Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Edison Witt The first must-see film of the year.

Francisco de Leon 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.

susan-317 This was a luscious version of this story. Written by Wilde for serial publication. I liked the old version, too, with George Sand, and thought both film versions managed to bring in Wilde's biting wit and clever dialogue. The modern CGI and special effects (thank you, George Lucas since I don't know which company worked on the film) bring the painting to life in an imaginative and spectacular way.Colin Firth is excellent as young Dorian's mentor, leading him down the paths of excess in what would seem to many to be just another weekend at the frat house. But Dorian's activities begin to take on a darker tone and you realize that he may be beyond redemption.I loved the scenery, costumes, the entire production was beautifully done and the story clipped along with great pacing, great acting and a touching ending as well. Bravo.

Rodrigo Amaro Read the book. Seriously, read the book. Did I tell you to read the book? Do it. Now! It's not that this free adaptation is bad, it's just a case of taking an excellent piece of literature and transforming into something a little hollow, subverted to accommodate people who don't read books and don't have imagination, instead of just translating into a classical fashion which is a pleasure to see but the majority find it old-fashioned. If reading is really not your style (and chances are you're not even reading this review) then watch the 1945 film version directed by Albert Lewin, a true classic.The story is the same: Dorian Gray (Ben Barnes) wants to keep with his youth and beauty after seeing how gorgeous he was portrayed by friend artist Basil (Ben Chaplin) in a magnificent portrait and realizing the tragic truth that is to grow old, poisoned words courtesy of cynic Lord Henry Wotton (Colin Firth) who keeps telling the boy to live life to the fullest. A pact is made: he sells his soul, the portrait becomes an old and decaying figure while Mr. Gray keeps forever young, indulging himself with pleasures of the flesh. But tragedy, misery and sorrow follows those great moments, hitting hard on his conscience and decomposing the beautiful face that lies in the painting. Until here, it's OK. All the famous characters were there, the fore-mentioned and also Sybil Vane, her brother James, the loyal butler, etc. But they excluded some and added some to create a different effect, signs of modernity. Some work interestingly as a way to break conventions (this time, Dorian has affairs with both men and women, in the novel he is adored by men, specially his acquaintances but there's no indication of deeper relationships); others are there to create a sense of horror non present in the Wilde's work. It would be a greater film if director Oliver Parker wouldn't turn this into a MTVesque kind of project, poorly edited and strangely written, throwing the eloquence, the tasty dialogs and the wit of one of the greatest novels of all time, a powerful criticism of the moralistic Victorian Era. It's a weird movie that has admirable moments. The only thing this version has that it's better than the 1945's film is the actor playing Dorian. Everything's perfect in that film except for Hurd Hatfield playing the title role. He was classy but it's not someone you would imagine as being ridiculously beautiful like Ben Barnes is. Although playing such role is probably the worst curse that can ever happen to an actor (Hatfield almost doesn't have any other role), since we're dealing with a character that just happens to be handsome, do everything that pleases him and there's no great pleasure or challenge in playing such role, the hedonism part was well captured here and this Dorian seemed to enjoy life more than the other Dorian's I've seen. And let's face it: Barnes is a watchable Dorian. However, good acting wasn't much of a positive point here from almost anyone, and even great names like Firth can disappoint. Rebecca Hall manages to rise above and delivers good moments as Wotton's daughter, appearing in last third of the movie. It's a little impossible to do great harm to a literary classic such as "The Portrait of Dorian Gray" is, and the movie doesn't fail all that much. It's decent despite its strangeness and problems - it was really bizarre seeing the story jumping until the 1910's. OK version, doesn't replace the novel, so if you're thinking of skipping it and watch this instead because you have a test to do, you're gonna flunk big time. 6/10

KineticSeoul Some critics seem to bash on this flick comparing to the novel. I personally thought it was a pretty decent movie and had enough substance to carry the movie with some good dark atmosphere going for it. The moral of the novel basically came down to the difference between pleasures and happiness. And it did a pretty good job of visually showing that in this movie. Ben Barnes or Prince Caspian who I think Hollywood is trying to sale as the next Johnny Depp is alright as Dorian Gray. He needs more better acting chops but he fit the look and change in character well. Colin Firth in this plays Henry Wotton, who claims the only thing in life worth having is youth and beauty. And is basically the tempter who drives Dorian Gray into madness. The novel also had to do with the inner nature of men and how a lot of people tend to wear masks because they are too afraid to show who we really are. In this case the ugliness of Dorian Gray begins to show in a painting drawn of him. Even if he stays forever young and handsome in his outward appearance he is rotting in the inside. Which I thought was pretty unique when it came to the novel, since in today's society. The outward appearance means more in the human eyes than what is underneath. Again if you constantly compare this flick to the book you will probably be disappointed. But if you look at this flick as just a adaptation that focuses a lot on the visuals but also has some substance to back it up. You just might enjoy it. But it's not a faithful adaptation from the novel.7.3/10