People are voting emotionally.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Fresh and Exciting

A Masterpiece!

This film centers around three people. We have retired constable Rough who is an affable and brilliant middle-aged gentleman haunted by one of his career's unsolved cases - the murder of Alice Barlow. And we have the relatively recently married and well-to-do Mallens, who have just moved into the house next door to the one where Mrs. Barlow was killed. Bella Mallen (Diana Wynyard) turns in a wonderful and sympathetic performance as a woman who is being driven to her wit's end by her obsessive, controlling and deceitful husband Paul Mallen (Anton Walbrook). The very first time Rough sees Paul, he becomes convinced that Paul is not who he says he is, and as the story unfolds, Paul Mallen's identity, his secrets and his intentions charge the film with powerful psychological distress and a Hitchcockian feeling of suspense. The behavior of Mrs. Mallens' gas light is the very clever device that eventually allows the film's central mystery to begin to unravel - hopefully before it is too late This film exhibits some truly startlingly well-created and detailed Victorian interiors, relatively typical but quite competent camera-work for its time, very strong performances - especially by Wynyard and Frank Pettingill (Rough) and a solid theatrical script. Gas Light was adapted from Patrick Hamilton's stage play of the same name, and it definitely retains some of the feel of a theatrical set piece. Well-directed by the talented if not prolific Thorold Dickinson (Queen of Spades, Secret People), I would recommend this over the more well-known and soapier American remake of 1944.

Although I really enjoy both versions of this suspense filled story, I just like the British 1940 film a little more. The contrast between the characters Bella and Paul are brilliantly executed in this version. I really loved the performance given by the delicate actress Diana Wynyard, she is most convincing as the psychologically abused Bella. Anton Walbrook's performance is the hallmark of the 1940 version. Walbrook gives a totally sinister performance as the evilly menacing husband, attempting to drive Bella insane. Together, Wynyard and Walbrook superbly transform this story into a very intense and dynamic thriller. Frank Pettingell is spot-on as the sly, astute former detective, who is highly suspicious about the new tenants at 12 Pimlico Square. All of the supporting cast are fine in their roles and the story moves along at a perfectly balanced pace, with every moment adequately holding the viewers interest. This streamlined production of Gaslight represents the story very good without any splashy distractions, thus proving that sometimes, " less is best." If you can, try to watch both versions of this story, as both are highly entertaining.

This really isn't a bad movie, it's just that the remake improves on it in almost every way. A full half hour shorter, it begs the question: is it better to slowly build tension, or cut to the chase? While I didn't particularly mind that the entire courtship between the husband and wife was missing (i.e., most of the first act) I did feel like this was a little too rushed, getting straight to the beats of the plot without building that sense of dread and helplessness. Another thing the remake does (and I have no idea what the original text is like) is give the husband much better motivation to marry the woman in the first place. As for the casting, between Charles Boyer and Anton Walbrook, I'll call it a draw. Maybe even a slight edge to Walbrook, who seems a little bit nastier. Diana Wynyard is okay, but no match at all for Ingrid Bergman. Bergman just has a far more compelling screen presence, especially in the finale. Frank Pettingell vs. Joseph Cotten is a trickier comparison, because the characters are completely different. I think I like the character more in the original, but the performance more in the remake. Is it unfair to make these comparisons, particularly since this one came first? Yes, but I can't help it. One version is far more well-known and well-regarded, and for good reason. Again, not a bad movie, but the 1944 version does it so much better, and leaves little reason to watch this one.

I looked in vain for any directorial 'touches' that might justify the esteem is which Thorold Dickinson is held in some quarters. I found little beyond journeyman competence. I was, of course, watching for the first time in 2010 a film released in 1940 when a country at war would presumably be easier to please. I was particularly unhappy at the amount of 'back-story' we had to fill in ourselves. Yes, we did see the original murder (though not, of course, the murderer) and it was clear that Anton Walbrook was the murderer and equally clear that he had returned to the scene of the crime to search for the rubies for which he had resorted to murder in the first place but what was missing, and was to some extent crucial, was the whole story of his meeting his wife, courting and marrying her. The finest actor in the film by a country mile, Robert Newton, had less screen time than the inept Jimmy Hanley and there was no real motivation for Frank Pettingell to become so involved - Joseph Cotton had a far stronger motive in the shape of Ingrid Bergman in the remake. The whole thing is creaky and melodramatic with 'Tilly' Walbrook hamming it up as if auditioning for Charles Laughton's leftovers. Just about watchable.