The greatest movie ever made..!

just watch it!

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Beautifully mounted recreation of 19th century New York, which is not surprising since this was RKO's golden age of set design and art direction. Those wall encased aquariums that line the main hall are shrewdly suggestive that anything might happen in such an exotic old mansion. Note too, the constant presence of snow on the sidewalks, a realistic and atmospheric touch unusual because of the expense.The opening scenes foreshadow dangers to come-- the locomotive plowing through flooded tracks, the odd "birdlike" passenger who intrudes with her strange story. All of this had me thinking the movie would be special. Indeed, the first half is intriguing as the doctor (Brent) delves further into the mysterious death of the birdlike woman. However, the second half flattens out into a rather static drawingroom drama that fails to generate the kind of edge-of-the-seat climax that's needed.George Brent was never a charismatic leading man, bland at best. Here, however, he blends right in as the stolidly responsible doctor who can be believed. The trouble is that the script follows him around for almost the entire time, and since he's seldom privy to events with the boy, we don't get much sense of the menace surrounding the boy that should drive the suspense, but doesn't. La Marr, of course, looks exquisite as the script requires; nonetheless, her skills as a besieged wife are considerably less than those of Ingrid Bergmann in the remarkably similar Gaslight (1944). Then too, Paul Lukas lacks the kind of conniving charm that the part calls for, making the showdown less a revelation of his true character, than a simple extension.On the other hand, the movie has the great Albert Decker as a maverick sculptor who breathes real life into the proceedings, along with a terrific explosion and fire that's a real grabber. However, I'm still puzzling over that awkward epilogue involving the cop at movie's end. Was that to satisfy Code requirements that nothing gets past the police since there is an element of deception that would otherwise be left hanging. Anyway, whatever the movie's shortcomings, it remains unerringly pictorial throughout, a tribute to the artistic eye of director Jacques Tourneur and the RKO art department.

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.

If you are a fan of Jacques Tourneur, "Experiment Perilous" is a must-see. This sinister and beautifully photographed period thriller ranks with Tourneur's supreme masterpieces, "Out of the Past", "Stars in My Crown", "Canyon Passage", "Curse of the Demon", "I Walked with a Zombie", and "Cat People". It is imbued with Tourneur's trademark touch of ambiguity and mystery. One of the reasons "Experiment Perilous" is so underrated is that the story does not flow logically. You have to do a bit of brain work to understand it, but if you are already familiar with Tourneur's cinema, this may come as a revelation. The film has often been compared to Cukor's similar costume thriller "Gaslight" which was also released in 1944 but "Experiment Perilous" is a better and more personal work. The opening chance encounter between Dr. Bailey (George Brent) and Cissie (Olive Blakeney) on the train resembles the mysterious chance meetings of "Cat People" and Tourneur's 1956 film noir "Nightfall". It has been said that the film was set in 1903 as opposed to 1944 because Heddy Lamarr wanted to wear period costumes. Lamarr is undoubtedly beautiful and her scenes with Brent and Lukas are exquisite and sensual.There is an excellent analysis on the film in Chris Fujiwara's book, JACQUES TOURNEUR: THE CINEMA OF NIGHTFALL (1998).