Gaslight

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.

The suspense aspect could've been better if it didn't telegraph some stuff, but enough is left unanswered for the movie to stay intriguing. Charles Boyer plays about the biggest prick you ever saw, and Ingrid Bergman gives a nice performance too, even if she is ridiculously gullible. The last 30 minutes become a wonderful detective style thriller, and a bunch of pieces come together just right.

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.

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.

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?

More famous for the term gaslighting. I prefer the 1940 version for Anton Walbrook. Bergman puts in a better performance than Wynyard especially at the end when she turns the tables on him. Angela Lansbury was distracting since I'm not used to seeing her young. May Whitty was so annoyingly nosy. Terrible police work at the end. Fav scene: the ending when Bergman turntables on Boyer.

Ingrid Bergman's character is so helpless that she just annoyed me. It's not really a mystery because we know all along what's happening and we just have to watch her get manipulated really easily.

Angela Lansbury's accent makes her sound like a character in a Mike Leigh movie.

The role of Paula seems like an actor's dream, filled with so many different notes and the film so heavily relying on her emotional and mental uncertainty. Bergman takes on the challenge and gives a phenomenal performance, tracking her naive openness, vulnerability and the immense fear attached to believing she is going mad. Boyer's character is less complex, but he's just so nakedly despicable that you can't wait to see his plan unravel. Very nicely shot as well, with lots of shadow and fog.

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.

Bergman is great in this showing a lot of range, kind of a pity Boyer isn't as great, than the whole movie would been even better.

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.

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.

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

The maniuplation of Ingrid is almost too much to bear. The antagonist is..well..too antagnoistic. This may have been a bit better if the audience wasnt able to guess that he murdered the aunt after the first scene in Italy

A bit disappointing; It's one of those films that has generated a lot of copycats with variations of the same plot, and I while I had seen a good share of those films, I hadn't seen the original one(s). Therefore there was no difficulty to see where it was heading. It could also have used a 15 min trim or they could have used it to spice up some suspense as there really wasn't any real sense of danger. Still, worth a watch due to it's importance in the genre and for the cast; especially Bergman.

You didn't actually watch this film, did you?

Hokey but still a classic.

No doubt a seminal film in the psychological thriller genre that is very well served by a superb cast all except for Boyer as Gregory (the part needed someone like Welles to really sell the master manipulator persona). Bergman is superb with Cotten a very suitable anti-gaslighter. Nice to see a young Lansbury in a role full of 'attitude'.

As much as I love Gaslight (1940), the almost identical American version four years later is my favorite adaptation. All due to Charles Boyer's magnificently manipulative performance! He was never better than he was in Gaslight (1944)!

Film buffs like to say this is the most Hitchcockian film the master of suspense never made. However, it is a poor copy of his work as outside of the main plot twist (which becomes obvious early on), it is lacks any special melodrama that Hitchcock brought to his thrillers. And the gaslighting gimmick becomes tiresome as there's only so many times you can watch a husband fool his wife. It gets a marginal recommendation as the entire process has stayed in the cultural zeitgeist for decades.

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.....

"Repulsion"'s mother.

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.

I liked when the lady went nuts!

Suspense? Thriller? This is a comedy! Boyer is outrageous, and Bergman's particular skillset is used to maximum effect. The quivering lip! The glassy eyes! The scenes of utmost mental anguish, evocative of a six year old bending a spoon! And always with mouth agape, sucking in the air. Oh, the air! The horrible, foetid air! Naturally she won Best Actress for the performance. Only Cotten is miscast here, playing the part of the straight man so utterly straight that he seems rather a spoilsport.

I don't remember watching this movie, but my wife swears I've seen it and that I liked it a lot and that I'm just acting crazy.

Not bad.

Beautiful film noir classic.

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.

Oh no -- help! I can't stop talking like Gregory. It's the most alluring accent. Actually, I have spoken like this my entire life. Don't you remember? Are you that forgetful, Paula?

watched: 2012, 2020

Such a satisfying ending makes up for a very tough watch. Bergman is fantastic and Boyer is fantastically evil.

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.

tarihteki ilk gaslighting

I'm probably one of the few that prefers the 1940 version a bit better, although I thought Bergman was a bit more convincing in the role of insane wife. Still an interesting psychological thriller (even though the "mystery" is pretty obvious to the audience early on). Lots of effective uses of light and shadow here (almost noirish) to increase the mood.

i feel like this film has probably one of the best villains of cinema history ngl

Great interplay between the two leads. Weaves together some pretty sharp insights regarding power dynamics in romantic relationships. Am I the only one who can't get over the fact that the term "gaslight" derives from the single aspect of Gregory's manipulation that is in fact incidental and completely unintentional?

Glad to finally see the film that inspired the now ubiquitous term: "gaslighting". It could have had a bit snappier pacing, as there weren't that many moving parts to the plot. Felt Hitchcocky.

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

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.

82.00

Maybe this has Gothic atmosphere coming out its ears but the prior version certainly had the edge in cast and script. In particular the setup this time is a laugh, and the character of the nosy old woman is far too likable to be just used and then dropped so early on.

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.

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

Oh boy, this isn't going to be popular. Over-rated, over-acted, and over-written. In Act I it's incredibly obvious what's going on. The scene on the train gave it all away. I just checked, it's 9 minutes into the movie. For the rest of the movie I was bored shitless. Except for the climactic scene. That was pretty good.

83.500

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.

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.