Dorian Gray

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.

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.

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

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?

'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