Experiment Perilous (1944)

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

I had only a vague notion of the plot before watching this, knowing only that the central character was a psychiatrist played by George Brent. But despite rather odd characters being wheeled on and off, despite portentous things (The opening sequence of the train besieged by lightning, storm and floods and Hedy Lammar's so-called "special look" in the portrait which itself appeared to be merely an enlarged and retouched photo yet supposedly hung in a museum as work of art) and dialogue; the production, script and cast battled as one so successfully to subdue and ultimately suppress conviction and interest that we parted company after around 20 minutes of viewing.Having watched both versions of "Gaslight" (with which reviewers have compared this offering) I would say both are incomparably superior to it. The earlier British version (fortunately saved from deliberate destruction) offered in the form of Anton Walbrook the most odious villain accompanied by a perhaps a more realistically vulnerable and less beautiful wife than Ingrid Bergman. Both films were intriguing from the outset. I guess that from the start I had misgivings about the casting of George Brent - an bulky actor of limited powers of expression and interpretation who was inexplicably regularly cast opposite Hollywood's very finest (eg Bette Davis). Brent is amiable and at times rather concerned but neither involving nor intriguing. Joseph Cotton for example would have suggested depths which Brent never could.I did not find the sets convincing - like the portrait itself they indicated a deficit of artistry and style however the opening section with its (model?) train besieged by storm and floods was well done. Interesting to note that it received no awards and that its single Oscar nomination was for art direction.

Atmospheric account of a chance meeting on a train that leads a doctor (George Brent) into the strange world of a young woman (Hedy Lamar) and her much older husband (Paul Lukas) . The opening takes place on a night time train ride to New York through cascading rainfall, and the inclement weather conditions continue on into a snowy and cloudy New York of the early 1900's. A story of a rich and jealous older husband with a lovely young wife, whom he had groomed in Parisian salons to enter society, and now feels insecure when she's enjoying the very society that he paid thousands of dollars to educate her to be in, who grew up in Austria and became laden with guilt and who now is so damaged that he can't see clearly enough to recognize his own good circumstances, and thus ruins everything. Director Jacques Tourneur dissects this pathological family (they have a son whom they keep in a bedroom which is up a spiral staircase) with great attention, creating some believable menace in true psychological suspense style. The need for a hero figure (Brent) to rescue the pretty Lamar and her innocent young son and provide a suitable conclusion, and Lamar's rather distracted and distant acting style are legitimate quibbles, but the overall tone is intelligently dark and serious.

Yes, step right up to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. And how about Paul Lukas as the scion of a wealthy New York family with a French name? What came over the people who cast this ramshackle event? George Brent is plausible as a doctor. The others: No.And what was with movies in terms of portraits? Hedy Lamarr certainly was a gorgeous woman. Yes, the portrait of her, through which she is introduced to us, looks like the work of a quick-sketch artist in Provincteown. It supposedly hangs in a museum but it has artistic merit of 2 on a scale of 1 to 100.The movie is well directed and beautifully filmed. And it isn't boring -- though it is predictable. It could so easily have been better, though, it's kind of a shame.

That HEDY LAMARR was one of the great beauties of the screen goes without saying. But whether she had the acting abilities to play a woman being driven slowly out of her mind by a calculating doctor husband (PAUL LUKAS) still remains questionable. There is no evidence in EXPERIMENT PERILOUS to suggest that she would have been up to the demands of the Ingrid Bergman role in GASLIGHT, which she turned down.Instead, she chose to star in this murky melodrama full of flashbacks and with an obscurely motivated script by Warren Duff. While it's by no means a complete failure, neither is it a resounding success.GEORGE BRENT as the friend who comes to Lamarr's aid is as stiff and wooden as ever, using just one expression throughout and obviously not too well connected to his role. Whether this was the director's fault or not, I can't say, but a more persuasive performance on his part would have made the whole thing more effective. PAUL LUKAS gives his usual professional performance as the doctor with an unhealthy perspective on how to deal with his wife and child.Jacques Tourner's direction leaves a lot to be desired. This is a story in the same mold as GASLIGHT, but nowhere as effective with a murky script and a dull payoff for the climax. As for Hedy Lamarr, she was much more at ease in other films, even though this is said to be one of her own favorite films.