Dorian Gray (2009) - Edit 1
Before modification by ironclad at 26/12/2009 11:58:28 AM
It has been many years since I read The Picture of Dorian Gray and since it was a slow week with the holidays and all I have been catching up on some movies and TV shows. I decided to check this movie out and thought I would share my thoughts on it with all of you.
For those unfamiliar let me say that the book is a classic from Oscar Wilde and portrays the life of Dorian Gray who makes a kind of Faustian deal in which his sins are transferred into a portrait painting of him thus allowing him to experience the thralls of an extreme hedonism without paying the price physically for those sins. I don't want to revel the end of the story so let me stop there and just recommend the book for all those reading this movie review. It is a quick read and a classic and well worth reading if you enjoy classic literature.
So, on with the movie review! First, I will say that I thought the casting was very good. Ben Barnes does an excellent job of playing both a naive Dorian as well as a corrupted, hedonistic Dorian. He maintains excellent control of the role throughout the movie. Likewise, Colin Firth plays an excellent Lord Henry Wotton and Ben Chaplin nails Basil on the head. The Basil in this movie is very much like what I have always imagined Basil being like in the Wilde book.
That said, the only real disappointment for me was Rachel Hurd-Wood who played Sybil. Honestly, she just looked flat out ugly in the movie and her voice and mannerisms were just unappealing in every way. They could have cast her a lot better.
The scenery and setting was also very nice and convincing. I felt like the movie was really taking place in late 1800's and early 1900's London. The dress, wardrobe, and make-up was done well also.
As for the plot, there are variations from the original storyline, but I think the variations work and they don't seem to take away too much from the story. That said, there are some points in the movie where I just wanted them to hurry up and move on. I think the main problem in the plot movement is the writer's attempts to portray to the audience the corruption of Dorian's soul through his endless hedonism. At times the hazy scenes of opium and women just seem a little too much, a little stretched thin, almost unneeded. The ending is somewhat different from the book but maintains the spirit of the book.
Overall, I think the movie is a decent watch on a rainy afternoon or an evening in. The movie won't blow your socks off or anything, it won't be winning any awards but it stays pretty true to the points of the book and contains some good casting and backdrop. I give it 3 out of 5 stars.
For those unfamiliar let me say that the book is a classic from Oscar Wilde and portrays the life of Dorian Gray who makes a kind of Faustian deal in which his sins are transferred into a portrait painting of him thus allowing him to experience the thralls of an extreme hedonism without paying the price physically for those sins. I don't want to revel the end of the story so let me stop there and just recommend the book for all those reading this movie review. It is a quick read and a classic and well worth reading if you enjoy classic literature.
So, on with the movie review! First, I will say that I thought the casting was very good. Ben Barnes does an excellent job of playing both a naive Dorian as well as a corrupted, hedonistic Dorian. He maintains excellent control of the role throughout the movie. Likewise, Colin Firth plays an excellent Lord Henry Wotton and Ben Chaplin nails Basil on the head. The Basil in this movie is very much like what I have always imagined Basil being like in the Wilde book.
That said, the only real disappointment for me was Rachel Hurd-Wood who played Sybil. Honestly, she just looked flat out ugly in the movie and her voice and mannerisms were just unappealing in every way. They could have cast her a lot better.
The scenery and setting was also very nice and convincing. I felt like the movie was really taking place in late 1800's and early 1900's London. The dress, wardrobe, and make-up was done well also.
As for the plot, there are variations from the original storyline, but I think the variations work and they don't seem to take away too much from the story. That said, there are some points in the movie where I just wanted them to hurry up and move on. I think the main problem in the plot movement is the writer's attempts to portray to the audience the corruption of Dorian's soul through his endless hedonism. At times the hazy scenes of opium and women just seem a little too much, a little stretched thin, almost unneeded. The ending is somewhat different from the book but maintains the spirit of the book.
Overall, I think the movie is a decent watch on a rainy afternoon or an evening in. The movie won't blow your socks off or anything, it won't be winning any awards but it stays pretty true to the points of the book and contains some good casting and backdrop. I give it 3 out of 5 stars.