|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 2 posts ] |
|
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
Author |
Message |
Nebs
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:01 pm Posts: 6385
|
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
The Picture of Dorian GrayQuote: The Picture of Dorian Gray is an American horror-drama film based on Oscar Wilde's 1891 novel of the same name. Released in March 1945 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the film is directed by Albert Lewin and stars George Sanders as Lord Henry Wotton and Hurd Hatfield as Dorian Gray. Shot primarily in black-and-white, the film features two inserts in 3-strip Technicolor of Dorian's portrait as a special effect (one of his portrait's original state, and the second after a major period of degeneracy).
_________________ ---!!---!!!!!!-11!!---!!---11---11!!!--!!--
|
Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:42 am |
|
|
trixster
loyalfromlondon
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm Posts: 19697 Location: ville-marie
|
Re: The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
It's faithful enough to the novel without being boring, and it's surprisingly sharp-witted, considering the overall feel of it. It manages to make Wilde's wordy prose and dialogue feel natural enough - George Sanders is particularly terrific as basically Wilde himself - and this means it keeps the themes and message of the novel without adapting it word-for-word. In that case, it's a relatively impressive adaptation.
Still, there's not a lot to it. The lead's stone-faced performance is either brilliant or terrible, depending on how you want to look at it, and the portrait itself isn't showcased enough (though its horrible unveiling, in full Technicolour, is one of the film's highlights). The whole thing looks beautiful enough, but there's not a lot of horror to it. None of it is scary or frightening. There's no passion to it. It's a very dry film.
I'd say the positives outweigh the negatives, as it's enjoyable and entertaining enough, but there's a lot here that could be done better. A full-throttled remake could be something really special. Unfortunately, all we've got is a bunch of half-baked BBC stuff and some low-budget shit that never sees the light of day. Shame.
_________________Magic Mike wrote: zwackerm wrote: If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes. Same. Algren wrote: I don't think. I predict.
|
Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:05 pm |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 2 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|