MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

jc-osms I watched this film on the recommendation of a friend and wasn't disappointed. Although the main action is told in an extended flashback set in civilian life during the First World War, the bookending of the movie with Robert Taylor's middle-aged army colonel's long reminiscence on Waterloo Bridge of the love of his life is set in present day 1939 just after the outbreak of World War 2, making it one of the first films reflecting the new, even more devastating conflict. That said seeing the characters in contemporary clothing and hair-styles you might be forgiven for thinking it is a WW2 movie but one shouldn't forget the likely underlying aim of the film to interest and influence the watching American public on the side of the British as they initially stood almost alone against the German Army so perhaps the familiarity engendered was deliberate.There is no military action in the film however although the fact of Taylor's Captain Roy Cronin being an army officer does otherwise play a big part in proceedings, as it's a bomb raid which first throws he and Vivian Leigh's ballet dancer Myra together where they immediately spark and fall in love. Their whirlwind romance sees him attempt to marry her before he's posted overseas in two days only to be thwarted in this by his posting being brought forward a day. An unforeseen consequence of this is that Leigh loses her placing with the ballet corps which employs her, falling foul of the tyrannical old Madame who runs the company for missing a performance by rushing elsewhere to see Taylor off. Although she's accompanied in this departure by her rebellious friend and fellow-dancer Kitty (played by Virginia Field) who resigns herself in support of Leigh, when they find no work elsewhere for either of them, they resort to the oldest profession to survive, becoming streetwalkers, ironically to services personnel. Sure the plotting is highly melodramatic and the ending despairingly sad, but with two excellent star turns, fine supporting work by the rest of the well chosen cast and polished direction by Mervin Le Roy it's a very satisfying entertainment and must have been even more so to its original wartime audience.I've occasionally let my perception of Robert Taylor be clouded by the unsavoury part he played during the Communist witch hunt in Hollywood immediately after the war ended but he's undoubtedly handsome, charming and sincere here while the camera which so loved Leigh in the glorious technicolour of the immediately preceding "Gone With The Wind" continues its affair with her here in black and white. She really did have a most expressive face as we see her character run the gamut of emotions as her fortunes rise and fade time and again.Most impressive for me though was the skill with which it was directed by Mervin Le Roy. As well as helping the film leave behind its theatrical origins and keeping the occasionally improbable narrative going, there are lovely touches of flair exhibited which had me purring with pleasure. Some examples would be the dolly shot which picks out Taylor from the crowd at the train station, another high tracking shot of the pair dancing away from the crowd at a party to a private balcony, the dramatic focus on Leigh's face as she makes her fateful choice on Waterloo Bridge (I wonder if Hitchcock remembered it for Grace Kelly's trial scene in "Dial M for Murder") and the couple's first rapturous, silent dance together by candlelight. There's even a very modern shot with a double close up of Field and Leigh with the one in the foreground out of focus.All in all, a really fine film the like of which as the cliche has it, they don't make anymore.

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?

elle-787-399491 I have the 'Caeser & Cleopatra' film, as well as 'Gone With The Wind,' 'That Hamilton Woman', 'Anna Karennina, 'A Yank At Oxford,' and 'A Streetcar Named Desire' however, 'Waterloo Bridge' is my favorite. Lady Olivier was gorgeous and her ability to take on such a role on a subject that may not have been palatable to others at the time. It took me a long time to find this film, and when I did I was not disappointed. Of all the films listed above I found her quiet beauty and her hope for herself in this particular film captivating. In my humble opinion, Vivien Leigh surpasses even Katherine Hepburn. If you can find 'Waterloo Bridge' you too will love this film.

zetes A year or so ago I saw the original cinematic adaptation of this Robert E. Sherwood play. Directed by James Whale and starring Mae Clark, it was a near masterpiece in the genre of tragic romance. I had doubts about the remake. I figured, since it was made in 1940, the Hayes Code would have destroyed any reference to prostitution and the film would be much weaker. Thankfully, that isn't true at all. I have no idea how they got away with it, but the female protagonist, here played by the always remarkable Vivien Leigh, is a prostitute. She doesn't start off that way (as she does in the original), but she does eventually slide into the world's oldest profession. And there's no attempt to hide it whatsoever. You'd have to be pretty dense, even in 1940, to miss it. I also had some fear that I might dislike this version because, of late, I've been kind of bored with studio era Hollywood melodrama. But, damn, this film really worked for me, just as well as the 1931 version. The film kind of starts off like The Clock, with Robert Taylor, a soldier, falling hard for Leigh. The two of them, barely knowing each other, share a whirlwind romance (the candle dance to "Auld Lang Syne" is one of cinema's most romantic sequences). It's supposed to end in marriage, but Taylor is abruptly called back to duty. Leigh, a dancer, ends up losing her job over the romance (Maria Ouspenskaya plays her harsh employer), and she and her best friend (Virginia Field) end up as prostitutes on the streets of London. It plays out a bit differently than the '31 version, but it's no less effective. Leigh is much better here than she was in either of her Oscar winning roles. I'm shocked she didn't get nominated here. Taylor is good enough, but it's Leigh's movie all the way.