VALUTAZIONE IMDb
7,3/10
5713
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaTwenty years after the murder of Alice Barlow, her house is finally occupied again. However, the husband from the couple who has moved in has a secret that he will do anything to keep hidden... Leggi tuttoTwenty years after the murder of Alice Barlow, her house is finally occupied again. However, the husband from the couple who has moved in has a secret that he will do anything to keep hidden.Twenty years after the murder of Alice Barlow, her house is finally occupied again. However, the husband from the couple who has moved in has a secret that he will do anything to keep hidden.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Alfred Atkins
- Bit Role
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Edwin Ellis
- Bit Role
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Kathleen Harrison
- Bit Role
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Katie Johnson
- Alice Barlow's Maid
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Molly Raynor
- Bit Role
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
10preppy-3
It's easy to see why MGM locked this away in their vaults when they issued their 1944 remake--it's really great!
An evil crook (Anton Walbrook) slowly tries to drive his wife (Diana Wynyard) mad for some jewels.
This isn't as lush as the remake, but it more than makes up for it in other departments. For one thing--it's shorter by about 30 minutes and there's no romantic interlude at the beginning. This one starts dark and gets darker. Walbrook is frightening as the husband--much better than Charles Boyer in the remake. The scenes where he yells at his wife had me jumping. Wynyard is great as his fragile wife. She doesn't go into hysterics and chew the scenery like Ingrid Bergman did--she plays it calmly and quietly and very very realistically. Her final confrontation with her husband was just great. Also Cathleen Cordell is lots of fun as Nancy, the parlor maid. In the remake she was played by Angela Landsbury (in her film debut). Surprisingly, Cordell is better than Landsbury!
The remake copied this film virtually scene by scene--and suffers somewhat by comparison. It added on the unnecessary romantic subplot with Joseph Cotton. Thankfully, there's nothing like that here. This just grips you from the very beginning and doesn't let go.
Both movies are great but this one is marginally better. Very recommended.
An evil crook (Anton Walbrook) slowly tries to drive his wife (Diana Wynyard) mad for some jewels.
This isn't as lush as the remake, but it more than makes up for it in other departments. For one thing--it's shorter by about 30 minutes and there's no romantic interlude at the beginning. This one starts dark and gets darker. Walbrook is frightening as the husband--much better than Charles Boyer in the remake. The scenes where he yells at his wife had me jumping. Wynyard is great as his fragile wife. She doesn't go into hysterics and chew the scenery like Ingrid Bergman did--she plays it calmly and quietly and very very realistically. Her final confrontation with her husband was just great. Also Cathleen Cordell is lots of fun as Nancy, the parlor maid. In the remake she was played by Angela Landsbury (in her film debut). Surprisingly, Cordell is better than Landsbury!
The remake copied this film virtually scene by scene--and suffers somewhat by comparison. It added on the unnecessary romantic subplot with Joseph Cotton. Thankfully, there's nothing like that here. This just grips you from the very beginning and doesn't let go.
Both movies are great but this one is marginally better. Very recommended.
In Victorian London, Louis Bower (Walbrook), murdered his aunt for her precious rubies that are hidden somewhere in her house, only he couldn't find them. Having eluded the police for a number of years and changed his name to Paul Mallen, he takes a wife in the fragile Bella (Wynyard), and the couple move back into the house so that he can continue his search under cover as a respectable Victorian husband. At the same time he tries to drive his wife out of her mind because he is afraid that she might discover his guilty secret...
The first film version of Patrick Hamilton's successful stage play is technically modest compared to the 1944 Hollywood remake (see my review), but this British National production directed by Thorold Dickinson creates an atmosphere of genuine electric tension that Hollywood could only envy. Hardly surprising really that they tried to destroy the negative of this picture. Fortunately prints have survived and it often turns up on TCM every few months. Good performances too, especially from Walbrook who portrays the villain as a vile Victorian bully whereas Charles Boyer played it smooth. Wynyard does well as the tortured wife while Cathleen Cordell is fine as the tarty parlour maid whom Walbrook uses to add insult to his wife's injury.
The film was available in the UK on VHS but it has since been deleted, although the Hollywood version is out on DVD. Let's hope this version finds it's way on to DVD too.
The first film version of Patrick Hamilton's successful stage play is technically modest compared to the 1944 Hollywood remake (see my review), but this British National production directed by Thorold Dickinson creates an atmosphere of genuine electric tension that Hollywood could only envy. Hardly surprising really that they tried to destroy the negative of this picture. Fortunately prints have survived and it often turns up on TCM every few months. Good performances too, especially from Walbrook who portrays the villain as a vile Victorian bully whereas Charles Boyer played it smooth. Wynyard does well as the tortured wife while Cathleen Cordell is fine as the tarty parlour maid whom Walbrook uses to add insult to his wife's injury.
The film was available in the UK on VHS but it has since been deleted, although the Hollywood version is out on DVD. Let's hope this version finds it's way on to DVD too.
I have liked the Gaslight films for many years and was surprised and delighted recently to find both versions together on an American DVD ! Miracles will never cease, I thought!
I have read various comments from people trying to compare these two films. I will not fall into this trap - I liked each film as much as the other..true, Walbrook looks more evil as a villain than Charles BOyer, and the 1940 version is perhaps a little more picturesque with the sets ( carriages, children etc ) but both films were very well done. The picture quality of the 1944 version is obviously better than that of 1940, and I had read somewhere that they had actually tried to get the print of the 1940 version destroyed as to have only the 1944 version available. What a horrible thought that someone could actually have wanted to do that !
So, they are both great suspense films and the black and white only serves to enhance the already seedy atmosphere ! Well worth several viewings !!!
I have read various comments from people trying to compare these two films. I will not fall into this trap - I liked each film as much as the other..true, Walbrook looks more evil as a villain than Charles BOyer, and the 1940 version is perhaps a little more picturesque with the sets ( carriages, children etc ) but both films were very well done. The picture quality of the 1944 version is obviously better than that of 1940, and I had read somewhere that they had actually tried to get the print of the 1940 version destroyed as to have only the 1944 version available. What a horrible thought that someone could actually have wanted to do that !
So, they are both great suspense films and the black and white only serves to enhance the already seedy atmosphere ! Well worth several viewings !!!
Although Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer got a lot of press for the movie GASLIGHT, the film was actually a remake of a British film made only a few years earlier. It seems that the big-wigs at the studio wanted to remake the film but pretend that it was an original Hollywood production so they bought up the prints and the remade film went on to be considered a "classic". However, recently the ORIGINAL version from 1940 has been discovered and has been shown on Turner Classic Movies.
Having seen both versions, I found them awfully similar--but I would have to say that I preferred the original. The wonderful Anton Walbrook was a wonderful and even more menacing husband and I just could see no reason why the movie should have been remade. It's really a shame, too, as I am sure that those associated with the original must have wished they'd gotten all the attention the 1944 version received.
My advice is see them both. However, if you only plan on seeing one, see this one--it's just a better film!
Having seen both versions, I found them awfully similar--but I would have to say that I preferred the original. The wonderful Anton Walbrook was a wonderful and even more menacing husband and I just could see no reason why the movie should have been remade. It's really a shame, too, as I am sure that those associated with the original must have wished they'd gotten all the attention the 1944 version received.
My advice is see them both. However, if you only plan on seeing one, see this one--it's just a better film!
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 among 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 *****
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 *****
Lo sapevi?
- QuizWhen MGM remade the film with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman, the studio attempted to have all prints of this earlier version destroyed. Fortunately, several prints escaped the fire (in fact, it is believed that director Thorold Dickinson surreptitiously struck a print himself before the negative was lost).
- BlooperAfter the murder of the old lady in 1865, a police constable is shown blowing a whistle to summon assistance. Whistles were not used by the Metropolitan Police until the 1870s; prior to that they used a football rattle to attract attention.
- ConnessioniFeatured in The Kenny Report: Episodio datato 3 settembre 2024 (2024)
- Colonne sonoreThe Can-Can
(uncredited)
from "Orpheus in the Underworld"
Music by Jacques Offenbach
Arranged by Richard Addinsell
Played at the music hall and danced to by The Darmora Ballet
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Angel Street?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 24min(84 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti