How sad is this?

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Respectable, Well-Mounted and Acted Movie with Excellent Production Values. Creepy, Engaging and not without some Weak Elements. Its Thin Backstory does it No Favors leaving the Audience a bit Stranded and it Feels as though some Catching Up is Needed to fully Flesh Out the Intense Situation of the Poor, Pitiful and Vulnerable Female (Diana Wynyard). It is Obvious She has no way of Competing with the Dominance of the Sneering and Overpowering Husband (Anton Walbrook). She is so Fragile it can be somewhat Sadistic for the Viewer, if Watching this Subjugation seems Entertaining. Mostly it is awfully Difficult for Em-Paths to Witness this Display of Domination.The Opening Scene is one of the Best and most Horrifying. It reaches on a Visceral Level and is quite Shocking in its way. Then Things Turn Psychological. When Help finally Arrives to Relieve the Suffering it's somewhat Forced and Clunky and might have Worked Better with a Law Enforcement Type, but it's OK. The Final Scene is also one of the Best as the Turnabout is Welcome and Rewarding. Plunging a Knife Deep into His Heart, as Audience Members surely Wished, would have Put a Punctured Punctuation to the Picture. Ahh...But this is a Film From 1940 and is Set in Victorian England and that would have been Improper.Note…Remade in 1944 by MGM with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. The Studio tried to destroy all Prints of this the original. What hubris. thankfully They were Unsuccessful.

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.

Even in the UK, this British version from 1940 of Patrick Hamilton's play is less well known than the American version with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman from four years later. The reason, apparently, is that when MGM purchased the rights to film the play, the contract included a clause that the earlier film should be taken out of circulation. MGM even attempted to destroy all copies of the negative, and so "Gaslight"nearly joined the long list of movies from the thirties and forties which are now considered "lost films", but fortunately at least one copy must have survived.The film is set in Victorian London. In the opening scene a wealthy old lady named Alice Barlow is murdered. The murderer is never caught, and after her death the house remains empty for about twenty years until a married couple named Paul and Bella Mallen move in. The marriage is not a happy one and Paul is a bully who treats his wife badly. Bella, who is attempting to recover from a nervous breakdown, begins to fear that she is losing her sanity when she starts hearing mysterious noises coming from the closed off upper floors and when she is unable to remember where she placed various objects. It transpires that Paul is playing psychological tricks on his wife, hoping to drive her mad. (He has a sinister reason for wishing to do such a thing). The significance of the title is twofold. The first that it evokes a sense of nostalgia for the gas-lit London of the Victorian past. The second is that the dimming of the gaslights in Bella's home is an important plot point.This version has some similarities to the work of Alfred Hitchcock. (Hitchcock was later to make "Rope", another film based upon a Hamilton play, and "Suspicion", another film about a wife who comes to believe that her husband may have malign intentions towards her). Whereas Charles Boyer's character in the 1944 adaptation was outwardly charming and plausible, Anton Walbrook's Paul is a much more obvious villain, only bothering to hide his villainy beneath the thinnest veneer of gentlemanly charm. There are some similarities between Walbrook's character here and one of his best known roles, Boris Lermontov in "The Red Shoes". Lermontov is a cold, domineering bully whose bullying has a disastrous effect on Victoria, the heroine of that film, although there is an important difference between him and Paul, an evil figure who quite deliberately plans to cause psychological harm to his wife. Lermontov, by contrast, does not intend to cause any harm to Victoria, and is oblivious to the damage that he is doing. Diana Wynyard's Bella is similar to some Hitchcock heroines, especially the characters played by Joan Fontaine in "Rebecca" and "Suspicion" who initially seem weak and passive but later reveal hidden strengths of character.It is a long time since I last saw the MGM version, so I will not attempt to compare the merits of the two films. This version was made by Thorold Dickinson, a well-known director in his day but largely forgotten today, possibly because he was never discovered by Hollywood in the way Hitchcock was and made all his films in Britain (apart from his final one, made in Israel). He also retired from making feature films at a comparatively young age and spent the rest of his career first working for the United Nations and then as an academic, becoming Britain's first Professor of Films. His version of "Gaslight", however, is a very effective suspense thriller, and the skill with which he handles his material, keeping the audience on the edge of their seats until the end, suggests that he deserves to be better known today. 7/10

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.