Dorian Gray (C or 2/4 stars)
Director Oliver Parker adapted the wonderful Oscar Wilde movie An Ideal Husband in 1999. Now, he's back with another Wilde classic, 'Dorian Gray', ... and it's nowhere near as stellar as the former film. The story begins with Dorian Gray (Ben Barnes, Prince Caspian) - a handsome, pleasant, if naive fellow - arriving in London in the late 1800's to take over his recently-deceased grandfather's estate. He is quickly befriended by lovelorn artist Basil Hallward (Ben Chaplin), who paints his picture, & the corruptible Lord Henry (Colin Firth), who teaches lessons in 'pleasure'. After having seen the painting, Dorian grows increasingly vain; leading him to tell Lord Henry that he'd trade his soul for the opportunity to remain young & beautiful - a 'deal' that the Devil is eager to make.
With time, the portrait of Dorian becomes the trash bin (so to speak) for all of the amoral & physical ailments which happen to him. i.e., he gets cut, the scar goes away (appearing on Dorian in the portrait), he stalks & sleeps with an innocent girl (his inner ugliness appears in physical form in the portrait), etc.. With each amoral occurrence, the painting gets uglier, & the actual Dorian grows in vanity & beauty. Sure, he tries to remain a good, dignified young man; proposing to his actress girlfriend, Sybil Vane (a bland Rachel Hurd-Wood). But after tragedy befalls her, it starts a rampage of Dorian's excesses; & he may not be salvageable. True love (by way of Rebecca Hall) enters his life many yrs. later. But will the corrupt & eternally youthful Dorian ever overcome his wicked ways?
I get that Oliver Parker tried to take a classic tale with an old Victorian setting & try to modernize it. He (& the screenwriter) maintain the same story frame & stretches of witty dialogue (from what I hear, I haven't read it). But the level of debauchery, sex, & gore is amplified to try to make this version palatable to a younger audience. I don't mind any of that. The problems for me are that: the 1st third of the film (set-up) is quite boring - lacking any personality whatsoever. The 2nd third is pretty good; chock-full of interesting sexual liaisons, the partaking of opium, & even violence - but this segment is such a harsh departure from the source material that it negates the impact. And the 3rd third of the film feels rushed; & goes back to being boring.
Final verdict: I just can't recommend it. There are individual things to enjoy. It's themes of power, vanity, & self-destruction are apparent. Watching the rich & infamous partying at their own peril is always fun for this voyeur. Seeing Ben Barnes' Dorian plow through every living, breathing specimen (man or woman) with such sexual & predatory fervor is something to see. Colin Firth is the stand-out as the devil's advocate, Lord Henry; his line deliveries are particularly deft & acerbic ("The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it"). But this is no The Picture of Dorian Gray, the Oscar-winning film from 1945. This 'Dorian Gray' looks fake (CGI) & lacks vision. Too much of this movie is executed with artificial energy. A lot happens, a lot is said - but artificial, & with no personality to it.
With time, the portrait of Dorian becomes the trash bin (so to speak) for all of the amoral & physical ailments which happen to him. i.e., he gets cut, the scar goes away (appearing on Dorian in the portrait), he stalks & sleeps with an innocent girl (his inner ugliness appears in physical form in the portrait), etc.. With each amoral occurrence, the painting gets uglier, & the actual Dorian grows in vanity & beauty. Sure, he tries to remain a good, dignified young man; proposing to his actress girlfriend, Sybil Vane (a bland Rachel Hurd-Wood). But after tragedy befalls her, it starts a rampage of Dorian's excesses; & he may not be salvageable. True love (by way of Rebecca Hall) enters his life many yrs. later. But will the corrupt & eternally youthful Dorian ever overcome his wicked ways?
I get that Oliver Parker tried to take a classic tale with an old Victorian setting & try to modernize it. He (& the screenwriter) maintain the same story frame & stretches of witty dialogue (from what I hear, I haven't read it). But the level of debauchery, sex, & gore is amplified to try to make this version palatable to a younger audience. I don't mind any of that. The problems for me are that: the 1st third of the film (set-up) is quite boring - lacking any personality whatsoever. The 2nd third is pretty good; chock-full of interesting sexual liaisons, the partaking of opium, & even violence - but this segment is such a harsh departure from the source material that it negates the impact. And the 3rd third of the film feels rushed; & goes back to being boring.
Final verdict: I just can't recommend it. There are individual things to enjoy. It's themes of power, vanity, & self-destruction are apparent. Watching the rich & infamous partying at their own peril is always fun for this voyeur. Seeing Ben Barnes' Dorian plow through every living, breathing specimen (man or woman) with such sexual & predatory fervor is something to see. Colin Firth is the stand-out as the devil's advocate, Lord Henry; his line deliveries are particularly deft & acerbic ("The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it"). But this is no The Picture of Dorian Gray, the Oscar-winning film from 1945. This 'Dorian Gray' looks fake (CGI) & lacks vision. Too much of this movie is executed with artificial energy. A lot happens, a lot is said - but artificial, & with no personality to it.