Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Best movie ever!

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Experiment Perilous is directed by Jacques Tourneur and adapted to screenplay by Warren Duff from the Margaret Carpenter novel of the same name. It stars Hedy Lamarr, George Brent, Paul Lukas, Albert Dekker, Olive Blakeney and Carl Esmond. Music is by Roy Webb and cinematography by Tony Gaudio.1903 New York and psychiatrist Dr. Huntington Bailey (Brent) is plunged into a psychological maelstrom when he enters the lives of Clarissa (Blakeney), Allida (Lamarr) and Nick Bederaux (Lukas).I've been living in that diary tonight, living the strange distorted lives of Nick and his sister.It's a grand title for a film, but one which is something of a bum steer since it conjures up images of Frankenstein type horror. Experiment Perilous comes comes from a Hippocrates saying and is quoted by Brent's good doctor during the unfurling of the narrative. The Carpenter novel was actually set in the present day but a decision was made to transfer the story to the early part of the 1900's so as to get some period flavours into the mix. A good move as it turned out.Very much in the vein of The Murder In Thornton Square (or the remake Gaslight also released in 44), Rebecca, Suspicion et al, Tourneur's movie isn't up to the standard of those films, but that in no way means it doesn't hold many pleasures, because it does, especially for Tourneur fans. It's very much a slow burner, a talky picture that for the first hour nearly crumbles under the weight of too much exposition and cod psychological musings. Yet the visuals and alternating interior and exterior period settings set up by Tourneur and Gaudio are mightily impressive (the interior set designs were nominated for an Oscar). Story unfolds to a back drop of a steam train, snowy gas lighted streets and an imposing period Brownstone abode (good use of miniatures a bonus here as well), while the interiors veer from elegant dressings to gloomy rooms of shadows and a hidden away spiral staircase. These are tailored made for Tourneur who ensures the standard formula of plotting is given a kick by its surroundings.Narratively it's made obvious to us that something isn't right with Lukas' shifty husband character and it comes as no surprise to see a romance begin to form between Brent's doctor and Lamarr's emotionally confused wife in possible peril. But these sign posted developments are well handled by the director, where flashbacks help and sinister additions such as a child hidden away upstairs and the Bederaux's back story keep things perched on the mystery/thriller edge. Cast performances are strong, with Lukas suitably suspicious, Brent unassuming and reflective and the beautiful Lamarr showing a fragile innocence that underpins the story. It all builds to a furious finale that involves fire, water and hopefully some race against time heroics?...Some patience is needed to get the most out of the picture, but neo- Gothic delights are within for those so inclined. 7.5/10

A doctor has suspicions about a curious married couple in the early 20th century. There's more than a passing similarity to GASLIGHT here, which may be mere coincidence, although it did come after the 1940 version and several months after the remake. Whereas Cukor focuses on the wife, however, Tourneur sticks with the outsider character, revealing information through investigation and flashback. As a result, this tale feels far less immediate and tense and takes on more of an air of mystery. But the film is crippled by dull characterizations. George Brent is absolute zero and Paul Lukas is only slightly more interesting. Hedy Lamarr is lovely (as we're told MANY times before she appears... few entrances have such a buildup) but quite wooden. I've only seen her in a couple of other movies, but beyond her looks she hasn't impressed me at all. There's also a rather overbearing score, although it is nice at times. I dunno, I feel like I should have liked this movie more. It does have that kind of dreamlike Tourneur vibe to it, I just couldn't engage with the characters and the plot doesn't have a very satisfying payoff.

Some of the reviewers here have been unkind for Hedy's performance, and can't for the life me understand why. They are all making comparisons for 2 different performances, with 2 movies that have similar backgrounds...almost anyway. Hedy's was suppose to show fear, anxiety, and meekness in her character...afraid to confront her husband. In this regard, Ingrid's character in "Gaslight" was similar, up to a point. Ingrid, had the one big scene where she shows all her frustration and anger at her husband, in one lusty yell. Hedy had no such scene advantage. Her performance was more somber, which i think she did, to me, and at the time of its release, many of the reviews said the same. By today's standard of performances, she would have been at the least nominated for an Oscar, as in comparison to a Helen Hunt performance in a forgettable movie with Jack Nickelson, in which she won Best Actress.

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.