Boyer hams it up, but Bergman steals the show. Her breakdown during the concert is painful to watch--even for people like me who have seen the film many times. Also . . . what a cunning little bitch Angela Lansbury is here! A marvelous actress, she steals every scene she's in.

In this Boyer is perhaps one of the most connivering, evil bastards you'll ever see and he plays it very well. Contrast this to Bergman, who plays one of the most gullible that you're likely to see. There's some nice suspense, even if the film gives away a bit too much early on. Perhaps that's why the ending works so well, you feel as if you've sussed it all out, but there's still pieces missing and the pace heightens in anticipation. For something so unbelievable, it has a charm of its own.

Beautiful film noir classic.

A well-executed, atmospheric noir/period piece. Bergman is great as the mentally unstable woman, Boyer is appropriately slimy, but my favorite performances come from Lansbury and especially Cotton. The former plays a deliciously selfish tart, the latter masterfully pulls off the easy-going, yet concerned observer who you just can't help but love. Kane, Ambersons, Third Man, and now this--Cotton continues to grow in my estimation.

I thought this was a really great little thriller/mystery film. I really liked the suspense and tension throughout. It wasn’t scary, but it managed to be quite creepy without being obvious about it.

Absorbing gothic melodrama is beautifully filmed and directed by Cukor with a top-notch cast wringing every drop of atmosphere from the production; Bergman, Cotten and especially debut performer Lansbury are sensational, but film is stolen by Boyer's masterful portrayal of venal cruelty. Whitty is also fun in her perfected busy-body role.

As predictable as all Gothic's and doesn't offer any darkness or thrills, but is still a really well-composed 40's film.

I liked when the lady went nuts!

Solid suspense film; very well acted by all concerned.

I wasn't actually sure which version is the definitive classic one (I assume there's rigorous debate), but I decided to go the Ingrid Bergman route because, well, duh. I certainly wasn't displeased. Gaslight is a very pretty movie. The house where most of the action takes place is this majestic smorgasbord of British antiquities strewn about the walls and surfaces, such a chaotically beautiful set that serves as the vessel for Bergman's gradual insanity. It's a great psychological thriller.

I've heard all my life what a great movie this is. Somebody's going to flame me for this blasphemous opinion, but this picture really sucks. The plot is totally absurd even by '40s Hollyweird standards, and much of it hinges on Our Heroine being so ridiculously weak that she makes Eleanor Lance in the original version of _The Haunting_ look like an Israeli commando. On top of all that... if you managed to bag a babe like Ingrid Bergman, would YOU care about what else was in the house?

One of those rare remakes that is better than the original. . . but don't miss watching that, either!

Bergman... my eyes were blessed when they gaze upon your beauty.... Oh yea, the movie. It was good, very good even, but back to Ingrid.....

Ingrid Bergman plays the most pathetic female character in the history of cinema. Why is this such a classic? Boyer is ridiculous, Cotten and Lansbury do "ok" with their limited screen time, and Dame May Whitty seems to appear and disappear for no good reason. The ending is a big let-down, too.

A very good, suspenseful film with great acting. Bergman convincingly conveys her increasing confusion and while Boyer overdoes it a bit as the villain, he's still very effective. The ending is great and makes up for some of the middle going on a bit long and stretching believability.

Classy Ingrid Bergman gives a tour de force performance as is expected and Charles Boyer masters the sinister role of his career in this unforgettable screenplay.

One of those movies that's a bit frustrating to watch because the bad guy is horribly evil you just can't wait to see him get it. Charles Boyer plays one of the nastiest villains you'll ever see. Ingrid Bergman perhaps overdoes her helplessness, but makes up for it during the exceptionally satisfying ending.

I am totally not convinced by this. Gregory is so obvious an asshole, it makes no sense that Paula should be taken in by him. Everybody overacts (except for young Angela Lansbury) and everything is completely transparent from the get-go so there's no suspense. A half-decent premise wasted on crummy filmmaking.

Pretty good. I got a bit fed up during the middle section, which consists mostly of Boyer looking shifty and Bergman being stupidly gullible. I think it would've been more interesting if the film had shown the events from Bergman's character's point of view. I do like the feminist statement the movie makes, and it isn't hard to interpret the whole thing as an allegory for social oppression of women.

Okay, but I probably won't watch it again. Acting is good, the story line is unique, but nothing to sing about. Basic premise is husband plays mind games on wife.

Boyer's performance runs the gamut from A to B.