The story is obviously good, but this take on it rarely exceeds. The visual work is decent, a few scenes are hilarious and the depictions of vice and decadence are very good, but passage of time and change of character are poorly handled. I'm not so sure about the use of animation either.

The CG effects with the painting were overdone and hacky, but beyond that, where's the problem? It's a great story done well enough and Colin Firth is great as Wotton. It's not a timeless classic but it doesn't do nearly enough harm to the story to make it unwatachable.

Sub-Tim Burton-gothic take on Wilde with twice the heavy-handed symbolism and little of the zest.

Ben Barnes is way too bland to carry off the lead role with any sense of style, but other than that it isn't too bad. Firth puts in a good performance as the sage manipulator, a cross between Machiavelli and Dr Frankenstein, orchestrating Gray's descent into debauchery for his own amusement. It gets a bit schlocky towards the end, but is reminiscent of an old-school Hammer horror picture. Not great, but fun to watch.

I didn't enjoy Dorian Gray, and I didn't think it did a good job of translating Oscar Wilde's novel to the big screen. It falls mostly on the acting of Ben Barnes in the lead role, who is outshined by the supporting cast and doesn't bring any emotion to his role. Maybe that's the point later on, but early in the film, he's supposed to be enjoying himself. Instead, he -- and by extension, I -- was stone-faced throughout the film, leading to a boring experience.

Fine Cult

It's alright. The general story is intriguing but ultimately the painting is used for cheap scares rather than constant foreboding and a hideous reminder as to Gray's life of debauchery. Colin Firth is impressive and Ben Barnes does an adequate job but nothing stands out as impressive in any way. Ultimately this feels like a poor man's Perfume: The Story of a Murderer than anything else.

a complete failure, another perfume, why do they keep repeating movies!!!?

You just can not ruin that book. Dorian Gray was not a story of horror or limitless sex, that was something of, well read the book.

They should have left the picture to the imagination as the movie went on, the horror vibe surrounding it would have gone down a lot better. I liked the Victorian imagery, the time transition and the failed romances were great. A good movie that didn%u2019t leave any lasting message for me %u2013 I heard the book was supposed to be more to the point and the movie might make more people check that out.

Good. One of the greatest studies in vanity brought to the screen with amazing performances, great atmosphere and set pieces, tragically all almost ruined by ham-handed direction. But still all's not lost. Ben Barnes portrays a most beautiful Mr Gray and Colin Firth is excellent as his uncertain corrupter. Couple that with an equally good supporting cast and this remains a very watchable flick. Recommended.

Huge disappointment.

The main story in Oscar Wildes (sligthly overrated) novel is the best thing about it but even that gets ruined by bad screenplay and directing. It doesnt come close to the atmosphere or the subtle horror of the novel and misses the general feel by a mile. Colin Firth and Rebecca Hall are good but wasted.

I was wondering how they'd manage the complexty of the book. Well, they didn't. Why would the painting giggle like an old sailor?

oh hey look, another instance of my favorite book completely ruined. remember Stuart Townsend in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? yeah.

Bad directing, bad main character cast (imo!), and silly thriller CGI scenes with the picture are enough to wonder whether this movie was really inspired by the Oscar Wilde's renowned novel. The setting is great, but the movie just has too many flaws to function. Quite a disappointment.

There is certainly much to like, particularly the performances, but every time the painting went 'BLAAARGH!' I started laughing, and I don't think that's what they were going for.