Gaslit

"Gaslit" has a high-quality cast and production values, capturing the look and mood of the early '70s. But the tone is off-putting. Many scenes are played as broad farce, as if most of the key figures in the Watergate scandal were buffoons. These were corrupt people who made terrible blunders, but they were not all a bunch of clowns.

I think Sean Penn is very good as John Mitchell, but Julia Roberts could have put more a little more energy into her portrayal of Martha Mitchell, who was very flamboyant, colorful and opinionated. Dan Stevens as John Dean is a weak spot. He makes Dean seem very silly and clueless, and looks too hipster. These were Republicans! "Gaslit" explores an interesting episode in American political history, and includes many key facts, but the tone makes it seem a bit too much like a caricature.

It's very well written, exceptional acting, makeup is incredible especially on Sean Penn and the cinematography is beautiful! Gaslit is intriguing even gets better and intense; barely boring at all. I love that Sam Esmail is a producer he's masterful at his craft so is director Matt Ross I've enjoyed his acting. Hopefully overtime the series gets appreciated more I think it deserves higher than 6.8! To me it's one of the most enjoyable political stories out there.

The ads got me and I subscribed to Starz just to see this. How could a cast like this be bad? Well, it can't. I am really happy to say it's off to a great start. The cast is awesome and Martha Mitchell deserved better than she got. I love the photography and the gratuitous nudity. I also like the TV shots. Go Martha. Good luck. Hope it's a big success. This cast can't fail. So far it has a 5.1 rating. Don't believe it. If you don't like this, you just don't get it.

So far so good but big important question: where are John Dean's big hornrimmed glasses?? I am old enough to have been a young adult during this pivotal time in history. What is super ironic to me is how the very "scandalous " events that took down an administration and changed political history back in 1974 are in current times not worthy of even a second thought. It's all pretty much how it's done these days. God help us, we are living in a sad and very scary era 😳

This was, overall, a nice watch. Well acted and well written and I'm always a sucker for well designed and appointed period pieces. Julia has enough of the elements to remind me of the actual historical figure she's playing and I bet, coming from Georgia, she's familiar with the type. It feels like it.

But they make a key mistake I have trouble brushing away and, honestly, I don't want to: they whitewash the unpleasant parts of the woman this is about, who had views ranging from unpleasant to outright bigoted that she was just as open and loud about. By rewriting, ignoring, and washing away those parts of her we're denied the honest, complicated, powerful portrait of a flawed woman of her time who did such an important and ultimately honorable thing.

There's no reason to make her a hero to the point when people go to research her they are surprised and put off. The kind of complicated character we're talking about is pure awards-bait for actors and writers. Think of Mare of Easttown, for example, Ray Donovan, even Archie Bunker. A character does not need to be all good or all bad or purely likeable to be compelling and even respectable for the good things they did do. They really missed the boat on that part.