Una mirada moderna al escándalo político Watergate de los años 70, centrada en historias no contadas y personajes olvidados de la época.Una mirada moderna al escándalo político Watergate de los años 70, centrada en historias no contadas y personajes olvidados de la época.Una mirada moderna al escándalo político Watergate de los años 70, centrada en historias no contadas y personajes olvidados de la época.
- Nominado para 4 premios Primetime Emmy
- 2 premios y 27 nominaciones en total
Explorar episodios
Reseñas destacadas
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.
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.
Good show about what happened, showing the facts and the fumbling. Shea Whigham easily steals the show, playing a psycho so well that he's terrifying. He deserves an Emmy win for this one for sure.
"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.
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.
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.
What has grabed me by the collar, in this series, is that I find myself wanting, wishing, needing for the plot to be different for the outcome, the fate, of Martha Mitchell. She saw the truth but her husband was too corrupt, too much into the game, too controling to let her speak. And she was too firmly imbeded into his talons to see a way out.
If what I have seen is all true . . . How sad for our nation! Politics is not for honest people. And if the Nixon administration was this psychologically sick then the situation has only become worse.
Some scenes are very brutal - both psychologically and physically.
If what I have seen is all true . . . How sad for our nation! Politics is not for honest people. And if the Nixon administration was this psychologically sick then the situation has only become worse.
Some scenes are very brutal - both psychologically and physically.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesFor Sean Penn's transformation into John Mitchell, a team incorporated 11 prosthetics in a routine that took about 3½ hours each day, plus a bodysuit to change his frame.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How many seasons does Gaslit have?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta