The Picture of Dorian Gray

I agree with the first poster. I was also in the audience last night and expected far better than what was shown. If the director hadn't said the film took place in 1990, one would have never known. (Besides, the art scene in Manhattan was over at that point, having peaked before the market crash in the late 80s). And to equate AIDS with getting old is an insult. The acting was uneven and some of the musical choices weren't inspiring. It was just plain dull! I think the applause was polite, out of respect for the director and actor in attendance, but I agree it was a mad dash for the exits..... Certainly not a movie for the multi-plex or the art houses, but one to go straight to DVD.

I saw this movie at a film festival in Cardiff and i have to say that i really enjoyed it. Duncan Roy has done an amazing job of updating the novel to present day while remaining true to Wildes story. David Gallagher is great as Dorian. He is suitably pretty and wide-eyed as the more innocent Dorian at the the beginning of the movie but is even better as the dangerous and crazed Dorian that he evolves in to towards the end. Chistian Camargo (from TV's Dexter) gives a stand-out performance as Henry Wotton. Probably one of the best Henry's i have ever seen. While some actors of the past have had trouble making Wildes lines flow naturally, Camargo delivers the lines with ease. Rebecca Wisocky as Henrys wife also steals the odd scene. And Noah Segan gave a heart-felt performance as a love-lorn Basil Hallward. The movie had a cool and edgy look. Everything from the clothes to the make-up to the sett pieces were a great mix of the very modern meeting the very classic. Giving the movie a sort of timeless feel. All together i had a great cinema experience watching this movie and i would recommend it to everyone.

Being a great fan of Duncan Roy's "AKA", I was very excited to see this work at the Miami filmfest. Sad to say, I was pretty much embarrassed to have brought my friends to "Dorian Gray." Where to begin? The film was plodding and in great need of editing. The dialog was unnatural & postured..even to the point of being silly. And plot...was there one? The split screens effects were interesting at times and more gimmicky at others. Even cute eye candy could not make you care about the characters or this sophomoric, unoriginal endeavor, for that matter . Most of the audience started shifting around & checking their watches halfway through the film...their thoughts mirroring mine of "when will this be over?!"

Duncan, please go back to narratives

I saw this on opening night at the Miami Gay Film Fest and I, along with about 98% of the audience, hated it. Everyone left hissing and didn't bother to stay for the Q&A with director Duncan Roy, who was just as pretentious on stage as his film was on screen. The film itself is clumsy, underwritten, and lazy, supposedly taking place in the 80s and 90s but clearly the budget was too small to hide the fact the backdrop is obviously 2005 New York. The acting was bad and the placing of dialogue as text in huge letters on the screen is about as film-school- amateur-ostentatious as you can get. Also the film was obviously trying to say something about the AIDS crisis among gay men but failed to register any conclusive facts or interesting ideas. As it is, this Picture of Dorian Gray is a sluggish piece if crap that will have a hard time getting theatrical release. Most likely, the film will go directly to HERE or LOGO or DVD where it will fade into bad movie obscurity.

Wow what a spectacularly pretentious and boring film. The first act of it is nearly unwatchable and comes off like a bad Calvin Klein "Obsession" ad parody.

I give the film 2 stars instead of 1 because, with a couple notable exceptions, the acting is quite good for this type of movie. Also, I applaud the director for at least trying to be daring. But those are the only compliments I can find for this movie.

I thought that just about everything else in the film failed miserably. The direction was utterly incoherent with only those already very familiar with Oscar Wilde's original story able to piece things together at all in the first half of the film.

The film is unsettling, sometimes presumably intentionally so, because there is nearly constant background noise distracting from the dialog/narrative. Televisions or unseen radios blare out repetitive monologues or inexplicable buzzing sounds can be heard. This aspect could have been worsened by a poor choice of the theater I saw it in where they apparently chose to turn the volume way up so the often mumbled dialog could be heard. Whatever the cause, the background noise was extremely grating. At least the terrible sound mixing would occasionally have the unintended consequence of waking up the bored audience when an inappropriately loud sound would suddenly slap them upside the head. I can see the intention with a buzzing snooze alarm, but when someone setting a glass on a table gives the audience a jolt (and a headache), that is not a good thing.

One of the worst failures of the film itself is the mixing of Wilde's dialog with contemporary dialog. You can certainly take old dialog and modernize everything else about a story very successfully (see "Romeo + Juliet" for one example). And I'm sure there are other movies that mix old and new dialog in a contemporary setting with success. But here you can always tell which lines of dialog were lifted from Wilde because they sound like they came from a much more interesting story. Often times, embarrassingly enough, they are used in a way that suggests the director has misinterpreted their meaning or tried to give them much greater meaning than Wilde intended. This is not helped by jarring and pretentious screens that pop up showing some of the lines of dialog.

So many others have listed other big problems with the film (casual racism, over-reaching and offensive AIDS story) that I won't detail them.

Suffice to say this film is a mess and should be avoided.