User reviews

I saw this film for the first time over the weekend, drawn to it I'm ashamed to say for the fact that it contained Orlando Bloom's debut appearance, all one line of it. I was pleasantly surprised to discover Jude Law as Lord Alfred 'Bosie' Douglas as well, making this film highly appealing to the voyeurs of the world. However distracting these heavenly creatures are though, they do become quite rightly overshadowed by Stephen Fry in a role that could not be more perfect for him if it were based on fiction rather than fact.

I have been a fan of Oscar Wilde for some time, and this film gave amazingly accurate insight into the life of a great Irish literary. Indeed, many a speech by Stephen Fry has been quoted word for word from the actual trial monologues, and the uncanny resemblance of Fry to Wilde himself is astounding.

'Wilde' proved to be entertaining and beautiful, maintaining the historical biopic status is revels in, but never drawing away from the fact that this story is of real people and real events.

So much can be gained by observing the prejudices of the past, and such sadness realized from knowing the suffering of those who were not meant for their time.

'Wilde' deserves credit in all aspects from accuracy to acting, direction and scene, it is a beautiful film and a credit not only the cast and crew, but to Oscar Wilde himself.

I've seen Oscar Wilde portrayed on film before. I remember Robert Morley and also Peter Finch. They both provided inklings into the heart and mind of of one of the literary giants of the 19th Century. But one aspect of the tragedy, because, let's face it, it is a tragedy. His relationship with Alfred Douglas that in a very direct way, will mark his destiny. It was so difficult to believe that Peter Finch's Wilde will go to war for someone like John Frazer's Bosie. Good looking yes but devoid of the most important element, if you are going to believe in the power that Bosie had over Wilde. Finch and Frazer have the sexual chemistry of two slices of white bread but here, in this 1997 Wilde with Stephen Fry in the title role the mystery is revealed, Jude Law makes the whole thing totally believable. The desire he inspires we see in Oscar Wilde's eyes. Stephen Fry is another Humbert Humbert to Jude Law's Lolita. Amazing when the most incomprehensible action becomes totally understandable in the face of an actor. That alone, makes this Wilde my favorite.

This film biography of Oscar Wilde is a showcase for Stephen Fry. He not only looks like Wilde, he breaths life into the many passages from Wilde's writings that are woven into the screenplay. The difference between reading Wilde and experiencing Fry's performance is like reading Shakespeare and seeing Olivier perform. An evening listening to Fry read from Wilde's works would be worth paying a tidy sum to attend.

I had no idea that Wilde had married young to Constance Lloyd (Jennifer Ehle in a fine performance) and had two adorable boys by her. In an effective plot device, periodically throughout the movie Wilde reads to his sons from his children's story, "The Selfish Giant." The readings are presented in a way that cleverly integrates the storyline of the writing with the storyline of the movie, with Wilde being the selfish giant. And how many people know that Wilde wrote children's stories?

There are many examples given of Wilde's biting wit, such as, "Give a man a mask and he will tell you the truth," "The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast," and "I find that alcohol, taken in sufficient quantities, can bring about all the effects of drunkenness." Fry delivers these with perfect tone.

Of course a good part of the movie is devoted to Wilde's arrest and ultimate imprisonment for "indecent acts" with Lord Alfred Douglas (Jude Law). Wilde truly did live his life in accordance with his comment, "Where your life leads you, you must go. I defy society." As presented here, Wilde is a courageous and sensitive man who was forced into a tragedy by the strictures of a hidebound society. In current America most would judge his infractions with mild distaste at worst.

There are some disconcerting transitions, mostly in scenes with Lord Douglas. Douglas is seen to have a volatile personality. He could be needy and tender, but he could also be a first-class ass and manipulator with an explosive temper. His fits of anger seemed exaggerated and disrupted the tone of the movie. I had a similar reaction to the sex scenes in terms of disrupting the flow. Robbie's initial advances were abrupt and without foundation. The explicit sex scenes between Wilde and Lord Douglas would have been better hinted at than seen - their kisses and embraces could well be imagined but they felt incongruous and unbelievable in the flesh.

Wilde was much more than a wit. He could express emotions with eloquence. Consider this quote about encountering a previous lover after a hiatus of a few years:

"Life cheats us with shadows. We ask it for pleasure, it gives it to us with bitterness and disappointment in its train. And we find ourselves looking with dull heart of stone at the tresses of gold-flecked hair that we once had so wildly worshiped and so madly kissed."

The movie is nicely filmed with a good musical score. I wound up liking it more after having thought about it.

Watching this has expanded my appreciation for Wilde as a writer and as a person - I have been left wanting to know more about him and his work.

This film was one of the best to appear in the late 90s, and is a sensitive, involving, honest and moving biography of one of the greatest writers of the Victorian era, the infamous Oscar Wilde.

More realistic and better played than previous studies of the writer (Robert Morley and Peter Finch both played Wilde in the 1950s), this film benefits greatly from a cracking performance by Stephen Fry in the lead. Not even regarded as an actor, more of a comedian, prior to this, Fry (himself gay, and something of an intellectual) puts across all the nuances and contradictions of the subject perfectly.

This Wilde is torn between what is accepted love (his wife, and children), and the 'love that dare not speak its name' (primarily his destructive relationship with the needy, selfish and petulant Lord Alfred Douglas, played here by Jude Law in the role which brought him to world attention). We see his charm and conviction when creating his plays or amusing friends, we also see his weaker side and why he was the cause of his own eventual arrest and imprisonment, we see how prison changed him and - as he wrote himself in De Profundis - broke his spirit and his health.

Watch out for other, now big, names in the cast - Ioan Gruffudd, Michael Sheen, Orlando Bloom - alongside the established players such as Vanessa Redgrave (Oscar's mother, Sperenza), Jennifer Ehle (Lady Constance Wilde), Tom Wilkinson (Marquess of Queensbury, Bosie's father), Gemma Jones (Bosie's mother), and Judy Parfitt.

A fitting musical score, a smattering of Wilde's epigrams, and a large chunk of his children's story 'The Selfish Giant' (driving and commenting on the action at key points) leave this film close to perfection when detailing the story of the misunderstanding of another age, not too far back from our own.

The mid-life years of (now genteel) decadent behavior by one of late Victorian England's celebrities, the Irish-born novelist-poet-playwright Oscar Wills Wilde (1854–1900). Director Brian Gilbert doesn't bandy about giving us the childhood torments of a literary genius; instead, he and screenwriter Julian Mitchell delve right into the more prominent chapters of Wilde's life, his marriage to a woman--producing two children--before realizing his homosexual desires, leading to some promiscuous indiscretions before finding love with churlish, childish poet Lord Alfred Douglas. Stephen Fry gives a masterful performance as Wilde, and the portrait allows for many shadings (this isn't a plea for the misunderstood gay artist, as Wilde himself is shown to be occasionally fickle, lusting, and selfish). Jude Law is equally good as ornery, demanding lover 'Bosie', whose tyrannical father brought about a court-case and two-year jail term for Wilde (covered previously in 1960's "The Man with the Green Carnation"), contributing to his early demise. A provoking, insightful, eloquent film--not at all stuffy or coy--which is due in large part to Gilbert's dexterous way with his actors and a keen sense of pacing and audience-involvement. *** from ****

Wilde is a film about a man's passions destroying his life. Oscar Wilde was a very interesting man and discovered his dormant homosexuality late in life. The film was very tragic in a lot of ways. The love story between Wilde and Douglas was venomous and sweet. The performances by Jude Law and Stephen Fry were top notch. The direction was a little sluggish I thought and the film could have been better paced. The production design was great though and I loved listening to Wilde's sarcasm of the British class system. If you are a fan of Oscar Wilde, you will probably like this film more than the average movie fan.

"Wilde" is an episodic, Masterpiece Theatre-style look at the famous playwright Oscar Wilde and his notorious trial and imprisonment upon sodomy charges at the turn of the last century. While not a penetrating or in-depth look into Wilde's character, it does keep your interest with a fast moving look at a fascinating life.

Unfortunately, the film begins with an already famous Wilde, and gives us no real insight into his beginnings or character. Stephen Fry is an inspired physical choice as Wilde, but is content to show us only a genteel, endlessly patient and saintly man, whom young men are constantly throwing themselves at. One longs to see a more multi-faceted depiction. (Also, there's a distractingly awful makeup job in the prison scene with his wife toward the end, looks like he's coated with gray paint!)

The gay sex scenes which some other commenters have alluded negatively to are actually pretty mild, I thought - some kissing and hugging, some rather discreet huffing and puffing under the sheets, and a few bare buttocks. Nothing anyone would get worked up over if it were a man and a woman doing it onscreen, so why the double standard?

A special word of praise to Zoe Wanamaker, who plays Wilde's society friend "Sphinx", and who is acerbic and wonderful in her few scenes - one wanted to see much more of her!

Playwright, celebrated wit and persecuted homosexual Oscar Wilde is excellently portrayed by Stephen Fry in this biopic but without a hint of the expected waspishness. Instead, we see Wilde as a kindly, sensitive, almost avuncular man. What's more surprising is the parallel absence of manifest sordidness, self-loathing, or desperation, which one might have assumed would have been par for the course in an age where homosexuality was stigmatised and criminal. But as 'Wilde' tells it, Oscar, on discovering his true nature in early middle age, then enjoyed a number of halcyon years in a gay literary milieu, tensioned only by the childish behaviour of his lover, Bosie, and was taken quite by surprise when he suddenly became a figure of public scandal. Which may have been the case, but it makes for a less pressing and gripping drama than one might have hoped for. What's interesting is Wilde's defence in court, which has very little to do with "normal" homosexual behaviour or ordinary human relationships, but which rather comprised a divine idealisation of the bond between a wise older person and a beautiful younger one: hardly the sort of argument that gay rights campaigners would make today. A special credit should go to the team responsible for allowing Fry to appear so convincingly both a dashing young twenty year old and a ruined man, on the verge of death. But this is a mild and indulgent film.

Not really knowing alot about the life of Oscar Wilde, I looked forward to viewing this film, hoping that it would fill in one of the many gaps in my education. I was not disappointed.

This is a film of exceptional human warmth and I can highly recommend it. It deals matter-of-factly with the "issue" of homosexuality, it doesn't condemn or condone what happened in Wilde's private life, the viewer just gets a look at the man underneath the legend.

Stephen Fry does a great job as the title role, making Wilde a sympathetic character with whom the audience empathises. How he contrasts with the Marquess of Queensbury! I will long remember the confrontation between the two men, with Wilde giving as good as he gets against the Marquess' pathological hatred.

Jude Law gives an expert performance as Bosie (or Lord Alfred Douglas), with his deeply contrasting nature shown to full effect, sometimes being tender and loving, at other times changing into a screaming "madman".

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and can heartily recommend it to anyone who likes good films.

I saw this film a day after I first saw Ken Hughes' "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" (1960). Seeing them both in rapid succession is an often-confusing experience that makes one want to run straight to the nearest Wilde biography to find out exactly what is the true story.

That is, they present pretty much the same sequence of events, though with greatly differing perspectives. The most obvious being that of Wilde's sexuality. Now, whether it is because of Fry being cast in the lead role for the 97 movie (who was famously quoted as being "90% homosexual") or that the earlier film wouldn't have got past the censors, the two takes on the character are wildly different. While it can be interpreted that Peter Finch's Oscar and John Fraser are lovers, it is generally presented that they are not, and that Wilde was the innocent victim of a blackmail attempt that cost him his reputation. Certainly, the half-dozen or so "witnesses" in his trial are identified as criminals, not as "renters", and there is no nudity or profanity in what would then have already been a controversial film.

While the former may have presented a more sympathetic edge, being authorised by Wilde's son, the latter presents an Oscar and Lord Alfred "Bosie" Douglas that are not only homosexuals, but also, Bosie especially, promiscuous ones. This also casts a different light on the trial sequences, where what was an innocent man wrongly convicted, becomes a man who, while not deserving of conviction, lacks the courage to admit his true nature. This also seems rather harsh on Constance, a woman whom he marries as "I have to marry someone". Jennifer Ehle is used for appearance' sake in this film, though in the 1960 picture Constance as played by Yvonne Mitchell is someone he once loved, yet merely bores him. On the other hand, Jude Law is convincing as the sort of man Wilde could have a sexual relationship with, while John Fraser strikes more of a masculine, "buddy" role in the previous film. What I missed in the second movie was the drama, such as when Wilde begs "Bosie" in tears not to kill him while in Brighton. With "Wilde" we don't really get to know the characters to the same degree, and all but Fry and Law are peripheral in its construction.

Fry, meanwhile, almost matches Finch's portrayal with a softer, more vulnerable Wilde that seems less at ease in front of an audience. I was amazed when I found out that Wilde is only five minutes shorter than "Trials" - it seems far less, it's construction not as rigid. Maybe this is because it tries to tell so much more: the story begins before his soulless marriage to Constance, and continues after the point at which Trials concludes. Neither, however, features Wilde's death, though the Fry vehicle does have a postscript to account for this. Less coherent, Wilde lacks the pace or form of its predecessor. Where the Hughes film had a clear plot, Oscar caught between a father-son feud, this only forms after several minutes in the later film, and with less attention to Wilde's degeneration in the public eye. The major flaw with the second movie, is, of course, what the playwright was most renowned for: his wit. Where Peter Finch gets to try his hand at the best of Oscar's quips - at least until his eventual downfall - Stephen Fry gets but a handful of one-liners to try out. Rather like casting a man in the role of Jesus and not letting him utter a psalm or perform a miracle.

The pace of each individual scene is longer, with classical music adding an easier pace, meaning large jumps in time must account for it's leisurely style. Two ways in which the second film does score over it's older relation is in Wilde's incarceration and the settings. In truth, the settings are very much a matter of personal taste, and "Trials" must be commended for having no outside filming, and conducting it's many horse-drawn carriages in the studio. Wilde, meanwhile, takes full advantage of rich countryside and stately homes to present its vision. And whereas for the former we got scant scenes in what was just another set dressed as a jail, here we get to see the "hard labour" only referenced in the former, and witness the dirt and desperation whilst in prison.

If I had to choose between the two films then I would suggest the Peter Finch version to be superior in pacing, construction and interest. Though in truth they are both very different films, with very different agendas. Wilde is a good film, though it's wistful, often indifferent pacing and lack of drama make it slightly the weaker, but an interesting film experience nonetheless.

This film portrays Oscar Wilde in a totally remarkable way. It should probably have focused more on his writing than on his personal life, but beyond that choice, the film is almost perfect.

When it isn't completely perfect, it has to do with the plot, which has some rather weak points. The love between Wilde and Bosie is somewhat difficult to understand. They are completely different. Maybe opposites attract, but not when two people live in two completely different worlds, like Wilde and Bosie seem to do. Of course, one could look at it from a cynical point of view, and say that they both have what the other one want; Wilde has money and Bosie looks, but one can also look at it in a romantic way, give them the benefit of the doubt, and think that they really are in love. That makes the story nicer (for a while), and much, MUCH more interesting!

Beyond that, I have only positive things to say about "Wilde". The script is fabulous, and adding a double story by putting in one of his nursery stories, was a great move! One of the most best parts of the film, is Wilde's speech in court. Really touching! The ending could easily have become extremely sentimental, but that is cleverly avoided.

Stephen Fry shines as Oscar Wilde. He is so credible, and does his job so well that if I didn't know better, I'd actually think that it really WAS Wilde I saw on the screen. Law and Redgrave also put in top notch performances.

Everyone will probably not appreciate this film as much as I did (it is a matter of whether you can deal with gay sex or not, and like dramas of course), but give it a try! It deserves two hours of your time, and much much more!

Rarely in Stephen Fry's prolific career, such a tailor-made role for him, and he is the leading actor in this biopic of Oscar Wilde, the 19th century Irish author, poet and playwright, whom he resembles not just in physical appearance, but personality and gift as well.

Directed by Brian Gilbert, the follow-up after TOM & VIV (1994), WILDE is a lush period drama, where Fry's representation of Wilde is purely magnificent, sympathetic and pleasing with a tender soul inside his bulky facade, from his principled marriage with Constance (Ehle), the homosexual foray with Robbie Ross (Sheen), to meet the love of his life Bosie Douglas (Law), a doted aristocrat whose stunning pulchritude and youthfulness toxic-ally enchants Wilde for the rest of his life, till his downfall in imprison after losing the libel case and the subsequent trial of sodomy and gross indecency prosecuted by Marquess of Queensberry (Wilkinson), the abominable father of Bosie. Like the warm voice-over of Wilde's own short story THE SELFISH GIANT whenever the story draws in with Oscar's interactions with his two young sons, Wilde is the giant, who is destined to suffer from the wounds of love, again, Fry's performance is unarguably the film's strongest suit, notably his speech about "the unspeakable love" during the court scenes.

Oscar Wilde's astonishing talent and homosexuality are two sides of his personae, as one might expect, the film follows suit in exploring the more sensational latter, while the former can only be glanced through his witty loquaciousness and the aforementioned court speech, truly, the gay melodrama is what audience ask for, only if we could also given some leeway to enter his kingdom as a writer. Then the drama, Bosie is viewed as a capricious, needy, ungrateful and selfish good-for-nothing, who is the undoing of Oscar Wilde's tragedy, ended with an early death in destitute. There is unequalled devotion between them, which Wilde is not too blind to notice, but his naivety, a common characteristic among great artists, convinces him that Bosie is a spoilt boy who needs love wantonly and inordinately, and he is willing to do whatever he asks, and eventually comes down from his high horse and becomes a convenient lever utilised in the detrimental father-son retaliation between Bosie and his father. Fry gives a sympathetic performance, but for Wilde, we can only assume that he has only himself to blame, meanwhile, the film makes Robbie, his sole loyal friend in his last days, watch the doom befalls on the one he loves, they would make a much better match, only if Wilde could be more sensible in his mind (takes the gargoyle- looking over the pretty boy), that's the typical gambit for a melodrama, as if that happens so common in real life.

Jennifer Ehle, who REALLY should play Meryl Streep in a biopic, is the benevolent but tormented wife who marries a closeted gay man, but instead of hatred and complaint, her support of Wilde, defiance against the convention, even in his lowest moment is a shining beacon in this biopic, Ehle elicits amazing nuance in it. This is the very first role introduces Jude Law into the international cinema, where his Adonis attractiveness would peak two years later in Anthony Minghella's THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999, 8/10), in WILDE, he is less refined but incredibly right up Bosie's rally, an amoral, wayward snob, a self-seeker banks on his vainglory, so is Wilkinson as his father, a showstopper with his boorish umbrage, like father, like son, indeed, one might protest the upper society doesn't get a fair treatment in the movie, but de facto, they are the last bunch on earth who needs a sentimentally sympathetic response from the mass, so, whatever, R.I.P. Mr. Wilde.

The acting in this film was superb. As had many viewers--I suspect-- I had only seen Stephen Fry in the Blackadder and Wodehouse series. How delightful to find another actor intelligent and flexible enough to range from Melchett to Oscar Wilde! One cannot help but watch his face very carefully, waiting to see the mask slip. He seems strangely delicate in his huge, crushing frame...A nice follow-up movie to Velvet Goldmine, especially once you know that some of the dialogue from the latter was lifted from the works of Oscar Wilde.

In 1882, famed writer Oscar Wilde (Stephen Fry) visits America. He returns to England to marry Constance Lloyd (Jennifer Ehle) to the approval of his mother (Vanessa Redgrave). He begins a sexual affair with his friend Robbie Ross (Michael Sheen) and has a family with Constance. Then he falls for the dashing, self-indulgent Lord Alfred Douglas (Jude Law).

Bosie is dislikable. In short, he's a rich annoying brat. The only person less likable is his father. It makes the relationship unappealing. The movie could have portrayed it as a destructive obsession. That would be more epic. The movie needs to foreshadow the dire consequences by presenting a darker attitude of the day. His homosexuality is mostly a secret but those who know seems to tolerate it. It is missing the dangerous edge until the arrival of the father halfway into it. Overall, it is elevated by the performance of Fry but it needs more danger in the first half. Fry's calm demeanor doesn't project danger. His relationship isn't appealing. It could have been more intensity but Fry is good.

The Irish writer Oscar Wilde (Stephen Fry) returns to London from America and gets married with Constance Lloyd Wilde (Jennifer Ehle) in the Victorian England. They have two children, Cyril and Vyvyan, and he makes lots of money with his successful plays. He gets close to the young Robbie Ross (Michael Sheen) and "leaves the closet", assuming his homosexuality and having brief affairs with youths. When he meets the corrupt Lord Alfred 'Bosie' Douglas (Jude Law), he falls in love for the young man; but Bosie's father goes to the court accusing the writer "posing sodomite" and Wilde is sentenced to two years of hard labor. His health is affected by the unhealthy conditions in prison and he has a short life in Paris after being discharged from the imprisonment.

"Wilde" discloses the faithful biography of the Irish writer Oscar, with great and bold performances, witty dialogs and a beautiful reconstitution of the life in the Victorian period. My only remark is the excessive and repetitive homosexual scenes with the visible intention of pleasing the gay communities, but totally unnecessary to the context of the story. The running time of 118 minutes is too long and boring but could be shorter with the edition of the foregoing sequences. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Wilde"

I've watched this a number of times over the past few months on a satellite TV movie channel.

It is charming, but Wilde fans will know how destructive he thought charm was.

It purports to be factional, but it avoids many ugly truths about Wilde's life. That's not surprising in a politically correct world where gayness is held to be almost superior to heterosexuality.

Today, Wilde would probably be even less tolerated than he was in those Victorian days. In 'intolerant' times, even until quite recently - the Fifties and Sixties - people turned a blind eye to all sorts of things as long as you kept it under wraps.

Remember, in this movie, he was not hounded for his activities. The hotel staff knew what was going on, and the male brothels were not raided. He brought the court case, and his 'persecution', upon himself.

Today, Wilde might be considered a paedophile. The film shows the rent boys as grown up men in suits and ties, when in reality the boys that he and Lord Alfred Douglas exploited with money were as young as 14.

The sordidness of the evidence in court (faecal stains on hotel bedsheets) is absent in this sunnily-photographed movie. As is the fact that Wilde was syphilitic because of his adventures - not very pleasant for his wife.

And this was, I'm sure, the true reason for the cessation of their marital sex life.

If the film had been historically accurate, Fry would have been shown with black teeth in later life - this was a side effect of the mercury treatment at the time for syphilis.

Not very charming.

The movie also ignores the main reason for Wilde's obsession with Bosie. Like many middle class people of the time who were successful in the public arena, he craved the approval of the aristocracy. He was a snob in the true sense of the word, and sucking up (pun intended) to the upper classes and the presumption that they are better beings comes out in his work as well as his life.

On the plus side, I thought Tom Wilkinson's performance as the Marquis of Queensbury was brilliant and very true to how a tough old Victorian aristocrat would have behaved.

A much better portrayal than earlier ones which dismissed him merely as mad.

"Wilde" is an elegant film with sterling performances by Fry, the title character, and a superb supporting cast. However, "Wilde" is also a shaded and skewed partial portrait of the 19th century playwright, poet, and master of the epigram. The film is not so much a biopic as it is a drama: A drama which spends too much time on the sensational aspects of the writer's life and not enough on his history, early life, idiosyncrasies, works, and last years. Nonetheless, "Wilde" is solid entertainment for anyone interested in Victorian period dramas or the man himself. (B+)

Every now and then in cinema, a performance comes along that seems so right and so fitting, that it is almost as if the actor was born to play the role. Robert DeNiro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver (1976), Max Schreck in Nosferatu (1922) or Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend (1945) are examples of career-defining performances, where you couldn't imagine any other actor filling the role. Okay, so Stephen Fry's performance here as the tragic poet, author and social rebel Oscar Wilde is hardly the greatest performance ever, but it seems that no other actor could capture the authenticity of his performance. Fry is a well-known author, intellectual and mostly comedic actor, with a deep-rooted love for literature and history. He is also homosexual with a history of depression and feelings of social misplacement, much like Wilde himself.

Brian Gilbert's film follows Wilde from his early marriage to Constance Wilde (Jennifer Ehle), which produced two children, until his sexual awakening with lifelong friend Robbie Ross (Michael Sheen). He describes his awakening as "being like a city under siege for years, and then the floodgates are opened". He has massive success with his only novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, and his social comedy The Importance of Being Earnest, when he meets his true love Lord Alfred 'Bosie' Douglas (Jude Law), a spoiled youth living under the tyrannical reign of his father, the Marquess of Queensbury (Tom Wilkinson). The Marquess' disapproval of the 'friendship' between his son and the well-known provocateur leads to a libel court case, which sees Wilde imprisoned for social indecency.

Unlike many biopics, Gilbert wisely chooses to stay away from detailing his work, and instead keeps the focus on the man himself. This allows the film to explore the mind of the subject, and a complex and vastly intelligent mind it is. The main focus though is of the social attitudes towards homosexuality (especially the relationship between an older and a younger man) and the prudishness towards the idea of following pleasure rather than duty. Wilde states in the court case that he is championing the ancients, the Greeks, and this now-taboo relationship was the focus of many a celebrated academic, namely Plato, who used it as a focal point of one of his key philosophy works. Society, it would seem, had gone back in time.

There are many great performances here from a hugely talented British cast (which also includes Vanessa Redgrave, Ioan Gruffudd and Zoe Wanamaker), namely from the always-excellent Sheen. He is now established as a great impressionist (his performances as Kenneth Williams and David Frost are near-perfection), but here he is stripped- down and gives his best performance as the dedicated Robbie Ross, a man who is in love with Wilde but remains loyal despite the love not being returned. But ultimately, this is Fry's film. Years of seeing him as quizmaster in panel show QI has made me forget what a talented performer he is. If ever there was an argument made of re-incarnation, then there is no finer example than here. Apart from an uncanny resemblance, he seems to embody the very soul of Wilde.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

I was really looking forward to seeing this film, as I am very fond of Oscar Wilde's work. The Importance of Being Earnest is absolutely delightful, and The Selfish Giant I fell in love with on first hearing at primary school and still have affection for it. So what did I think of Wilde? Seriously, I think this film is wonderful. It is the sort of film that is very thought-provoking, intelligent and desperately sad. The exploration of male love is quite graphic and it mayn't be to everyone's tastes, but I thought it was done with real sensitively and care.

Wilde certainly looks beautiful- the scenery is striking, the cinematography is breathtaking and the costumes are wondrous. Another asset I loved was the music score, it was absolutely gorgeous, almost reminiscent of a John Barry score. I also feel it is underrated too, very touching and really gives the film the emotional punch it has. Wilde is also beautifully written, the references to The Selfish Giant are very moving, and Wilde's witticisms are superbly expressed. The direction is very good, the pacing was fine and there is a great story as well.

The acting is superb, one or two of the actors are underused in my opinion but there is no bad performance as far as I could see. Stephen Fry(who I consider a sheer delight in Black Adder) is mesmerising in the title role, elegant, witty, sympathetic and charming, while Jude Law is every bit as good as a character that is volatile, passionate and irritated. Vanessa Redgrave, Judy Parfitt, Michael Sheen and Zoe Wannamaker are all note-perfect, and I liked Jennifer Ehle as well, she was heartbreakingly sympathetic but she was underused I felt. The best supporting performance though came from Tom Wilkinson, who was absolutely brilliant as the nasty, brutal and bitter Marquess of Queensberry.

Overall, this is a very moving and intelligent biopic that is beautifully written and faultlessly performed. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

It was really fascinating watching Oscar Wilde coming to life in this film. It almost made me believe in reincarnation.

Two very fine films about Oscar Wilde came out roughly at the same time during the sixties and they starred Peter Finch and Robert Morley respectively as the great literary icon. But those were in the days before Stonewall and you couldn't be all that explicit. I'm not just talking about sex scenes though there are some here. As far as films were concerned homosexuality was the love that really dare not even breathe let alone speak its name.

One reason I liked this film Wilde that starred Stephen Fry in the title role is that the others began with Wilde's involvement with Lord Alfred Douglas, played here by a sexy Jude Law. Here we get a bit of background and we discover that Wilde was a latent case for years because society dictated gay was an abomination. He married and fathered two sons whom he no doubt loved. Just some of the beautiful children's stories he did write attest to that.

But as the film opens with Wilde in America and touring a mining camp and giving a lecture to miners below the earth's surface, you can see the look of love in his eyes as he beholds some of those hunky miners with their shirts off. Since you know who Wilde was and his story already, you're looking yourself for signs.

Wilde was a latent case until he was seduced by Robbie Ross an actor in one of his plays portrayed by Michael Sheen. I can certainly attest to the fact that if gay is your orientation and you've been with women before, when you do it the first time, you KNOW it's right for you. Later on Ioan Gruffud who apparently is his inspiration for Dorian Gray actually falls in love with Wilde.

But Wilde's like a kid in a candy store and when he meets the incredibly handsome Lord Alfred Douglas. Unlike the other two Wilde pictures I mentioned this version fleshes a bit more out of 'Bosy's' character and Jude Law may be pretty to look at, but he's a vain, shallow, selfish, and spoiled young aristocrat. Among other things Law introduces Fry to is the availability of rent boys on the street and at certain posh establishments frequented by closeted Victorians.

But it all comes to an end when Bosy's dad played by Tom Wilkinson leaves a calling card accusing Wilde of being a sodomite. In the other two Wilde films, it's Oscar who just arrogantly think he can squash this thing in court with his fabled wit. Here it's Bosy who pushes Wilde into it.

The other films concentrated on the trials, civil and criminal. In Wilde the emphasis is on Oscar's character and relationships. The women in Wilde's life are wife Jennifer Ehle and mother Vanessa Redgrave. In watching the two women how they interact it's like watching the families of Ennis and Jack from Brokeback Mountain and how they react to their husband's strange behavior.

Also in the film very briefly is Orlando Bloom playing a rent boy. I'm surprised that the film received no Oscar nominations, no pun intended. Though it was honored in the United Kingdom.

Some 40 years after Stonewall, the tragedy of Oscar Wilde not being true to his nature as he says he wished he had done from the beginning is still being played out in many areas, in many walks of life. Just look at the number of outings there have been of various political figures on the right and you know it is so.

Wilde is a great film which speaks to this generation of GLBT people with current players to tell sadly an often repeated story.

The movie definitely provokes a desire to know more about Wilde, even if only because you suspect it of simplifying him - he s hardly culpable for his own downfall, pushed into the libel suit by Bosie. In a way, Wilde almost seems superficial in that brilliance flows from him effortlessly - if forced into contemplation (like in prison) he finds only hollowness, if not mediocrity. The movie is fairly frank about Wilde's homosexuality - the decadence of the male brothel-type place is overwhelming, and we see Wilde watching Bosie have sex with another, and being subjected to his screaming fits and recriminations. But this makes his speech about the love that dare not speak its name seem like a bit of an evasion - since we know how much it s about the pleasures of the flesh as much as about scholarly bonding between older and younger men and the other stuff that s cited. The trial itself and the mechanics of the decline seem over a bit quickly and the ending is soft, although it s hard to imagine too many people objecting. Fry is sometimes moving but is rather on one note - the film though conveys a great sense of his charm and genuine celebrity, no more than in the opening sequence where he goes down a mine and spellbinds them with a history of Cellini - throughout Wilde provokes so much enthusiasm that his downfall ultimately seems tragically avoidable.

I have just seen the 1960 film The Trials Of Oscar Wilde, with that very good actor (and womanising hellraiser Peter Finch as the man himself, and in the light of that film, I should like to edit this review. This is what I originally wrote: Like John Wayne, Stephen Fry is always Stephen Fry in a film: he never manages to get the viewer - well, this viewer, at least - to suspend his disbelief. And that rather kills any film he's in stone dead. The Duke had the same problem for me: it was never anyone else but John Wayne acting in a film, and the sad conclusion could well be that neither gent can really act. As for Wilde, well another reviewer here has described it as a document, not a film, and that about sums it up. It is said to be based on Richard Ellman's biography of Wilde and what we get is just that, a more or less potted two hour lesson in the main events of Wilde's life. And perhaps being somehow contaminated by Fry's lack of acting ability, Michael Sheen, Jude Law, Jennifer Ehle, Maggie Smith, Zoe Wannamaker and the rest also come across as 'being in a costume drama', which more or less kills the film's other virtues in a trice. And that's a shame, because it is a rather handsome looking film into which was put a lot of thought. But given that it is, to put it very harshly, somewhat brain dead, all that effort has rather been wasted. Oh, well. It's not actually bad, but it's not very good, either.

That was it, to which I should like to add that for for a far, far, far superior and more intelligent portrayal of Oscar Wilde and his trials, go and see Peter Finch in The Trials Of Oscar Wilde. For one thing you realise quite how gratuitous and irrelevant the gay sex scenes are in Fry's version. The earlier film covers exactly the same ground and conveys exactly what Wilde was up to without any such scenes at all. That is, however, by the by. This version just isn't up to it. Finch's version was.