Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Dorian Gray (2009)

Director: Oliver Parker

Time Out rating

Average user rating

35 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Read our report from the set of the film here

Unlike ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’ or ‘An Ideal Husband’, whose Wildean theories are buried deeper beneath their stories, ‘Dorian Gray’ is a book of more explicit, often difficult ideas.

So it’s no surprise that Oliver Parker (‘St Trinians’), in his third Wilde film adaptation, has stripped out some of the more heady debates about art, beauty and the like, not least because he’s aiming for the sort of younger audience attracted by the casting of Ben Barnes (from the recent ‘Narnia’ films) as Gray. So the focus is on the surface narrative of Wilde’s novel: Gray’s ascent in London society on the arm of Lord Henry Wotton (Colin Firth) and his later descent on the arm of his own vanity as he sinisterly fails to age while a youthful portrait of himself in his attic turns into a painting of an elderly ogre.

What newcomer Toby Finlay’s sometimes daring script brings to the party is both a shift in time so that the story ends in the early 1920s and the addition of a possible redemptive love interest in the person of Emily Wotton (Rebecca Hall), Lord Henry’s daughter, and a stick with which the story tries to beat her Machiavellian father for his earlier misdeeds. These are interesting ideas, but they would work better if there was more decadence on show earlier on to nail Gray’s corruption: his initial flights of abandon in the city’s opium dens and brothels are not seedy enough and his rejection of his girlfriend Sybil (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is not as powerful or central as it should be (Hurd-Wood’s acting doesn’t help).

But things look up from the halfway point as Gray’s murder of an associate – and its dreadful effect on him – is claustrophobic enough to convince, and the film is particularly interesting when presenting Dorian as a Victorian out of time, pitching him against the Edwardian age, the car and the suffrage movement. Barnes’s ability to handle his character’s strange psychological journey is limited: he’s upstaged by the painting itself, which doesn’t just age; it putrefies, maggots and all.

Read our report from the set of the film here

Author: Dave Calhoun

Time Out London Issue 2038, 10-16 Sept 2009

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

talal said...

Posted on Jan 17 2012 21:52 beauty is temporary thing its change with the thinking of a person son make your thinkings good and believe on your self because ur a the best......

Report as inappropriate
smar said...

Posted on Dec 29 2011 22:21 Rubbish through and through shame

Report as inappropriate
DORIAN GRAY said...

Posted on Oct 24 2011 20:47 The film was noticeably better than the black and white version which simply did not do me justice at all. And
I much preferred Ben playning me than Hurd Hatfield.
Pip Pip!

Report as inappropriate
Angela said...

Posted on Oct 19 2011 21:09 How could you guys say this????? All of the cast and crew for this movie tried sooooo hard. I'd like to see you make a better movie!

Report as inappropriate
Dorian Gray said...

Posted on May 25 2011 00:46 Most people seem to not be enjoying this film but I did. I read the book before I saw the film and thoroughly enjoyed it, Ben Barnes was brilliant as Dorian Gray and made a shiver run down my spine as he played the dark side of Dorian with the public image so brilliantly. Colin Firth was AMAZING! he was perfect in the evil role of Harry Wotton. And Basil was amazing as well I truly felt sorry for him.
yes I loved this story even if others didn't.

Report as inappropriate
Laura-Anne said...

Posted on Apr 04 2011 13:23 This film is a complete disaster! The acting is bad, the filming is bad and worst of all, it has ripped to shreds a magnificent piece of literary art written by the great and wonderful Oscar Wilde. I cannot believe this film was allowed to air and I find it disgusting that it even associates itself with the book.
Absolutely nothing like the book - the only similarity is the concept of the portrait ageing and Gray not. Totally unrelated in every other way including the fact that some of Wilde's most famous and witty quotes seem to have been erradicated from existence.
Very very disappointed in this film - although to be fair I was not expecting much as no man could capture what Wilde was about nowadays.
Made me furious to watch as it was turned into a porno almost and it is sad to see what the uneducated masses will watch and enjoy.

Report as inappropriate
Abbie said...

Posted on Nov 22 2010 21:35 Well I have to say, I just didn't get the flm at all. It all seemed pretty pointless.
*SPOILER ALERT*
I mean, its just a guy who gets mortality, then abuses it a bit, kills a few people, then dies at the end.
Whats with that?

Report as inappropriate
Sam said...

Posted on May 20 2010 00:02 Overall I liked this film very much. After initially seeing the posters for it with Ben Barnes glowering down at the camera and sporting the rather unoriginal tag: "Forever young. Forever cursed." I thought it would be very one-dimensional. However, Barnes delivers the goods! From his initial boyish wide-eyed look, to his growing cynicism and bored aspect as the film progresses, I always found him watchable. But the real star of the show is Colin Firth. Perfectly cast as the dastardly Lord Henry, he keeps the film spiralling down into dark, menacing, lustrous horror then picks it up towards the end to give it a more repentant feel. I thought the choice of setting the latter part of the story in the 20s worked extremely well, as did the introduction of Rebecca Hall's vigorously humorous heroine, who offers our doomed anti-hero a shot at redemption that we, the audience, desperately hope will succeed. The direction is assured, with plenty of interesting camera shots and music use (or lack of: the scene where Dorian kills for the first time is almost completely silent, which sends genuine chills down the spine!) although at times the use of quick-cutting shots to emphasise the mechanics of Dorian's mind and his thought process feel a little self-indulgent. The supporting cast are superb, Fiona Shaw and Emilia Fox as women in Lord Henry's life, as well as the excellent Ben Chaplin as Basil, the jealous artist who sees what an effect Henry's corruption is having on Dorian too late to stop it. In the latter half, set 25 years (or so) later, the make-up is truly superb, ramming home the difference between the eternally youthful Dorian and all his old friends, who have withered in his absence. The choice to keep the audience from seeing the painting before the very end, except for a few fleeting glimpses of maggots and creeping decay, is very effective, as it builds up great tension and expectation. Finally, the restrained use of CGI (saving most of it for the end - Dorian's battle with his painting) also adds a touch of finesse to the overall piece, making it all the more shocking when we finally do come to it. Apart from a few minor niggles about costume and Rachael Hurd-Wood's performance as Dorian's initial love interest, this is a faithful yet inventive adaptation of Oscar Wilde's classic that manages to feel a lot longer than 2 hours!

Report as inappropriate
Helena said...

Posted on Feb 16 2010 10:51 I quite enjoyd this film. Having read the book before hand- the only downside to it i thought was Emily. I didn't think they should have introduced a new character... as for Colin Firth, I thought he was brilliant! Ben Barnes, did look a little like a vampire, but his acting was good. Besides, it could have been worse! i thought it was a good film :)

Report as inappropriate
Andrea said...

Posted on Jan 21 2010 21:39 Okay guys, I'm sorry the movie was absolutely disgusting. About the only part that was great was the part where they showed his painting and how horrific is looks. Otherwise the movie sucked... REALLY BAD! It seems like the director rushed it justs so he could be done with it because there are so many events missing and so many ideas he could've done, but it was a boilerplate. I don't recommend this film, you're better off reading the book yourself and just making your own movie. I also think it's an insult to Oscar Wilde considering the book was so great and to have a film of the movie suck so bad is embarrassing. If he were alive he would probably murder him just as Dorian did to Basil.

Report as inappropriate
critic said...

Posted on Jan 21 2010 12:14 i thought it was great. The story is dark humoured, and thought provoking thriller. well doneand jolly good show.

Report as inappropriate
Nic Niewart said...

Posted on Jan 19 2010 16:19 About the only thing Colin Firth looks capable of corrupting you to do is to cheekily reuse some postage stamps or to take several sachets of tomato ketchup from McDonalds. Badly cast. Flat direction. Not a patch on the original- with spfx you could have had the monster in the picture doing bad things and then had the duality of good versus evil/pretty versus ugly/age versus youth. It would have been something. But the film is just plain dull. Alas, it goes into the bottom bin marked "Genova and others".

Report as inappropriate
Andrea said...

Posted on Nov 23 2009 22:57 I have not yet seen the film, but for all you people comparing this movie to the book how preposterous! A movie is a movie and a book is a book. You cannot compare the two elements for they are not the same, Now if there was a another movie of Dorian Gray you can compare those two, but hey if the movie was good give it it's props. -Andrea

Report as inappropriate
_Matt_1977_ said...

Posted on Oct 15 2009 17:05 This is a nice horror film - not a vampire film, but quite an intelligent variation on some of the themes of vampire films. Not all the anticipated twists materialise - and that's good. But some of them do, which is a shame. Still, aesthetically nice, worth watching, with an undercurrent of darkness.
...
Comparing it to recent offerings, this was better than Pandorum, but not as good as District 9.

Report as inappropriate
Cappybear said...

Posted on Oct 07 2009 18:01 Overlong costume drama with every point hammered home in case it escaped your notice, and which seems even poorer having slept on it for a night. I haven't read Wilde's novel, but preferred the 1945 film adaptation. My wife didn't think much of it either. Colin Firth tries his best and Rebecca Hall is as watchable as ever, but all in all, a turkey, and no mistake.

Report as inappropriate