Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

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

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

ianlouisiana One should always consider the possibility that had Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wills Wilde not fallen inconveniently in love with Lord Alfred Douglas he might now be remembered only as a relatively minor Irish playwright with a propensity for presenting other people's bon mots as his own.His ascent to his unassailable position as the Theatre's great gay martyr is at least to some extent the result of his treatment at the hands of the British judicial system. As unpleasing as it may be to sophisticated 21st century thought,the "homosexual act" -as gay love was referred to in Victorian law books - was considered a crime and the "abominable crime of buggery" was punishable by Life Imprisonment.Queen Victoria refused to endorse laws proscribing Lesbianism because she not only had never heard of it but she refused to believe its existence.Aware of all those facts Oscar Wilde chose to sue his lover's father for libel after the Marquess of Queensberry referred to him as a "somdomite" (sic).It says much for his chutzpah if not his intelligence. Mr P.Finch is a fine,sensitive if rather louche Oscar,clearly besotted with the pretty but insubstantial John Fraser.Mr L. Jeffries pushes the boat out a bit as the Marquess of Queensberry,very much an aristocrat of his time with a zealot's hatred of homosexuality as only an old public school man can have.Mr J.Mason is suitably ruthless as his barrister,cold of heart,tongue and eye. This is a handsome film,a typical superior British product of its era, requiring its audience to stay awake and keep off their mobile phones. If you require an instant fix it isn't for you. Wilde may ultimately have been a victim of his own ego,but the Marquess of Quennsberry must be spinning in his grave over his own contribution to his old enemy's immortality.

kyle_furr I had heard of Oscar Wilde before but i didn't know who he was. I had seen the 1945 version of The picture of dorion Gray but i didn't know he wrote it. This movie has Wilde being put on trial for having homosexual relations, there's more to it but I'm too lazy to put it down. Peter Finch does a good job and James Mason is the main reason i wanted this, but i didn't know he was basically only in one long scene as the defense attorney.

raymond-15 First of all I like the way the authentic witticisms of Oscar Wilde have been woven into the script. His sarcastic and pointed remarks derived from a keen observation of the morals, pomposity and hypocrisy of late Victorian England make for intelligent and amusing dialogue between the characters.Peter Finch (Oscar Wilde) delivers lines with a certain flourish, but I think he could be even more flamboyant for such a man was Wilde. John Fraser plays the moody Bosie as Oscar's current lover with a balanced mixture of effeminate charm and petulance. Best acting role is that of Lionel Jeffreys as the Marquis of Queensbury. Make no mistake his character comes through loud and clear. He gives a remarkable portrayal of his utter disgust when his 21 year old son Bosie defies him and continues his relationship with Oscar, a man of middle age and married. All London is gossiping and there is much clicking of tongues. Mrs. Wilde played by beautiful Yvonne Mitchell stands by in utter dismay and disapproval.The courtroom scene gives Oscar the opportunity to deliver more witty lines and to describe his inner feelings about true love...interesting because one is not too sure what he is about to say next. One gets the feeling that Oscar has chosen the path of self-destruction...or is he just being his theatrical self?After he does his prison sentence with hard labour he is supposed to look tired and ill, but I fail to notice much of a change in his demeanour. He should be much paler with a worn down look. This would command more sympathy. Oscar's sexual adventures around the streets of London are not discussed to any extent nor portrayed in this film. If they had been given more prominence we would perhaps have felt justified in agreeing with the jury's decision. As it is , the sordid details of his sexual encounters are played down and because the film is presented in this way we feel rather sad that this great playwright both loving and generous should suffer so much at the hands of those who tried to destroy him.

cafeuk The relationship between Oscar Wilde and Bosie, has already developed and is in full flow when this film begins, so we are almost immediately immersed into the war of hate between Bosie and his homophobic and severely disapproving father. Bosie's father appears to disapprove of his son merely because of his son's lack of manliness, and despises Oscar Wilde because of what he perceives as Wilde's role in perverting his son. But the resentment is also clearly due to the fact that Bosie's father just cannot connect with his son on any level (well portrayed in this film) and it is Wilde that appears to steel that genuine place in Bosie's heart. This just eats away at Bosie's father, and so he attempts to destroy the relationship between Bosie & Wilde in any way he can. But the more he tries, the more he pushes his son away, into the arms of Wilde.Peter Finch plays Oscar Wilde admirably and he convinced me that this could have been the real Oscar Wilde. John Fraser plays Bosie acceptably - although i think it's his clean 'nice boy' looks that help him pull this role off more than his acting talent. Bosie's father, the Marquis of Queensbury is played by Lionel Jeffreys and he displays the cantankerous side of the character well. The courtroom scenes could have been tenser, and i dont think James Mason (as one of the barristers) delivers his lines with quite the same passion of some barristers I've seen. It is in one of the courtroom scenes, that quite apart from his relationship with Bosie, the true extent of Wilde's promiscuity with regard to young men is exposed, which was the one point for me in the film that I felt slight disgust at Wilde, although his promiscuity still didn't justify in my opinion what then happened to him. I'm just glad that society has become more tolerant nowadays, in some parts of the world.The film is approximately two hours long, is packed with Oscar Wilde witty one liners, which made the film very funny at times. On second viewing, the film was even more enjoyable. Shot in 1960, I watched it for the first time here in the UK on Monday 7th Jan 2002 on Channel 4 who played it as an afternoon matinee, and the quality of the copy they played was superb - crystal clear. All in all, the film was a joy to watch. I would highly recommend it, as it illustrates the relative intolerance of the times in England at that time. There are no sensual scenes in the film, so its 'safe' to watch for everyone. I say this because I know that a friend of mine recently stopped watching the latest Oscar Wilde film (with Stephen Fry, released 1997) as soon as he realised that it contained some male nudity & stuff, which he said he was personally uncomfortable with. And the 1960 film doesn't lose anything for not having any sexual stuff in it, believe me. Please watch it, if you get the chance.