Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Apr 20, 2024 9:16 am



Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
 The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) 

What grade would you give this film?
A 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
B 100%  100%  [ 1 ]
C 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
D 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
F 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 1

 The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) 
Author Message
 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:01 pm
Posts: 6385
Post The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
The Picture of Dorian Gray

Image

Quote:
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
Profile WWW
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post 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
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.