinions. I guess they had to cut all of that out in order to make room for a couple of sex scenes and a pointless subplot about Henrys daughter Emily, which of course did nothing good for the film. I know that literature back in the 19th century was subversive, but good Lord, they really read between the lines. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember Dorian sleeping with half of London in the book. They also dedicated a few seconds to advertise autocompany Fiat which ddidnt exist at the time.

One more thing, the musical score made the film sound like a horror movie.

The photography, the visuals and production design were amazing, but it is a missed opportunity.

still waiting for a good adaptation

[smoke0 · 23 June 2020]

I liked the 1945 film very much, but have always looked forward to a newer film that could dare to delve into the excesses that Wilde could only hint at in his novel, and even the 1945 film had to change a minor few details to make it acceptable for that time.

Now, this version - while it does show more, it has far less. There is none of the wit and wisdom of the characters in the novel or the delicate beauty of Dorian, and the ending is completely changed for no good reason.

I still have to wait for the definitive film version that can (literally) flesh out the characters while still keeping the novel intact. Too much to ask?

Haunting Oscar Wilde tale of a young man whose painting ages while he retains youth

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 25 January 2011]

Another adaptation of Wilde's renowned novel about a young man named Dorian Gray (Ben Barnes in the title role) whose portrait ages while he remains eternally youthful . It starts with Dorian who arrives in London to move into the mansion he has inherited . Almost immediately he falls under the influence of rake Lord Henry Wotton (Colin Firth), leading to a life of increasing vices, excesses and even violence . Through many years Gray stays as youthful visage , while a painting made by Basil (Ben Chaplin) grows old , reflecting his increasing perversion . Eventually the portrait, now secreted in his house, shows worms and a horrible vision . When his true love (Rebecca Hall), the Henry Wotton's daughter, ultimately enters his life he realises he must hide his secret at all costs, even killing . Dorian retains his young-looking as ever while his picture shows the corruption physical ravages of aging guarded in the attic and becomes almost hideous to behold.

Modern-day take on of the known story by Oscar Wilde about an ageless, fresh-faced young man whose portrait reflects a life of debauchery and the ravages of time . This features Ben Barnes giving a nicely restrained acting at the beginning and excessive on the final. Good performance from Colin Firth as calculating and amoral Lord and gorgeous Rachel Hurd-Wood as unfortunate actress . Rebecca Hall is particularly appealing in the lead as Emily Wotton . Large support cast is frankly well as Maryam DÁbo , Emilia Fox, Fiona Shaw, Caroline Goodall among others . This rendition not nearly as good as the original classic and contains sex inserts throughout the movie . Although talky and sometimes slow moving , this movie nevertheless keeps you glued to the screen for its nearly two hours running time creating a foreboding sense of terror accompanied by a frightening musical score. Excellent and dark cinematography generating a chilling atmosphere made by the magnificent cameraman Roger Pratt . The motion picture is professionally directed by Oliver Parker , though with no originality .

Other versions about this famous story are the following : The vintage version directed by Albert Lewin and starred by Hurd Hartfield , Angela Lansbury and George Sanders ; European version (74) by Massimo Dallamano with Helmut Berger , Maria Rohm ; and TV version by Glenn Jordan with Shane Briant and Nigel Davenport .

This disaster could have been avoided if the director had a Sassy Gay Friend, or at least a copy of the damn book

[uberfurbs · 2/10 · 1 April 2012]

Problems with this movie:

1. Ben Barnes as Dorian. I guess he's kind of good-looking in a gawky sort of way, but he's not blindingly gorgeous and charming enough to seduce every man, woman, a child in the British Isles. In fact, he's kind of awkward.

2. The whole plot line with Sybil is just....FUBAR. I don't even know what to say about it, other than to wonder whether the director actually read the book or not.

3. The boobs-to-intelligent-discussion ratio is alarmingly high.

4. Remember in the book how Basil had a lot of great lines? Well, that's all been replaced by bitchy glares and an awkward blow job.

5. When Dorian smells the bloody scarf after he kills Basil. I don't know, I guess it's a petty thing to complain about, but it just made me laugh hysterically at an inappropriate time.

6. The ending. Where did that even come from, seriously. I really want to know whose idea it was to completely change the whole second half of the plot, because really, if you think you can write Dorian Gray better than Oscar Wilde did, you should be lobotomized.

Good things about this movie:

1. Lord Henry. Spot on.

2. They have some really nice costumes.

3. Um...no, that's about it.

picture perfect

[Cs_The_Moment · 8/10 · 12 September 2009]

i have to admit, i had my doubts about this movie at first. After reading the odd couple of reviews, i wasn't entirely sure if this film was for me. i am not a fan of horror and, like quite a few people i suspect, was put off slightly by the "horror" classification that most reviews seemed to mention. However, as it turns out, it is not like your conventional thriller.

i have never read the book, and so i cannot compare it to the film, but the story was extremely enjoyable. A young man who trades his soul to the devil in exchange for eternal youth and beauty, after seeing an incredibly lifelike portrait of himself, does not seem entirely unrealistic given todays cult of appearance-obsessed celebrity youth, and in fact most of the film stuck to the realms of reality. Set against a beautiful Victorian style backdrop of London, the film managed to mirror life through a visually delightful time period that managed to modernise itself in its content, and maintained a nice contrast between light and dark throughout.

I was also throughly impressed with the casting. Ben Barnes was the perfect choice for Dorian Gray himself, managing the conversion between the innocent young man, to the seductive charmer, to the fear-possessed psychopath effortlessly. Add that to the fact that he is breathtakingly perfect, and even as an audience you begin to be drawn into his youth and extreme beauty. Colin Firth was unlike anything i've ever seen him in before, much in contrast with his cheery "mamma mia" role, as he played Dorian's enticer, lord henry. Harsh and often sexist, he very much had a "frankensteins creator" character, desperately striving to corrupt Dorian's innocent nature. Ben Chaplain was also good as the creator of Dorian's special portrait, Basil. And then of course there were Dorian's two main love interests, Rachel Hurd-Wood and Rebecca Hall, both of their characters bringing contrasting characters to Dorian's affections.

As for the content of the film, it had what i believe most good films should contain - a shock. And it certainly shocked. It opens with a scene which you are certainly not expecting, but succeeds in capturing your interest for sure. It then falls into a kind of lull as we meet the innocent and gorgeous Ben Barnes, but then hypes up again as we are introduced to rude and obnoxious Colin firth. The film continues in this fashion for the majority of the time, with a few unexpected shocks along the way as Dorian begins his soul destructing spiral. There is obvious sexual content but it is certainly not excessive, and plenty of mild drug and alcohol abuse too, although again the film does not go overboard with these. Also, there is a reasonable amount of gore, although not enough to spoil your enjoyment of the film, and these moments are also fairly obvious and so the squeamish (including myself) can simply close their eyes during these short scenes. The only other thing to mention is the horror which occurs at the end of the film when Dorian's painting reveals his mutilated soul. I personally didn't watch this bit and would certainly recommend to those who don't enjoy being scared to not watch it either, as it is apparently rather intense, but again, it is also fairly obvious of when it will occur.

Dorian Gray is a fabulous, fast paced drama-thriller that provokes thought into our own "celebrity" lifestyle and the pressures we put on appearance, as well as a visual description of the price of eternal beauty on the soul. I would definitely recommend this film - it is truly picture perfect.

Really gripping story

[Pictoris7 · 7/10 · 1 March 2010]

Based on a book by Oscar Wilde i thought this will be interesting film and i was not disappointed. I never read the book so i don't know how close the book is to the film but i must say the writer has done a great job updating this, with a story that really grip you.

The directer has done great job making it very dark but not too dark you can't see thing. Making feel like you are in back street of London in 1800's. The casting was top notch with newcomer Ben Barnes and an really outstanding performance by Colin Firth. Was really surprised to see Ben Chaplin from the comedy show "Game On". He is not bad drama actor too.

You can really connect with characters in this film which it make it really interesting film to watch and an story that alway make you think. Must see.

What a disappointment!

[fivebyfive_6 · 4/10 · 6 January 2010]

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.

Enjoyable Version of Oscar Wilde's Novel

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 30 April 2011]

After the death of his grandfather, the naive and pure Dorian Gray (Ben Barnes) returns to the Victorian London, where he befriends the talented painter Basil Hallward (Ben Chaplin) and the corrupt Lord Henry Wotton (Colin Firth). Basil paints Dorian's portrait and gives the beautiful painting to him while Henry corrupts his mind and soul telling that Dorian should seek pleasure in life. Dorian makes a deal with the devil, trading his soul to keep his beauty and youth, while his picture ages and displays the effects of his corrupt life. He leaves his fiancée Sibyl Vane (Rachel Hurd-Wood) that is pregnant and commits suicide and lives a self-destructive life of orgies and drugs. Dorian Gray travels abroad for many years and when he returns to London, his friends are aged while he is still the same. When Dorian meets Henry's daughter Emily Wotton (Rebecca Hall), they fall in love with each other and Dorian wants to revert his life. However it is too late for salvation and his soul that is trapped in the painting is doomed.

"Dorian Gray" is an enjoyable version of Oscar Wilde's novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. When I was a teenager, this novel was one of my favorites; I do not recall details of the book, but I liked this adaptation a lot that has a wonderful cinematography, great acting and a good screenplay. The relationship of Dorian and Sybil should be longer and better developed, but to adapt a novel to the screen, it is necessary to have the capability of being concise and the screenplay writer never disappoints. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Retrato de Dorian Gray" ("The Picture of Dorian Gray")

"No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly." - Oscar Wilde

[zaenkney · 6/10 · 12 February 2011]

'Dorian Gray', directed by Oliver Parker, is definitely a more graphic adaptation of the spirit of the book written by Oscar Wilde. Throughout, I wondered how Wilde would react to the film, were he still with us. On one hand, I believe he would have appreciated the touch of horror; I certainly felt it in his writing. He was quoted from another of his books (Lady Windermere's Fan) "In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it." In this movie, the latter was certainly true for poor Dorian.

On the other hand, the book 'Picture of Dorian Gray' seemed fairly minimalist in affect (as was Barnes' interpretation of the character) so, would Mr. Wilde be a smidge put off by all the melodrama and overt sexual content? Who knows? He used a lot of symbolism and subtle innuendo in his writing, but the politics of the time could account for some of what he didn't literally spell out, I suppose. After all, he was imprisoned for his lifestyle and beliefs, for a time.

Wilde lived a deep and complicated life. His personality and character were revealed through his writing and oh, what I would have given to be on his list of friends. "A good friend will stab you in the front." -- Oscar Wilde

Alas, the book, in this case, pleased my pitiful imagination more than the movie. While the acting was superb, I had a difficult time reconciling myself with what I felt was an over-reach on the tenor of this great story. You know, the old 'less is more' adage.

My disclaimer to the literary elite: I am simply an appreciator of art, not a professional, so take my opinion with a grain of whatever you prefer.

"I don't say we all ought to misbehave, but we all ought to look as if we could." -- Oscar Wilde

Did the screenwriters even read the original story by Wilde?

[nyc10012 · 2/10 · 17 February 2010]

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.

Good movie

[elisabethkm · 7/10 · 27 January 2011]

I am not an expert at writing reviews, but I so strongly disagreed with the review originally posted for this movie that I had to express a counter point of view. To me, the best thing about this movie was the acting. Ben Barnes is completely riveting and I'm not some teenage girl that things he's just so cute. He had such a strong on screen presence, I almost confused him with Ben Whipshaw who did a movie called "Perfume" and both actors in each of these performances are exceptional. It's fun to watch period pieces for the set design and costumes. Again, this movie did not disappoint. I have read Oscar Wilde's story and always found Wilde to come across as a bit enamored at his own cleverness. This script flows. The dialog comes across as witty and not pompous. The script does justice to the work. It is definitely worth the time to watch.

an eccentric game

[Kirpianuscus · 16 March 2023]

It is obvious, the novel is only a pretext for a kind puzzle game with crumbs from Portrait of Dorian Gray. Maybe not so bad if you ignore the book. But if not, the only compensation can be the effort of Colin Firth and Ben Chaplin.

Ben Barnes ? Hansome, off course but, unfortunatelly, not Dorian. The exercises of exploration of Dorian gray past are only good intentioned.

In short, not a bad film but sort of childish exploration of a lot of ifs only for surprise or impress or seduce or be, apparently, cool.

But, not exactly Oscar Wild and, for me, it is not happy option.

Sure, new century, new states. But Portrait of Dorian Gray is more than thriller/ horror/ Gothic. Or , exactly the deep subtance, in this adaptation, just missing.

There's enough of both directorial punch and flair on top of a feast, visually, for this incarnation of Wilde's novel to come through.

[johnnyboyz · 6/10 · 23 September 2010]

Dorian Gray is a passable enough tale of a man whom sinks deeper and deeper into an abyss of self gratification; misogyny and pride, it is a film from the London born Oliver Parker whom has explored various roles of a writing; acting and directing nature over the years and is furthermore an adaptation of an 1891 novel by a certain Oscar Wilde. Ultimately, the film does a studious job of detailing a man's gradual sinking into a sordid lifestyle of ego and sin and the consequent realising of the pratfalls this entails by which time the proverbial horse has bolted. The study is played out behind lavish cinematography and an effective eye for the respective period it's set; where director Parker disappointed with his last film: the leery, overly sexualised and highly charged 2007 flop St. Trinian's, he hits the right notes in 2009's Dorian Gray - a film that seems to be about the consequent decline into a world full of all that, and more, but with this time something to say, eventually coming to see it just about emerge as an engaging piece of cinema.

It's Victorian era England and we begin the film with the disposing of a body, in a river, after a murder has taken place - the perpetrator being none other than Ben Barnes' titular Gray doing his dirty work under this canopy of a dark, dank and unwelcoming aesthetic. We flash back to one year ago, with the film having set out its stall as to where it'll end up as a fresh faced Gray steps off of a train to brighter, lighter and more welcoming hues. The film suggests degrees of innocence upon Gray's arrival, with its using of binary oppositional lighting as a representative of unspoilt psychosis, successfully instilling a bleak and knowing sense of where the character will end up in a year's time hovering over most of the early exchanges as the immediate opening lingers.

He is greeted by a Lord named Henry Wotton, played by Colin Firth, and Wotton enjoys the high life, very quickly bringing Gray under his wing of mostly sleaze and nastiness. Gray's adapting to this lifestyle comes quickly and easily, his uncannily handsome features eventually coming to represent every inch of the word as women fawn at the sight of him and both his playboy image and reputation gradually coming to precede him. The women love him; the men come to love his company and the film makes a distinct attempt to objectify him by focusing, in close up format, on both various parts and aspects of his face to get across a sense of flawlessness in this man's appearance. The trouble begins when Gray first tries to drink some gin and we observe his initiation into the very fabrics that arrive with Wotton's way of life get the better of him; he coughs, flinches and appears briefly as the centre of the laughs his contemporaries produce. As an outsider to the lifestyle and its content, the spectrum of his sinking into a newer existence is highlighted here by his initial naivety to it.

Gray's beauty is captured by way of a painted portrait constructed early on in the film, a painting which comes to represent the physical manifestation of the man's soul representative of all the evil; wrong doing and immorality which plagues Gray's life. Initial signs that all is not well with both the painting and Gray's attitudes are not heeded by the man, the confining it to the attic of the large house he inhabits a shutting away or burying of righteous attitudes for a more crass living. Instead, he carves his way through the inner circles of socialite-laden Victorian London; mixing and preening with the uppers, refusing to look too regretfully back on a marriage with Sybil (Hurd-Wood) that ends horrifically. The film sees its lead channel Christian Bale's American Psycho (of both book and film infame) Parick Bateman in his facial features, mannerisms and attitudes as he swaths through life overdosing on indulgence in immorality; Bateman himself, we recall, being based on true to life serial killer Ted Bundy as that opening scene still lingers.

Women come and go; nights out blur into one and death creeps into the equation as he eerily maintains his glowing looks and while time envelops those around him, Gray stays the same in his appearance and attitudes. It is the item of modernity that greets him after the first decade of the twentieth century comes and goes, The First World War rages around the world, itself being an item which signalled a jump in both technological and political modernity in its aftermath, with Wotten's daughter Emily (Hall) arriving on the scene and speaking of her want for a woman's 'vote' as well as her interest in an art form in the form of photography. But for all the heterosexual indulgences with women during the film's pomp it is Gray's relationship, or bond, with Wotton himself that presides at the core of the film. Wotton incepts Gray into the life they led and it is he whom spearheads the push for the film's final act. What keeps the film itself from being crass and indulgent itself towards this lifestyle is the constant threats and reminders linked to the engaging in what the lead Gray does. Rather than pile on all the nasty content before cheaply rounding it all off with a five minute moment of exposition masquerading as demonisation, the film keeps the aforementioned portrait looming in a physical sense above all others in the attic of the manor house as threats on his life in the meantime become prominent. Eventually, the film builds to a somewhat terrifying conclusion in which the lead is forced into confronting his lifestyle, a conclusion of which a decent enough tale that is worth seeing precedes it.

A Solid Seven

[samkan · 7/10 · 1 December 2011]

Mostly praise for this film. The script, acting and costumes were really great. The women were especially good, given this is a male-centered film (written by a hedonistic gay individual - not that there's anything wrong with it!) Colin Firth's hypocritical hedonist is scene stealing. Ben Chaplin's Basil is also very convincing. The problem is that our lead character's acting chops don't measure up to the two supporting actors. I'm not labeling Barnes as a bad actor, he'll likely develop into a fine one. But given the disproportionate number of scenes with Barnes and/or Firth and/or Chaplin....well....the disparity in skills becomes apparent. Barnes is not all to blame. We never really see the "change" in Dorian; e.g., he seems to go right from being naive and good-natured into a Mr. Hyde in the blink of an eye - despite the obvious attempts of Firth's character to debauch. Still, there's enough here to enjoy, including generous portions of sex.

Laughably Bad Movie

[dawejon-113-632078 · 2/10 · 21 July 2011]

I hardly know where to start describing just how bad this movie is. First I will say that the movie, especially the first half, feels terribly choppy and rushed. The relationship between Dorian and Sybil, for example, from initial meeting to marriage proposal, to break-up and suicide is covered in the space of TWELVE MINUTES. This is including the scenes in between in which she is not involved. The director probably could've put a montage of them running through tall grass and painting each other with paint rollers while giggling merrily and it would've done a better job of establishing this relationship in believable fashion.

I feel like the director just wanted to get it out of the way so that he could spend as much time on the lurid details of Dorian's life as possible.

Director: What? I have to provide an explanation? OK here goes...

Dorian: hi I'm Dorian want to get married?

Sybil: yeah sure

**2 days later**

Sybil: you slept with a whore! I'm going to kill myself!

Director: OK now that that boring storyline garbage is out of the way I can get to the S&M sex montages, murders, and a painting that actually GROWLS AND HISSES.

Which brings me to my next problem with the movie; the cheesiness and unbelievably heavy-handed symbolism. The first time that we actually see a heavily altered version of the painting hidden up in the attic, the camera zooms in on the painting and yes, it actually hisses at the audience. I feel that this is a massive cop-out on an attempt to create a frightening and tense atmosphere. It is as if the director was unable to use lighting, shot framing, scenery, etc. effectively to create the atmosphere which he desired, and decided instead to have a ghost pop up on screen and yell "BOO!" at the audience to startle them into a state of fright.

The symbolism is something I would expect to see from a first year film student. The montage of S&M sex scenes inter-spliced with scenes of Dorian spreading jam on a biscuit made me burst out laughing. Possibly the most obtuse symbolism I've ever seen in a movie takes place when Dorian seduces Hallward at his party while some kind of sexually charged African drum dance involving a large snake takes place downstairs. That's right, snakes look kind of like a penis, and they're representative of sin! BAM! Double the symbolism! I was so convinced in the final scene where Lord Henry speaks to the painting that it was going to blink or start crying, I'm sure someone talked the director out of that one. I wouldn't even have been surprised to see a caption saying "Dorian is in the painting" with an arrow pointing to it.

A great deal of Oscar Wilde's sharp wit is cut from the story, and what does remain I would call the most redeeming factor of the whole movie. There are still a small handful of wonderful Wilde quotes that will have you laughing and thinking, but you can save yourself the trouble of viewing this travesty.

Excellent modern adaptation, does Oscar Wilde justice

[larry-411 · 8/10 · 24 September 2009]

I attended the World Premiere of "Dorian Gray" at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. Starring Colin Firth and Ben Barnes, this newest adaptation of Oscar Wilde's classic Gothic horror story was directed by Oliver Parker from a Toby Finlay script. Set in Victorian England, Gray (Barnes) and his mentor Lord Henry Wotton (Firth) embark on an adventure that will lead them down paths they could never have imagined. I'll leave it at that for those unfamiliar with the story.

"Dorian Gray" is definitely a crowd pleaser. Ben Barnes is on screen almost every second from opening to closing credits and is frighteningly brilliant as the titular character. Together, Barnes and Firth carry the film.

As a period piece, art and set direction are unsurpassed. Roger Pratt's cinematography flawlessly places the viewer into the hazy London setting and the costumes are stunning. Capturing both the deplorable conditions of the urban poor as well as the debauchery of the moneyed class is critical and perfectly executed here.

Parker's take on the story is dark and surreal, placing slightly more emphasis on the real than imagined. Today's technical abilities allow the images to be more explicit than in the previous black and white version of the story, so visual and special effects are dramatic and effective.

Not for the purist

[Spaceygirl · 7/10 · 27 December 2010]

Okay, so if you've read the book or if you're a die-hard Oscar Wilde fan, give this a miss. It's NOTHING like the book, well, except for the title and the general plot-line. That's not to say it's not good. It IS. Very. I enjoyed it thoroughly. The cast has a great time with a, well, an adequate script. Colin Firth has great fun with his role as the corrupted Lord, Ben Chaplin is his usual beautiful mournful self as the love-lorn artist and Ben Barnes is simply gorgeous in the title role, not really stretching his acting wings but he puts in a good performance. He is very well cast as the eternally youthful and good-looking Dorian Gray. The female leads suffer, only Rebecca Hall is given decent material to work with and tries ably with her role as the love-interest and Dorian Gray's saviour. The cinematography is stunning, evoking Victorian London beautifully. All in all, Dorian Gray is a beautiful Gothic Horror. Well worth seeing.

Promising concept. Horrendous execution

[irisheyes317 · 1/10 · 30 September 2009]

It is inevitable that when any classic novel (Oscar Wilde's being no exception) is adapted for the screen, certain liberties will be taken to make it an engaging story to an audience present for 2 1/2 hours. In this 21st century execution, Oliver Parker includes an interesting theme certainly real in Wilde's Victorian era and widely discussed on the social AND artistic scene today: the failure of paternal figures. The longing for an admirable father figure serving as Dorian's ultimate Achilles' heel is a fascinating theory to draw from. It could've certainly presented itself as a unique theme to distinguish the film from Albert Lewin's 1945 version.

Unfortunately, this is all completely drowned in gaudy pornographic material (not dissimilar to the undoing of "Caligula"), overdone special effects, and terrible performances.

Ben Barnes is arguably a very promising actor who could've effectively played the role within a few years of performative maturity and growth. In this film, the lack of the aforementioned makes his acting painful to watch. At this stage, he simply lacks the severity and command of the famous character's evil to be believable. Barnes is weakly tossed from scene to scene and presents very little to persuade the viewer.

The most appalling performance comes from Rachel Hurd-Wood as Sybil Vane. It is perplexing as to why a more mature, capable actress couldn't be chosen to play the role instead. Hurd-Wood, probably due to lack of experience and performative maturity, is simply incapable of convincing anyone watching that it is a winsome, naive theater girl we're seeing. One of the first rules of acting is to live and be the role, NOT anticipate from line to line (which she does obnoxiously every moment she's on-screen) Mercifully, she's only present for 15 minutes of the film, but it's enough to be among the greatest of the film's flaws.

Not even the remarkable Colin Firth can save this travesty of a film, as his Henry Wotton fails to emit convincing sinisterness that his mere words will corrupt the young Dorian. When he illogically changes his tune in the film's final 15 minutes, it only leaves awkward confusion and embarrassment. Understandably, this could mostly be the fault of the director drowning character study in favor of saccharine visuals, yet Firth is certainly capable of doing better even when his characters have limited screen time.

Granted, a film discussing the theme of self-indulgent hedonism will depict occasional free love, just enough to get the point across as to what the central character is up to. Pornography running at the rate of every other scene, however, is too much. Parker has made the mistake assuming that this is necessary to appeal to a 21st century audience, figuring the vast majority lack the intelligence to have understood long ago that this is among Dorian's long list of vices. A few scenes of the character smoking opium in a burlesque was already serving this purpose. The theme then plunges into the annoying with unnecessary (and terribly performed) scenes of mid-ball rendevouxs and orgies that smack of pathetic attempts at convincing eroticism.

Another item to note: Wilde's novel was notably controversial during its time for its homeoerotic overtones. In this more tolerant age, the visual beauty of male characters and settings is enough to represent this very theme Wilde presented. The addition of an absurd snog between two characters (which not only strays from the plot's logic but also glaringly from the relationship dynamics depicted in the novel) once again betrays Parker's belief that audiences are too stupid to gather the homeoerotic elements already present.

A portrait that moans and emits maggots like a hungover zombie might frighten those who've been spared years of horror movie parodies. In watching this film, the scenes with the ever changing picture provide an embarrassing orientation to this, enough to have Wilde spinning in his grave. No sooner are syrupy pornographic scenes temporarily not on-screen than the film is dragged down again by overdone special effects that have been the undoing of many, many movies in recent years. A director of Parker's caliber should've been aware of this long ago. Thus, there is absolutely no excuse for this to be present in a film that is intended to carry a theme deeper than late 90's movie era eye-candy.

There are no words to describe how utterly ridiculous, even border-line laughable, the ending to this film is. In brief, it competes with the over-the-top, embarrassing ends of various characters depicted in "Van Helsing". Once again, visually (already mentioned as ruining this film). If Parker was attempting to end this picture with a bang distinguishable from previous versions, he renders it a complete joke.

There is certainly pornography available that costs less than the price of a movie ticket. Corny special effects 101 can even be obtained for free in many places. That said, anyone interested in this rendition of Wilde's work should save his money.

Oliver Parker has directed some exceptional films. This one, disappointingly, is greatly under par having resorted to cliché special effects reminiscent of cheap horror flicks and squanders artistic talent.

What a shame.

I wish Hollywood would make films like this.

[garyvanhorn · 9/10 · 10 January 2011]

Based on Oscar Wilde's novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Dorian Gray is a compelling story about a young English nobleman who sells his soul to the devil in exchange for eternal youth. The story begins in late nineteenth century England, where Dorian Gray (Ben Barnes) has just inherited his familial estate following the death of his father. Gray is young, naive, and wholly innocent, at least until he befriends Lord Henry Watton (Colin Firth). Watton is an avid believer, though not a practitioner, of a hedonistic lifestyle. Every pleasure should be sampled, every desire indulged. The young Dorian Gray is completely taken in by this philosophy, thus begins his long, slow decent into corruption and madness.

Early in Dorian's slide, Basil Hallward (Ben Chaplin) paints a stunning portrait of Dorian Gray. So remarkable is the painting that Gray agrees to exchange his soul for the eternal youth captured in the picture. Thus the picture becomes a mirror, reflecting the quality of Dorian Gray's soul.

Both Ben Barnes and Colin Firth turn in terrific performances. I particularly liked Ben Barnes' transformation from naive young man into a cruel, murderous monster who has remained timeless as the world grows old around him. The sets are spectacular, showing all the splendor of nineteenth century England, mixed with the Gothic horror that becomes Dorian Gray's life. Dorian Gray is a fantastic cinematic adaptation of a classic novel.

Cosmetic surgery or real substance?

[cidlewis-538-541178 · 7/10 · 24 September 2009]

www.craigiandavylewis.blogspot.com

Oscar Wilde once said Lord Henry Wotton was 'what the world thinks me' and Dorian Gray, 'what I would like to be - in other ages, perhaps'. It is just possible the age we live in today - with botox and plastic surgery more than a match for Basil Hallward's painting - would have allowed Wilde to embrace the Dorian Gray within him. Certainly it has given director Oliver Parker the chance to explore parts of Wilde's classic 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' that Victorian society would simply not have allowed to be seen. So we have Ben Barnes' Dorian visiting gin palaces and whore houses in a bleak London which seems to welcome his pact with the devil for eternal life. For those unaware of Wilde's story, Gray is a beautiful, but naive, young aristocrat who becomes the muse of the probably homosexual (overtly in the film) Hallward. But twisted by the hedonistic wit of Lord Henry, Gray becomes jealous that the painting will keep its youth, while he must lose his.He makes a wish that the picture will become old, while he remains forever young - in return for his soul. While Parker's film makes real many of the inferences of Wilde's novel it also pushes the boat out further; celebrating Sibyl Vane as Ophelia, adding elements of horror to the plot with a moving, gurning picture and even incorporating a whole new chapter of Gray's life to the plot. The film certainly maintains the Gothic horror of Wilde's novel, and even some of its wit, but it is doubtful whether it is as thought provoking or intelligent. Perhaps, one might say, more cosmetic surgery than real substance.

Completely Twisted!

[afarin-dadkhah · 1/10 · 18 February 2012]

I first read the book and absolutely loved it, so I was looking forward to the movie in order to materialize the writing, but I was really disappointed. First of all Ben Barnes as Dorian Gray! definitely not a good choice, the original Dorian Gray of Mr.Wilde is elegant, beautiful and has an aura of purity and innocence about him, which the actor fails to display. The Dorian Gray in the movie seems unintelligent and apathetic, his emotions are plastic and fake. Although it is not surprising that the movie has twisted the story as it has been done countless times before, the fact that some of the most significant concepts of the original story have been altered bothered me, such as displaying the portrait to the public eye! I dare say the story began with Basil, the painter, not wanting to show it to the public since he believed he had put so much of himself into it and then of Dorian's fear of anyone seeing his soul! HUH! not to bore and bitter you with my criticism. anyway the fact that the movie had distorted the original story to a great extent bothered me and the characters are very dull and lifeless compared to the book. I prefer Oscar Wilde's version hundred times more. Hope this review has been helpful. Rin