Wow, this is a REALLY bad movie!

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Set in Victorian London, a wealthy, free-wheeling young man, Dorian Gray (played by Ben Barnes) yearns for eternal youth. He achieves this by making a deal with the devil. However, a painting reveals the cost of this pact.Great adaptation of the Oscar Wilde novel. Excellent plot, as you would expect. Edgy, dark direction, with great CGI and settings.Great performances from Ben Barnes, Colin Firth and Ben Chaplin. Colin Firth is particularly good, delivering all the quotable Wilde-isms with perfect timing and cynicism. Ben Barnes' transformation from innocent boy to cynical, evil old man is very convincing.

a nice adaptation for a complex novel. not remarkable but far to be blamed because it has the great gift to have an inspired cast. the atmosphere, the metamorphosis of Dorian, the decent manner of Ben Barnes to play a character who has victim of different and intense states of soul is the good fact who gives charm and credibility, a form of beauty and delicacy of nuances to an adaptation who is only correct and good point of start for discover the novel. a Dorian Gray who not propose revelations. only remember of the spirit from a lost time. Colin Firth is the key for that, his Basil imposing the note who defines in profound sense the identity/mark of film.

The novel is like a play itself; it's one of those books that would look best on the screen just as they are, line by line.Far from that, in the movie, they make a very bold -and unrealistic, from my point of view- interpretation of Lord Henry Wotton's character, and some serious changes in the story development.Scenes that looked great in the book were changed with no apparent object but the desire of being original, and other good scenes from the novel simply didn't make it into the movie.While eroticism in the novel is only suggested with sharp delicacy, it adds some explicit, unstylish scenes to the movie.Only good thing I can point out is Colin Firth's acting. I already thought he was perfect for the role before knowing about the film.The story is so different from that of the book that I'm really amazed at how some people dare say it's as good an adaptation as they could expect. It's not just that I have seen far better than this in other book adaptations, but this is really one of the worst I have ever watched.Finally, since, besides Colin Firth's acting, everything good about the movie is what little was taken from the novel -and also looked better in the novel-, I must say this movie has no credit of its own, therefore, I consider it terrible.

Here's the Thing. It is Recommended that Before Watching this Film that is Worth a Watch, Read the Book. Or if You are a Movie Only kind of Person than View the 1945 Version. Only then is it Advisable to give this one a Go.Because the 1945 Film is Infinitely Better and the Book is, well, The Book. This Movie's Watchability is Only So Because of the Witticisms and Cynicisms of Oscar Wilde. Otherwise this Mediocre Movie is Nothing More than a Bad Version of a Good Hammer Film.It Relies on Nudity, Bloody Violence, and Modern Cinema Trickery to make this a Product of its Time and Persuade Current Audiences that this is Hip to the Jive of what Today's Moviegoers Expect. But it is done Without Much Style and is Rather Pedestrian.Ben Barnes as Dorian and Colin Firth as His Mentor Henry are Adequate Both, But the Film is Forever Pushy with its Ridiculous CGI 3D Painting and Long Sex Scenes that Bury the Story with Excessive Overkill that is Frankly a Bit Boring. The Things that make the Classic Book and the Better Forties Version So Much More Rewarding is Charm and Style. This One has Precious Little of Both and is a Middle of the Road Exercise that should Only be Seen as a Curiosity after Experiencing the Aforementioned Book and or Movie.