GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

HotToastyRag Did you know the very famous mystery Gaslight from 1944, which won Ingrid Bergman the first of her three Oscars, was a remake? I didn't, but as soon as I learned it was, I set out to watch the original. To cut to the chase, I liked the remake much better. But if you loved the 1944 version as much as I did, you might want to check this one out for a comparison.As everyone knows, since the title itself has been turned into a verb, Gaslight is a story about a married woman who fears she's losing her mind. While in the remake, the romance and happy, early days of Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer's marriage are shown, the original just starts off with the plot already underway. Diana Wynyard is already misplacing and forgetting things, and Anton Walbrook is very clearly the bad guy. I prefer the contrast, because if the audience likes the husband character, they're surprised when he starts exhibiting shady behavior.Both leads give good performances, but in a different style than their replacements. Anton is strictly villainous, and Diana is much more controlled and internal. The story is a bit obvious, and I was disappointed that Cathleen Cordell had a bigger part than Robert Newton-I had hoped Bobbie would play the husband character, since he's wonderful when cast as the bad guy.

mstomaso 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.

Spondonman I think it's one of the best British films ever made, certainly during the Golden Age, and one that Hollywood tried to suppress to give their effort made a few years later a clear field. I saw this the first time it was ever on UK TV – an extant print had been discovered, cleaned up and finally shown on BBC2 the evening of 27th July 1978. I was expectant, mesmerised, elated, and in fact completely bowled over by it. It finished late - my girlfriend fell asleep and I had to keep shushing her snores; so I quickly realised it's not everyone's cup of tea!Melodrama has old lady brutally murdered and robbed for her jewellery; many years later newly-weds move into the still vacant gas-lit house. Anton Walbrook is a suitably sinister sibilantly speaking husband, Diana Wynyard is perfect as scatty housewife apparently being driven out of her wits, and ex bobby Frank Pettingell admirable in his British bulldoggedness. But the beauty of the British film is that it clearly shows who was being driven mad, the US version (whilst still a good film) ladled on so much gloss and misplaced romance the whole point was lost. The attention to period detail and decor was fantastic - just look at the ornate clutter in their sitting room - that and most of the other sets all lovingly recreating a ostensibly genuine Victorian English atmosphere. And all leading up to the most chilling climax of any film! That fraught minute with Wynyard standing over Walbrook with the knife is a piece of Art in its own right, it's so perfectly nuanced in sound and vision with the irony screaming out. Although despite that I could never understand why Walbrook looked just for a second like he was slipping away from being stabbed, almost as if an alternate ending was considered.One of my favourite films; if you're interested try to make sure you watch a decent print as I've seen some grotty copies over the years - it's worth a whole bagful of roobees.

Martin Teller 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.