Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueDorian has it all: money, fame, beautiful women. The one thing he doesn't have is time, and when that goes, so will his looks and his modeling career. His mysterious agent Henry Wooten has a... Tout lireDorian has it all: money, fame, beautiful women. The one thing he doesn't have is time, and when that goes, so will his looks and his modeling career. His mysterious agent Henry Wooten has an offer that Dorian can't refuse: eternal youth.Dorian has it all: money, fame, beautiful women. The one thing he doesn't have is time, and when that goes, so will his looks and his modeling career. His mysterious agent Henry Wooten has an offer that Dorian can't refuse: eternal youth.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Daniella Ferrera
- Woman #1 at Dorian's Loft
- (as Daniela Ferrera)
Jane McLean Guerra
- Woman #2 at Dorian's Loft
- (as Jane McLean)
Avis à la une
The story is familiar - recall, original novelist Oscar Wilde's "Dorian" wished his painting would grow old whilst he remain young. Like in days of old, handsome male model Ethan Erickson (as Louis) wishes for eternal youth. Then, while one of his pictures ages, he becomes the ageless "Dorian" of the title. Like his predecessors, Mr. Erickson descends into decadent debauchery. A charismatic older mentor, Malcolm McDowell (as Henry), eggs him on...
Re-titled "Pact with the Devil".
Allan A. Goldstein's updated "Dorian" alters the story in ways that become nonsensical. The main problem occurs by making Mr. McDowell's character semi-Faustian. To have McDowell in the cast, and render his character inexplicable, should be a crime. Erickson, an extremely good-looking man, is also slighted by a faltering characterization - in an early scene, he is required to pretend he couldn't imagine someone thinking he could be a pin-up boy? And, Jennifer Nitsch (as Bae) has an undeveloped, but intriguing, back-story.
**** Dorian (2001) Allan A. Goldstein ~ Ethan Erickson, Malcolm McDowell, Jennifer Nitsch, Christoph Waltz
Re-titled "Pact with the Devil".
Allan A. Goldstein's updated "Dorian" alters the story in ways that become nonsensical. The main problem occurs by making Mr. McDowell's character semi-Faustian. To have McDowell in the cast, and render his character inexplicable, should be a crime. Erickson, an extremely good-looking man, is also slighted by a faltering characterization - in an early scene, he is required to pretend he couldn't imagine someone thinking he could be a pin-up boy? And, Jennifer Nitsch (as Bae) has an undeveloped, but intriguing, back-story.
**** Dorian (2001) Allan A. Goldstein ~ Ethan Erickson, Malcolm McDowell, Jennifer Nitsch, Christoph Waltz
"The Picture of Dorian Gray", the classic story written by Oscar Wilde in 1890, was adapted to the modern times in "Dorian", a quite cheesy film that brings the same story with a giant variety of changes and characterizations of events, in short a drastic summary for people who hate read books and prefers to watch images.
The story goes from the 1890's to the 2000's; Dorian (played by Ethan Erickson) isn't rich, he's a young worker that happens to be in the right place at the right moment when his beauty is noticed by Henry (Malcolm McDowell) who wants to transform the average worker into a famous top model. Instead of painted picture Dorian is immortalized into a photograph that will become ugly, scary while he'll never get old after making a pact with the devil (the notion we get is that Henry is the devil who steal cute guys souls to take). There's the forever young theme, the romance between Dorian and Sybil; tragedies, beauty vs. Ugliness vs. Intelligence and body vs. Soul, and the elements and quotations perfectly written by Wilde in his masterpiece.
But there's something rotten in this film, something that doesn't work quite right. Actually, many things. The wooden acting from the casting (but hey, 'Mr. Hans Landa' Christoph Waltz is there to give an impressive job here), the script that is pretty laughable at so many moments (the photo session with Dorian trying to do a sexy pose is one of those); and once you love the book, know how everything is so perfect and beautiful in it, you can't never achieve greatness in an update like this. A remake with period costumes, closer to what the writer wrote, like the one made in 1945, works way better than this.
"Dorian" only works when it comes to see how handsome Dorian is, I mean, the main actor who looks incredibly hot whether shirtless, showing his great body or just wearing those tight jeans, so nice to look, he's very hunky. His female co-stars are equally good, except for the one who plays Sybil Vane, which might only be attractive to the director or Dorian's eyes.
This Dorian Gray's modernization might work for the poor souls who haven't got the opportunity, or the time and patience to read one of the most dazzling and respected classic of English Literature. To me, it was just an silly entertainment, with some good laughable moments. 4/10.
The story goes from the 1890's to the 2000's; Dorian (played by Ethan Erickson) isn't rich, he's a young worker that happens to be in the right place at the right moment when his beauty is noticed by Henry (Malcolm McDowell) who wants to transform the average worker into a famous top model. Instead of painted picture Dorian is immortalized into a photograph that will become ugly, scary while he'll never get old after making a pact with the devil (the notion we get is that Henry is the devil who steal cute guys souls to take). There's the forever young theme, the romance between Dorian and Sybil; tragedies, beauty vs. Ugliness vs. Intelligence and body vs. Soul, and the elements and quotations perfectly written by Wilde in his masterpiece.
But there's something rotten in this film, something that doesn't work quite right. Actually, many things. The wooden acting from the casting (but hey, 'Mr. Hans Landa' Christoph Waltz is there to give an impressive job here), the script that is pretty laughable at so many moments (the photo session with Dorian trying to do a sexy pose is one of those); and once you love the book, know how everything is so perfect and beautiful in it, you can't never achieve greatness in an update like this. A remake with period costumes, closer to what the writer wrote, like the one made in 1945, works way better than this.
"Dorian" only works when it comes to see how handsome Dorian is, I mean, the main actor who looks incredibly hot whether shirtless, showing his great body or just wearing those tight jeans, so nice to look, he's very hunky. His female co-stars are equally good, except for the one who plays Sybil Vane, which might only be attractive to the director or Dorian's eyes.
This Dorian Gray's modernization might work for the poor souls who haven't got the opportunity, or the time and patience to read one of the most dazzling and respected classic of English Literature. To me, it was just an silly entertainment, with some good laughable moments. 4/10.
Basically, transporting it to a modern day setting should be enough to do the trick. Christ on a stick, this was a lamentable film. It will never be the worst film ever, nor is it so badly made it sucks hairy balls. But given the fact this was based on Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray", they sure turned it into an atrocity.
The easiest thing to do, was to set the story in the world of models & fashion photography (eternal youth & beauty, right?). Yawn, how original. Furthermore, this film suffers that hard from looking "so nineties", that it hurts. A lot. Ridiculous and worn-out fashion concepts, the photo-shoots are so clichéd (and you should see the result - no artistic value whatsoever), a lot of uninspired pop/rock songs for no reason on the soundtrack, lots of cheap but oh-so-hip at the time editing effects, glossy & shallow sensuality, polished soft sex scenes, art-farty 'beau monde' parties, an artificial fragrance of decadence,... Should I go on?
I've seen decadence in the world of fashion portrayed with more flair in a grotesque B-flick like "Night Angel" (1990). I've seen art, photography, evil & mirrors handled better in horror sequel romp like "Amityville: A New Generation" (1993). You think those are great movies? That should say enough about how good a job this "Dorian" did on a classic story. I've also seen great Edgar Allan Poe stories all mangled up and poured into some 'sorority girls' slasher-format in "Buried Alive" (1990), not exactly the most faithful of adaptations. But I'm sure if they'd turned this "Dorian" into a slasher, it would have been a better stupid movie.
You can tell Malcolm McDowell had some fun playing his part, as Dorian's (evil) mentor, but it's far less fun seeing him play it. The whole film pretty much bores you along, and so does McDowell after a while.
Have the Hughes Brothers make a new "Dorian Gray" movie with a Victorian London setting and give us decent adaptation. It would be for more pleasing looking forward to such a project than suffering through the umpteenth unimaginative Hollywood re-make of any given horror film these days. Or maybe I could check out that 2009 version with Colin Firth. It surely should have more appeal than this trite.
The easiest thing to do, was to set the story in the world of models & fashion photography (eternal youth & beauty, right?). Yawn, how original. Furthermore, this film suffers that hard from looking "so nineties", that it hurts. A lot. Ridiculous and worn-out fashion concepts, the photo-shoots are so clichéd (and you should see the result - no artistic value whatsoever), a lot of uninspired pop/rock songs for no reason on the soundtrack, lots of cheap but oh-so-hip at the time editing effects, glossy & shallow sensuality, polished soft sex scenes, art-farty 'beau monde' parties, an artificial fragrance of decadence,... Should I go on?
I've seen decadence in the world of fashion portrayed with more flair in a grotesque B-flick like "Night Angel" (1990). I've seen art, photography, evil & mirrors handled better in horror sequel romp like "Amityville: A New Generation" (1993). You think those are great movies? That should say enough about how good a job this "Dorian" did on a classic story. I've also seen great Edgar Allan Poe stories all mangled up and poured into some 'sorority girls' slasher-format in "Buried Alive" (1990), not exactly the most faithful of adaptations. But I'm sure if they'd turned this "Dorian" into a slasher, it would have been a better stupid movie.
You can tell Malcolm McDowell had some fun playing his part, as Dorian's (evil) mentor, but it's far less fun seeing him play it. The whole film pretty much bores you along, and so does McDowell after a while.
Have the Hughes Brothers make a new "Dorian Gray" movie with a Victorian London setting and give us decent adaptation. It would be for more pleasing looking forward to such a project than suffering through the umpteenth unimaginative Hollywood re-make of any given horror film these days. Or maybe I could check out that 2009 version with Colin Firth. It surely should have more appeal than this trite.
A cheesy, modern take on The Portrait of Dorian Gray story. The most unsettling thing is, there are supposed to be flashbacks from 20 years earlier, but they aren't the least bit convincing - it almost feels like the moments occurred on a previous day. Malcolm McDowell's character is either immortal and unaging, or the makers of this film didn't feel it was important enough to put him in makeup to make him 20 years younger for these flashback moments. It was later on that I realized that this film may have been originally shot for television, due to the fading in and out that occurs whenever possible.
The title of the movie, as shown by Showtime, the other night, was "A Pact with the Devil". It didn't ring a bell as anything seen locally in recent years. The idea of seeing a film with Malcolm McDowell in it, and nothing else worth watching in the other channels, played a trick on us. We witnessed in horror, a remake of the Oscar Wilde's novel "The Picture of Dorian Gray" that has nothing to do with the classic, and much better film, of 1945.
Under the direction of Allan A. Goldstein, we are taken, where else, to the world of the super models, where beauty is only skin deep. Henry, who stands as the Devil, tempts Louis into giving his soul in exchange of keeping his good looks forever, duh! Incredibly, we watch as the picture of Louis, now renamed Dorian, ages in ways that are not realistic, at all. I mean, a few wrinkles, we could understand, but making the image in the photograph, taken by Henry, a monster, is pushing reality a bit too far.
Malcom McDowell, who is an otherwise excellent actor, lends himself to this misguided attempt to retell something that was better done before and should have been left alone by the people behind this travesty.
Watch it at your own risk.
Under the direction of Allan A. Goldstein, we are taken, where else, to the world of the super models, where beauty is only skin deep. Henry, who stands as the Devil, tempts Louis into giving his soul in exchange of keeping his good looks forever, duh! Incredibly, we watch as the picture of Louis, now renamed Dorian, ages in ways that are not realistic, at all. I mean, a few wrinkles, we could understand, but making the image in the photograph, taken by Henry, a monster, is pushing reality a bit too far.
Malcom McDowell, who is an otherwise excellent actor, lends himself to this misguided attempt to retell something that was better done before and should have been left alone by the people behind this travesty.
Watch it at your own risk.
Le saviez-vous
- ConnexionsVersion of Dorian Grays Portræt (1910)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Pact with the Devil?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée1 heure 29 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Pacte avec le diable (2003) officially released in India in English?
Répondre