Interesteg What makes it different from others?

ThiefHott Too much of everything

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Vomitron_G Basically, transporting it to a modern day setting should be enough to do the trick. Christ on a stick, this was a lamentable film. It will never be the worst film ever, nor is it so badly made it sucks hairy balls. But given the fact this was based on Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray", they sure turned it into an atrocity.The easiest thing to do, was to set the story in the world of models & fashion photography (eternal youth & beauty, right?). Yawn, how original. Furthermore, this film suffers that hard from looking "so nineties", that it hurts. A lot. Ridiculous and worn-out fashion concepts, the photo-shoots are so clichéd (and you should see the result - no artistic value whatsoever), a lot of uninspired pop/rock songs for no reason on the soundtrack, lots of cheap but oh-so-hip at the time editing effects, glossy & shallow sensuality, polished soft sex scenes, art-farty 'beau monde' parties, an artificial fragrance of decadence,... Should I go on?I've seen decadence in the world of fashion portrayed with more flair in a grotesque B-flick like "Night Angel" (1990). I've seen art, photography, evil & mirrors handled better in horror sequel romp like "Amityville: A New Generation" (1993). You think those are great movies? That should say enough about how good a job this "Dorian" did on a classic story. I've also seen great Edgar Allan Poe stories all mangled up and poured into some 'sorority girls' slasher-format in "Buried Alive" (1990), not exactly the most faithful of adaptations. But I'm sure if they'd turned this "Dorian" into a slasher, it would have been a better stupid movie.You can tell Malcolm McDowell had some fun playing his part, as Dorian's (evil) mentor, but it's far less fun seeing him play it. The whole film pretty much bores you along, and so does McDowell after a while.Have the Hughes Brothers make a new "Dorian Gray" movie with a Victorian London setting and give us decent adaptation. It would be for more pleasing looking forward to such a project than suffering through the umpteenth unimaginative Hollywood re-make of any given horror film these days. Or maybe I could check out that 2009 version with Colin Firth. It surely should have more appeal than this trite.

wes-connors The story is familiar - recall, original novelist Oscar Wilde's "Dorian" wished his painting would grow old whilst he remain young. Like in days of old, handsome male model Ethan Erickson (as Louis) wishes for eternal youth. Then, while one of his pictures ages, he becomes the ageless "Dorian" of the title. Like his predecessors, Mr. Erickson descends into decadent debauchery. A charismatic older mentor, Malcolm McDowell (as Henry), eggs him on...Re-titled "Pact with the Devil".Allan A. Goldstein's updated "Dorian" alters the story in ways that become nonsensical. The main problem occurs by making Mr. McDowell's character semi-Faustian. To have McDowell in the cast, and render his character inexplicable, should be a crime. Erickson, an extremely good-looking man, is also slighted by a faltering characterization - in an early scene, he is required to pretend he couldn't imagine someone thinking he could be a pin-up boy? And, Jennifer Nitsch (as Bae) has an undeveloped, but intriguing, back-story.**** Dorian (2001) Allan A. Goldstein ~ Ethan Erickson, Malcolm McDowell, Jennifer Nitsch, Christoph Waltz

jotix100 The title of the movie, as shown by Showtime, the other night, was "A Pact with the Devil". It didn't ring a bell as anything seen locally in recent years. The idea of seeing a film with Malcolm McDowell in it, and nothing else worth watching in the other channels, played a trick on us. We witnessed in horror, a remake of the Oscar Wilde's novel "The Picture of Dorian Gray" that has nothing to do with the classic, and much better film, of 1945.Under the direction of Allan A. Goldstein, we are taken, where else, to the world of the super models, where beauty is only skin deep. Henry, who stands as the Devil, tempts Louis into giving his soul in exchange of keeping his good looks forever, duh! Incredibly, we watch as the picture of Louis, now renamed Dorian, ages in ways that are not realistic, at all. I mean, a few wrinkles, we could understand, but making the image in the photograph, taken by Henry, a monster, is pushing reality a bit too far.Malcom McDowell, who is an otherwise excellent actor, lends himself to this misguided attempt to retell something that was better done before and should have been left alone by the people behind this travesty.Watch it at your own risk.

bloodshed666 well, not very much more to tell then, yes, it's a modern adaption of oscar wilde's classic "the picture of dorian gray". competent and completely irrelevant tv-flic, nothing which makes it worth to watch it or even rent or buy. it's set nowadays within the professional model scene where a manager discovers a new talent. and one of the first pictures he takes of him is this "picture of dorian gray" which ages instead of him. "dorian" makes this pact with the manager who seems to be the devil or something. and when the picture gets destroyed he dies, yeahyeah, you know the story I guess. nothing really to mention about this movie except that it is not really boring, o.k. if you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do and they screen it on t.v. oh yes, malcolm mcdowell has some cool & evil facial expressions (but always repeating the same) and the director allan a. goldstein also did "death wish V" with charles bronson - and this last comment was for the nerds, hehe...