Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

calvinnme ... and I can hardly ever say that about precode films remade in the production code era.The original Waterloo Bridge starred Mae Clarke and was considered a pre-code, with more stark portrayal and language about the heroine's fate. Although this 1940 version was under the heavy hand of the censors, I still like it just as much as the original version. Basically we have a young woman who believes the man she loves is dead and has no way to survive but the world's oldest profession. It's not a fate she chooses, just one that she has to choose in order to eat. Yet society judges her although nobody gives her an alternative.Everyone remembers Vivien Leigh for "Gone with the Wind", but I think that this film and "That Hamilton Woman" are truly her best performances. The romance and chemistry between her and Robert Taylor is genuine, and just adds to the tragedy of the entire film, and then there's the final scene - which I can't tell you about without spoiling it for you. Just let me say that one piece of jewelry and one line spoken in remembrance makes the film complete.

Puckdeestubenfliege So much has already been very eloquently said here. Yet this movie certainly could not have been decrypted in 1940, but I think there is no point in not doing it now. Vivien Leigh has not made one movie that did not have any aspect of herself in it, and I never felt as strongly for her as I do watching this movie. Wonderful in its comedic and light moments, but there is no other that offers us so many looks into her sadness, the doubts, the giddy girl, into the romantic young woman that is in her somewhere but not allowed to be, the despair, the girl that looks out of the window into the gray of the day, some glimpses of hope, the elegant young lady, the shame, accepting everything to stay afloat, hating herself, misrepresenting things, the defeatism, and again the fog that is her doom. As glossy as this movie is and of course had to be, I don't know what any professional critic who proclaims this a chick flick is thinking. "Do you think you'll remember me now?" Who wouldn't.

frankwiener SPOILER ALERT!The landmark bridge is used by the original playwright (Robert Sherwood) to create a sense of structural unity to this very tragic story. This is where the film opens, in the midst of World War II, as Captain Roy Cronin (Robert Taylor) reminisces about his past. Then a flashback immediately delivers us to the very same spot, where he meets ballerina Myra Lester (Vivien Leigh) during the chaos and panic of an air raid during the first World War. The bridge is also the site where Myra meets her doom, first when she is compelled to negotiate with her first "client" as an impoverished prostitute and then a second time with her dramatic and heartbreaking final end. At the film's conclusion, we are once again brought to the bridge with Captain Cronin. The flashback of his life ends, and he, along with the rest of Britain and much of the world, must contend with yet another major, catastrophic war. Somehow, life must go on.The acting in this film is exceptional, not only on the part of the two leads but of the entire supporting cast. Depending on the material that is handed to her, Ms. Leigh is almost always captivating. More about her later. As to Mr. Taylor, I believe that this must rate as one of his finest performances. One of the most unforgettable moments in this film, if not in all of cinema, is his facial expression when he finally, fully understands the kind of life that Myra was forced to lead after she mistakenly believes that he was killed in action. It should not surprise us that this film and the roles that they played were considered the very favorites of both leads. We can see it in every word and in every emotion that they express so beautifully. Clearly, Ms. Leigh and Mr. Taylor love what they are doing, and we love watching them do it.Their supporting cast also excels here. The versatile and intriguing Maria Ouspenskaya, who has played every kind of role under the sun from the kindly Baroness in "Dodsworth" to the spooky Maleva in "The Wolf Man", is despicable as the tyrannical, even inhuman ballet director who sets much of the tragic action in motion by her cruel and obsessive behavior. At the other end of the likable meter is C. Aubrey Smith as Roy's powerful but compassionate relation. Virginia Field is excellent as Myra's devoted best friend. Finally, Lucile Watson is very strong in her role of Roy's aristocratic mother, Lady Margaret. The two critical scenes in which she appears demand a wide range of complex emotions, and her wonderful acting is a valuable contribution to the entire movie.I was struck by the extreme contrast of the poverty and near starvation of Myra and Kitty, on one hand, and the wealth and opulence of Roy's family and neighbors. This contrast of what life actually became for Myra and what life could have been for Myra is a major factor in the immense tragedy of this film. Somehow, the situation reminded me of the circumstances behind "A Place in the Sun", but that is a different review for another time. If only the waitress in the restaurant didn't hand Myra the newspaper, her life would have turned out totally different. Just one, slight gesture by an innocent bystander determines the entire fate of two very important lives. This is excellent writing, and it takes a very gifted cast to elevate the script even higher, along with our interest as engrossed viewers.No review should omit the contribution of Herbert Stothart's beautiful musical score, especially at the most critical moments of the film, including Myra's discovery of the erroneous report of Roy's death and when we want to hope, beyond all hope, that Myra and Roy would live happily ever after with the melancholy interpretations of "Auld Lang Syne" and "Let Me Call You Sweetheart" in the background during the country estate segment. I don't know about you, but my heart was already breaking at Lady Margaret's party, and it must have been because of that haunting music as it quietly suggested the tragic events that would soon follow.Credit goes to Mervyn LeRoy, as director, for the quality of the entire film. The mechanized parade of Red Cross lorries on the bridge near the end was another ominous warning to the viewers of the tragedy that would soon ensue.Vivien Leigh was taken from this world far too soon. I count only about 18 total works in her remarkable but much too short film career. While I would love to see more of her, I value what we do have and what we can continue to appreciate even after many, many viewings.

James Hitchcock "Waterloo Bridge" started life as a stage-play; this is the second of three cinematic adaptations. (The others are a 1931 film, also called "Waterloo Bridge", and "Gaby" from 1956). The film opens on 3rd September 1939, the day World War II broke out. Roy Cronin, a senior officer in the British Army, is travelling to France to join his regiment. He briefly stops on Waterloo Bridge to reminisce about his experiences during the First World War, and the rest of the story is told in flashback. His memories, however, are not of the actual fighting but of his romance with a beautiful ballerina named Myra Lester whom he first met on the bridge. The two plan to marry, but are prevented from doing so by circumstances. Myra loses her job with the ballet company whose formidable director, Madame Olga Kirowa, objects to her relationship with Roy. (Her surname was presumably chosen to suggest an association with the famous Kirov Ballet, although the ballet did not acquire that name, that of an assassinated Soviet politician, until 1934). Believing- wrongly- that Roy has been killed in action, and unable to find alternative employment, Myra and her friend Kitty descend into prostitution to prevent themselves from starving.Yes, you heard right. Prostitution. And that in the heyday of the Production Code. I have never seen the 1931 version of this story, but understand that it dealt with the subject much more frankly and as a result was banned in America after the Code came into force. It is therefore surprising that MGM could get away with making a remake, although the subject is dealt with very cautiously. (As Dr Johnson said of a dog walking on its hind legs, it is not done well, but one is surprised to see it done at all). The dreaded p-word is never actually uttered, and the dubious nature of Myra and Kitty's method of earning a living is conveyed only by euphemism and innuendo. Nevertheless, the audience is left in no doubt that the two are what would have been called, in the language of the day, "fallen women".Which leads us to the film's greatest plot-hole. The screenwriters were doubtless influenced by memories of the "hungry thirties" when many women may well have faced the unenviable choice which confronts Myra and Kitty. As others have pointed out, however, economic conditions in 1917/18 were very different. Even if Myra and Kitty could not find work as dancers (and there must have been many West End shows catering for soldiers on leave), there were a great number of other jobs available to women, either in work directly related to the war effort (nursing, munitions), or in industries left desperately short of labour by the exodus of men to join the Forces. The film's central premise, therefore, just does not ring true. The "extended flashback" structure also struck me as a mistake because it means that the viewer is aware, from the very beginning of the film, that Roy survives the war and therefore knows that the report of his death must be erroneous. It might have made for greater emotional impact if we had been allowed to believe, with Myra, that Roy has died.The film's other main weakness is the miscasting of Robert Taylor as Roy. (Vivien Leigh would have preferred her husband Laurence Olivier as her leading man, but was overruled). When the film began I wondered why Roy had an American accent and two possibilities occurred to me, besides the obvious one that Taylor did not want to attempt a British one. The first was that Roy was a Canadian, the second that he was an American who had volunteered for the British Army before America's entry into the war and had subsequently acquired British nationality. Neither, however, turned out to be correct. It transpires that he is actually a member of an aristocratic Scottish family, and as such Taylor seems completely unconvincing. Had the script been rewritten to make him an American he might have been quite good.On the positive side, Leigh is heartbreakingly beautiful. (This was her first film after "Gone with the Wind"). The film was a box-office success when first released, and her popularity must have played a major part in this. Her role may have been badly written, but she plays it with great sincerity and enables the viewer to empathise with Myra. I would say that she is the best thing about the film, although there are also good contributions in smaller roles from Maria Ouspenskaya as Kirowa and C. Aubrey Smith as Roy's elderly uncle. Overall, however, "Waterloo Bridge" is a film which does not hold up well today, partly because this sort of sentimental melodrama has gone out of fashion, partly because of its own weaknesses in plot and casting. It is hard to understand why both Leigh and Taylor considered it a personal favourite; both acted in much better films than this. 5/10Some goofs. The church where Roy and Myra hope to marry appears as a vast Gothic cathedral from the outside and as a modest chapel in the Classical style from the inside. We learn that the badge of Roy's regiment (the fictitious Rendleshire Fusiliers) is a broken lance, but he wears a different badge on his cap, the flaming grenade of the Grenadier Guards. The style of his uniform looks more American than British, and other British soldiers, even in scenes set at the end of the war in 1918, are seen wearing the uniforms of 1914/15, with peaked caps rather than helmets. The list of officers killed in action is headed by a Gunner; the term "Gunner" in the British Army refers to a private solider in the artillery, not to an officer. And why are Myra and the other female characters all dressed in the fashions of 1940, even though the action takes place more than twenty years earlier?