Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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?

vincentlynch-moonoi I have a very bad habit when watching old films (something I do most evenings) in that I rarely pay much attention to who the director was. As I began watching this film, which I inexplicably had never seen, even as the opening credits passed by I thought it reminded me of the opening credits for my second favorite film (after GWTW) -- "Random Harvest". And then there's the classical music, which is common to both films. I jumped up to check the computer and realized that, yes, the same director for both films -- Mervyn LeRoy.I do think that LeRoy made one mistake in this film. For the first 58 minutes it's a simple love story of a soldier (in this case officer Robert Taylor) who quickly falls in love with a young woman during World War II. The fling went on for so long that I began to wonder if there was actually much of a plot. Then, just about an hour into the film you finally begin to realize what the plot is going to be. That left less than 50 minutes for the real meat of the story -- the mistaken belief that Taylor has been killed in the war, the turning of Vivien Leigh's character into a prostitute, the realization that Taylor is not dead, her attempt to hide her past...for a while, his search for her, and her suicide. The appetizer portion of the film should have been shortened by at least 15 minutes so that the meat of the film could have had more depth.One of the most interesting aspects of this film is that despite the fact that the plot hinges on prostitution, and because of the censorship code in force at the time of the filming, the word prostitution (or any synonym) is never mentioned, only implied.Was Robert Taylor ever more handsome or suave? Vivien Leigh was striking, of course, although even in GWTW, I always felt that a certain dark nature was evident, and of course that was true in her later real life. There's not much opportunity to savor supporting actors here...all their parts are key, though their screen times were minor. C. Aubrey Smith is always a delight, as is Maria Ouspenskaya. Lucile Watson as Taylor's mother was wonderful, and so much more could have been done with her role, had the film been reorganized a bit. But if one costar stood out, it was Virginia Field, as Leigh's friend, fellow dancer, and fellow prostitute.It was tempting to give this film a 9, but the weak, overly long first hour's story line makes me reduce it to an 8. But this is a film that should not be missed.

William Giesin This is what I call a "procrastination movie". In other words, it is a one of those "must see" films that your friends told you to see, and you wound up "putting it off" for a long period of time for one reason or another. When you finally took the time to see it ... you wind up "kicking" yourself for waiting for so long to see it. Dumb me! I did the same thing with films like "North By Northwest" and "Glory. Vivien Leigh plays Myra, a ballerina, who meets Captain Roy Cronin, Robert Taylor on Waterloo Bridge during an air raid in London. The two are forced by fate to share several hours together. Sound familiar? Kind of like Rhett Butler's fateful situation of sleeping on a couch and running into Scarlet O'Hara after a conversation with Leslie Howard. Yep! It's Gone With The Wind all over again .... two people madly in love finding themselves surrounded by the chaos of war as they suffer the trials and tribulations of separation and reunion placed by circumstance. It is also my understanding that Vivien Leigh had to agree by contract to make this film when she signed for the role of Scarlet O'Hara in "Gone With The Wind". What a great flick this is! There is no question in my mind that this is Robert Taylor's greatest performance, and Vivien Leigh's 2nd best performance. How could she or anyone possibly top her Scarlet O'Hara? How does it end? I'll never tell ... but I wills tell you this .... Maria Ouspenskaya, who plays Leigh's Balarina Mentor, makes Bette Davis and Joan Crawford look like Girl Scouts when it comes to playing a "queen bee".

gazzah-911-819855 'Waterloo Bridge' 1940 - Starring Vivien Leigh & Robert Taylor. I remember watching this movie for the first time when I was about 17 years old. I also remember crying like a dithering idiot at the end of the film. I watched the film again for the first time since that initial experience only one week ago! 31 years later and I still had a lump in my throat and tears falling involuntarily down my face! This isn't a case of my own emotional vulnerability at the risk of sounding like an 'old sook'. Moreover, it was a perfect example of where character depiction in a story sees no weariness through the ages of time. This is due entirely to the magnificent performance of Vivien Leigh in this role. Vivien developed her character from a place that few actors can make claim to, and that was directly from her heart and from her soul. Now I am not trying to place an esoteric value on the depiction of how she played her role in the film, but moreover, recognition! Vivien Leigh connected 100 percent to the plight of her character and her performance in this role as testament to her real life experiences. Robert Taylor leaves a lot to be desired in his role as the love interest, and I find him stiff and lacking in the emotional proportions required for such a story. However, this does not detriment the film or the story within the film one bit, as every crucial moment during the plot is rescued by Leigh's stunning portrayal in every scene that Taylor appears with her. Leigh's ability to literally wear her heart on her sleeve is an understatement. Taylor pales in every scene with her and that is only because Leigh's interpretation is not only a personification of Leigh herself, but also her ability at displaying frailness and fragility which was an inherent component of Leigh herself. Every single time the camera focuses on her, the sheer uncertainty of where this woman will find herself in the next scene is written all over her face. Leigh's performance is so relaxed and honest that it almost appears as though there was never a camera there in the first place. This has to be a true reflection of Vivien Leigh as a person and what was to follow later on in her life. Leigh's plight, desperation and vulnerability are as raw and as naked as any actor could wish to portray! The irony of this is, and I am sure that Leigh was never aware of this at the time, is that it only makes her performance that much more memorable, believable and significant! This was the first film Leigh made after 'Gone with the Wind' and her depiction of this character couldn't be more removed from that of Scarlett O'Hara. It's for this reason alone that the film is a must see as it is such a contrast! I would have preferred Laurence Olivier in the role played by Taylor, but those films were yet to come! In my mind, 'Waterloo Bridge' is a magnificent example of where art imitates life! The raw emotions of rejection, the need to be loved and the uncertainty of what will happen in our lives next are as relevant now, as they were when the film was made! Vivien Leigh encapsulates these human insecurities in a unique timeless manner! The plot may seem 'old-hat' and the background of the story far removed as to any of our own personal experiences, but the truth of human plight remains the same! It is for this reason alone that I strongly suggest you watch this film!