Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The story is a challenging one to tell, and although all concerned make a valiant attempt to capture the genius and tragedy of the man, somehow the end result is not entirely convincing. At times, a little over dramatic and cliched; and excessively focused on Wild's sexuality. At the end of the film one feels one knows more about Wilde, but does not know him better.

Although it focuses on the less well-known final years of Wilde's life, the script follows a traditional arc and has little new to say about the writer or his relationships.Ross and Douglas are presented as daggers drawn in the service of a script which identifies them as Wilde's 'good' and 'bad' angels. The reality was much messier, and records show that during Wilde's lifetime they remained friends, at least on the surface. It was only a good while after his death that they fell out, with appalling consequences for both of them. In this context, the film's depiction of the altercation between the two men at Wilde's funeral is particularly ridiculous. If the eye witness account of the poet Paul Fort is to be believed, there was a hysterical scene when Douglas tried to throw himself into the grave, but it didn't lead to fisticuffs with Ross.This aside, there is much to enjoy in the film, not least Rupert Everett's compelling central performance, its impressionistic structure and the stunning cinematography and costumes. There are also interesting and nuanced supporting performances from Emily Watson and Colin Morgan, even within the strait jacket of a script that has little to add to received wisdom about their characters.

There have been three excellent previous screen versions of Wilde's fall from grace, but THE HAPPY PRINCE outshines them all.Pre- and post-Fall are interwoven. Oscar tells 'The Happy Prince', his dark (Grimm) fairy story, to his children in flashbacks from Paris, where he also tells it to a couple of street kids who have become the children of his exile although the older brother is also his rent-boy. Bloated and dishevelled, the old Oscar still has the appetites which sent him to prison. And he still loves Lord Alfred Douglas, who joins Oscar in a villa in Naples (with more rent-boys) in Naples for a few bickering months. Robbie Ross (Edwin Turner) and Reggie Turner (Colin Firth) are the last London friends who offer loyalty and handouts.Everett's Wilde is as poignant as Stephen Fry's but even more pitiable as poverty and ill-health overcome him. Colin Morgan gives 'Bosie' his prettiest incarnation since John Fraser in 1960. Emily Watson shines in brief scenes as Oscar's wife Constance, also forced into exile by his disgrace. Tom Wilkinson contributes a vivid cameo as the priest brought to Oscar's hotel deathbed. The famous lines about the wallpaper and 'dying beyond my means' are not forgotten; and Everett has scripted a few one-liners Oscar would happily steal the credit for.The final scenes almost certainly take liberties with the facts, but they add an operatic grandeur to the 'Last Act'. Rupert Everett's long struggle to realise this project is a splendid homage to the tragedy of the 'comeback' that was Wilde's greatest drama, his greatest tragedy. The movie deserves to be garlanded with awards: an Oscar for Oscar!

"The Happy Prince" is a new British historic drama focusing on the final years in the life of renowned British writer Oscar Wilde. The latter is played by Golden-Globe nominated actor Rupert Everett (slightly under the age of 60) and this film is also the first theatrical release by him as writer and director, so obviously it is a project pretty close to his heart. It runs for 105 minutes and features more established British actors like Firth, Watson and Wilkinson next to Everett, but eventually their characters may bear some significance, but it's all about Everett's Wilde and nobody else. With the exception of the final moments, he is in every scene and he simply makes the movie and everything about it. The film is less about his art really because there are many moment when we hear that his writing career was basically over, for example when he mentions that he sold his newest work to several publishers without having written a single word about it. It's not a biopic. The focus is just on the man's last years and how he was struggling not necessarily with his homosexuality, but with how homosexuality was perceived back in the day. His own approach to (gay) love was dedicated and true, even if the man he showed an interest in did not always have an easy time due to who Wilde was. The part with the alias is the best example. But also they struggled with his preferences because it is never really clear who he loves, who he is just interested in and who he cares deeply about. the only similarity there is that basically all his love interest were considerably younger than him, even very young at times like the flower vendor near the end. The film is as much about homosexuality as it is about everything else. The scene with all these men meeting and one guy's mother eintering the room and expressing her reluctance with the scenario clearly thinking they hid women somewhere while not even getting close to the core of the men's sexual preference because of who she was and how stuff like that had no place in her life by any means. Then there is also the aspect of money, financial struggles and how Wilde eventually moved that deep into poverty that he had to ask a fan for some money in what was maybe the most heartbreaking scene of the film as his sexual tendencies destroyed not only his career, but his life as a whole. The meltdown scene with the boys following him and bullying him is the most obvious example there. Still, he can be lucky throughout the entire film that he never lost touch with friends or was really completely alone, also thanks to his charisma for sure, which stayed for a long time after his writing skills had faded away apparently. For example, during several occasions you see that he was a pretty appreciated entertainer and singer too and not because he was everybody's fool. So I give a big thumbs-up to Everett here, it's fairly impressive for a rookie project there's no denying. And it's obvious that he drew a lot of inspiration from all the big filmmakers he already worked with when making this collaboration between several European countries. It's not a film that will attract a great deal of awards recognition during the big ceremonies I'm afraid, even if it was rock solid in terms of sets and costumes and make-up. I definitely enjoyed the watch and it never dragged and for a film as close to 2 hours as to 90 minutes, that is always a success. I somehow doubt Everett can repeat the awards success Fry had with the same character many years before, but it would not be undeserving at all. And I am writing this as somebody who has virtually no connection with Oscar Wilde as I have not read a single piece of his works I think and also as somebody who is not that big on period pieces in general. But this one deserves to be seen for sure. A thumbs-up without a doubt. Go check it out. Everetts portrayal alone is worth the entire watch.