Rating: 
Summary: "Strange drama of a captive sweetheart!"
Review: As a thriller, the 1944 "Gaslight" remakes works significantly less well in the 21st century than it did when it was released. Though it was most certainly the crème de la crème of big-screen chills and in its day, nowadays "Gaslight" is just another old-fashioned thriller full of melodrama, shrieking damsels in distress, and somewhat-less-than-surprising plot twists. Far more thrilling films can easily be found in practically all of Hitchcock's films or even more modern films such as "The Sixth Sense" (now who saw that ending coming?)
Bergman portrays a fragile young woman, Paula Alquist, whom, after her aunt is murdered in their London apartment, falls for a piano player, Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer) while escaping her grief in Italy. It soon becomes painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that Gregory is up to no good. And his creepily intense interest in the Crown Jewels during a rare visit outside of the house to the Tower of London makes the whole "mystery" even more obvious. We know what kind of man he is, who he is, what he is after, and where the film is going; all within the first thirty minutes.
As Paula slowly succumbs to the cruelty and isolation inflicted upon her by Gregory, it gives Bergman the chance to suffer magnificently. Whether cowering against the walls, writhing about in agony as Gregory brainwashes her into believing that she is going crazy, starring wild-eyed at the flickering gaslights, trembling with fear at the sight of the housemaids (including a youthful Angela Lansbury), or crying out in anguish at a piano concert, Bergman is so convincingly tortured and unstable that it earned her her first Best Actress Oscar in 1944.
Another part of the problem is that director George Cukor seems content to let Boyer portray Gregory as a one-dimensional, mercilessly cruel man. This leaves the audience with little to do but watch Paula slowly deteriorate into a shadow of her former self; a jumpy, frightened, emotional mess. There is no subtlety here, and it's rather like watching a bodybuilder kick a puppy for an hour and a half, making "Gaslight" an ephemeral and forgettable film.
Rating: 
Summary: A hitchockian nightmare !
Review: Charles Boyer made the peak work of his career , performing the role of a handsome gentleman who marries with Ingrid Bergman with the intention of empowering her around her doe .
The claustrophobic atmosphere and the spelling script make of this film a genuine gem and the masterpiece of George Cukor far beyond to me , A star is born .
Two Academy Awards for this move : Best Actress and B&W Decoration .
This is the debut on screen of Angela Landsbury.
Rating:
Summary: The Battle of 1940 and 1944's Remake Resolved...Finally!!
Review: Here is where I will break up the two films (the 1940s version, and the 1944 remake) to show you the differences and once and for all declare which one was better.
Gaslight (1940)
What a crisp, deeply rooted thriller Thorold Dickinson created. With vile creatures (Paul) and goofy policemen and maids, we are easily captured into the world of the Mallens. Diana Wynyard does a spectacular job as Bella, giving us the right amount of insecurity coupled with fear. She is the true victim of this film and Dickinson does not let us forget that. Wynyard is nearly overshadowed by my favorite character of the film, Paul Mallen, played with so much evil by Anton Walbrook. I have seen several films in my life, and I must say that Walbrook ranks amoung some of the most sinister villains of them all. He has no super powers, just the ability to manipulate Bella mentally, proving that he is stronger than her. He thrives on Bella's insecurities and makes them into his greatest form of punishment. These two working together really transformed this 40s thriller into something concrete and powerful. It is the dynamic between the two that kept me glued to my seat and continually asking for more.
Coupled with the superb acting is the creativeness of Dickinson and his writer A.R. Rowlinson. Together they set the mood with darkened corners and alleyways with that constantly looming feeling that the events are going to get grittier down the road. This team made Victorian London a spooky place to visit at night. They make Bella the victim throughout this entire film, making even me wonder if she really was slowly going mad. It isn't until the end that the truth is revealed and even then we are left in suspense. It isn't until the credits roll is the film over, and that is hard to accomplish for directors of the thriller genre today. Dickinson proved that he could handle all the elements with the greatest of ease and bring them to the screen in a film that would last the test of time. I am not embarrassed to show this film to friends because I do believe that they would see the value in this production.
Grade: ***** out of *****
Gaslight (1944)
This remake was the epitome of Hollywood's hands in the cookie jar. Instead of leaving a masterpiece at rest, the studio chose to remake this film only four years after the original was released and completely butchered it. To begin, they brought too many bigger named stars into the picture. Ingrid Bergman overacted her part as Paula Alquist, bringing Hollywood insanity to the screen instead of this feeling of real fear or insecurity. Also troubling is the role of her husband, played by Charles Boyer, who never quite gets that slimy taste in your mouth like Walbrook did. He is acting, and you can tell from the moment that he opens his mouth on screen. Add in one of the maids played by Angela Lansbury (of Murder, She Wrote notoriety) and you have a literal Hollywood remake equation. We have all seen this before, more money = bigger actors + bigger publicity + more chances for Oscars. Boy, did this equation work well for Bergman. She was awarded an Oscar for her portrayal (and nearly everyone else was nominated for their parts) of Paula, which to me seemed like nothing more than overacting to get that feeling of "insanity". There was no reality to her performance, and sadly should not have been awarded.
Watching these two back to back you really see how Hollywood the 1944 version became. It became even more apparent when there was more stories added to build character depth. The beginning where Paula is related to the murders and the subplot dealing with how her and Charles Boyer met was hysterical. It was unnecessary and a waste of time. The original did not carry these scenes and it was better, wouldn't you think that studio bosses would want to keep a good idea instead of turning it to mush? These added scenes and mixture of events only created a jumbled mess that was harder for me to follow than really enjoy. With so much excitement after watching the original, this was very difficult to watch. Director Cukor never captured that eeriness of the gaslight or the darkness of London as well as Dickinson was able to. Cukor was a Hollywood dog following the leash that was given to him by the studio. It was sad to see these two together and do not suggest this version. The beauty and innocence coupled with fear and insecurity just wasn't the central theme of this film (as it was with the original) and ultimately it hurt it in the long run.
Grade: * out of *****
Rating:
Summary: Good but not in the same class as 1939
Review: This is a fine movie - don't get me wrong. But the 1939 British film with Diana Wynyarde and Anton Walbrook in the leading roles is an absolute classic. The performances are superb. How long are we going to have to wait before we can get this version on DVD?
Rating: 
Summary: Psychological Semi-thriller
Review: "Gaslight" is a 1944 movie that delves into the idea that the criminal mind can gradually take control of another human being. It makes its' case in the form of Charles Boyer playing a murderer who, for reasons not initially known, seeks to exert such control over his wife, played by Ingrid Bergman. Identifying Boyer as a murderer is not giving anything away in this movie. The strength of the movie is in watching this control slowly and steadily take shape. Knowing the good guys and the bad guy enables us to focus on these developments without being distracted by "who done it." There are some mysteries that are solved during the course of the movie which do add to its'impact.
With a psychological drama such as this, the acting is critical for success. In this case, the cast is exceptional. Charles Boyer lokks and acts the part of the evil manipulator. Ingrid Bergman won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of the manipulated wife. Her descent into bewilderment is impressive to watch. The movie is well-directed by George Cukor and must have been a big hit in its' day.
I limited my rating to four stars for the same reason I referred to it as a semi-thriller. I felt that could have been a bit more done to effectuate a greater sense of impending doom. I previously noted that the strength of the movie lies in its' psychological development. However, I thought there was room for more suspense. Knowing "who done it" from the start was OK; it was the not knowing who done what or why that I felt could have been better developed.
Rating:
Summary: Are you Gaslighting Me?
Review: I saw this movie about 7 years ago as a rental from a library, even on VHS it was a winner. I have been waiting for it to come out on DVD so I can finally buy it. All of the characters are great in this movie, Angela Lansbury has her acting debut & is feisty, Joseph Cotten is the handsome detective who knows something is up, Charles Boyer, what can I say, that voice is amazing, Ingrid Bergman plays beautiful, fragile, naieve(sp)Paula. I watched the 1940 version of Gaslight after I watched the 1944 one and wasn't to impressed, maybe it was because I had something to compare it to. This one though is definatley a keeper.
Rating:
Summary: Both Good, But the Brits Win
Review: MGM was probably right to try to do away with the prints of the British Gaslight (if the story is true), released four years before it's own version starring Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer. The story is almost identical; the differences are in the stars and how they're directed.
An old lady in Victorian England is killed for her jewels, but the killer can't find them. Flash forward. The woman's niece, now grown, is newly married and she and her husband move into the old lady's home, now hers. Before long strange things begin to happen, the gas lights dim unaccountably, pictures are moved, the husband finds reasons to be gone at night, and her increasing nervous condition means she must be kept more and more isolated from those who once knew her. There's only her husband, the housekeeper and the maid in the house. Is she going mad? (Here's the spoiler). The husband certainly hopes so, because he's the killer. He's behind the strange happenings and his wife's isolation. He's busily looking for the jewels in the house's attic at night, and he wants his wife out of the way permanently.
The British and the American versions are both good, but (and all these are just my opinions): As the wife, Ingrid Bergman overacts impressively. All that tearing up and clutching at hankies... all those trembling lips and desperate looks. Diana Wynyard does a better job of suggesting deep distress, but Bergman is a joy just to look at. Charles Boyer was, in my view, a great actor, but he is being compared with Anton Walbrook, just as great an actor. Walbrook could be magnificent at showing subtle menace and ruthless charm. In the British version the cop, played by Frank Pettingell, is an older guy, wise and experienced, who has Walbrook's number but needs evidence. This part is now played by Joseph Cotten as a budding love interest for Bergman. He seems, to me, more like a brave puppy nipping at Boyer's shoes. Angela Lansbury, at 19 in her first movie, is terrific as the maid..sweet frosting on the outside but all self-centered tart on the inside. Cathleen Cordell played the role in the Brit version, and was just about as good.
The U.S. version is about 30 minutes longer than the Brit version, and it shows. A lot of the time is spent caressing Bergman with the camera. Cukor directed, but I wish Hitchcock had. He'd probably have spent as much time focused on Bergman, but I think the movie would have moved faster and with more tension. The ending (possible spoiler ahead ), when Bergman faces down a tied-up Boyer, is all Bergman and all "acting."
I think it was great that Warner released the DVD of Cukor's Gaslight with the British version. The comparisons are almost as interesting as the movies themselves. Both movies are well worth a watch.
Rating:
Summary: A crafty, well-made thriller
Review: Young Paula Alquist witnesses the murder of her Aunt Alice, a world-reknowned opera singer, in her own house. On the advice of family and friends, Paula moves out of the country, to live with a family friend. After many years, she falls in love with Gregory Anton, and he convinces her to move back into her Aunt's house. Nothign has changed since she left 10 years ago, but Gregoy persuades her to remove her Aunt's belongings in order to keep those painful memories at bay. Soon after moving in, though, strange things start to happen. The gaslights mysteriously dim each night, followed by strange noises coming from the closed off upper floor. Paula begins to lose and to misplace things, convinced by Gregory that she must rest or the strain would get to her. On one of their few outings, for she is somewhat unstable around the outside world, a strange recognizes her and soon discovers that things are not as they seem and that her husband maybe up to something involving her Aunt's hidden jewels which have never been found.Director George Cukor presents a remarkably thrilling film, with superb acting from Ingrid Bergman (in an Oscar-winning performance) as Paula Alquist, Chalres Boyer as her mysterious husband Gregory Anton, Joseph Cotten as Inspector Brian Cameron, and Angela Lansbury in her first screen role as the maid Nancy Oliver. The captivating story of a woman struggling to maintain her sanity is marvelously portrayed on-screen. Bergman fills her character with enough frayed nerves and self-doubt that you feel right along with her. Boyer is both menacing and debonair and gives off just the right amount of malice to make you bite your nails as you watch the film. This is a first-rate thriller that will keep you glued to the screen!
|
