Crappy film

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Oliver Parker transformed the great novel by Oscar Wild into a ghost ride speeding like a rocket. Sometimes the movie has the looks it needs to represent Oscar Wilde's time, sometimes it looks like a cheap horror flick filled with clichés about London. Of course it has a handsome Ben Barnes as Dorian Gray too, but it misses the witty dialogues, the behavior of the upper class members and so on. Sir Henry Wotton becomes a cynic wisecracking jerk who doesn't really believe in what he's saying and we, the audience, don't believe him either, in contrast to the character in the novel. The only person I really liked in the movie was the character of Basil Hallward played by Ben Chaplin, but to soon he leaves the stage.Dorian Gray (which is already a shortening of the title: "The picture of Dorian Gray) is a version for the non intellectual working class movie goers who don't have the time to read the novel nor have any interest in doing so. It is not bad to watch bad movies but there is a saddening effect. After they have watched this movie they don't pay attention to the novel anymore, because they think it's all been said. So they miss a great chance to read a great piece of literature and culture that has something to say especially in our times where we have contests for models like Next Top Model on TV and a youth fetish in the media and society. Everybody wants to stay young and fresh and powerful and beautiful.So I suggest better read the novel than watching this movie!

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.

I decided to watch this film some days after I read "The Picture of Dorian Gray". If you watch the film and haven't read the book, you will probably find it an OK movie. However, if you have read the book, this adaptation will leave you disappointed.The original storyline by Oscar Wilde is very good, so I do not see why the adaptation went so far from it. I have nothing against a modern touch, but here the original ending is changed to a large extent. If the author wanted a girl to change Dorian, or a whole new second part, he would have written it himself.The character of Basil had some very strong lines in the book, but in the movie he just seems like a weird artist. Also, the scenes which show Dorian among naked women were, to me, totally irrelevant.However, I have to say that Barnes was OK as Dorian. Even if he could have shown some more character development, his acting was not bad. Also, Firth was really good as lord Henry, I would like it if he had more lines.I'd give a generous 5 out of 10.