Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Prolabas Deeper than the descriptions

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

preppy-3 This takes place during WW1. Soldier Roy (Kent Douglass) meets and falls in love with Myra (Mae Clarke). She tells him she's a chorus girl but she's actually a prostitute. She falls in love with him too but is racked with guilt over lying to him. It all leads to a predictable (but moving) tragic ending.Excellent drama based on a play. It was remade in 1940 but that version was toned down to appease the Production Code. This version is uncut and (for its time) pretty raw. It was made with top production values and beautifully directed by James Whale. Douglass is very good as Roy (if a little overly naive) but Clarke is excellent as Myra. Her pain and agony comes through in every scene. More surprising is that some members of Roy's family figures out what she does--and could care less. The ending is somewhat predictable but damned if it didn't have me crying. Also is has a young Bette Davis in a supporting role! Recommended.

Steffi_P The coming of sound to Hollywood was such a mighty upheaval as far as the mechanics of filmmaking went, that those years from 1928 to 1931 were in many ways a testing ground for new approaches, and a trial for directors. Of those that succeeded, there were old pros like Michael Curtiz, Raoul Walsh, Ernst Lubitsch and John Ford who were able to make incredibly smooth transitions simply by weaving sound in as another layer in their existing technique. And then there were the newcomers from theatre backgrounds, people like George Cukor, Rouben Mamoulian and of course James Whale who were accustomed to directing dialogue but completely unused to the world of movies. Cukor and Mamoulian got off to shaky starts, and their earliest films are rather poor. Whale however seems to have had taken instantly to the talkie medium, picking up film grammar with ease and yet with the unique approach of the outsider.In Waterloo Bridge, Whale's second picture, we open with a sweeping tracking shot, reminiscent of those with which the afore-mentioned Mr Curtiz often opened his pictures both before and after the sound barrier. Whale isn't yet savvy enough to use this to key us into the setting and introduce ideas as Curtiz would, but his complex and vibrant arrangements show his understanding of the movement and unlimited scope of cinematic space, with a shot ironically inside a theatre! In dialogue scenes Whale has a distinct way of framing actors, often from the knees up with their heads very close to the top of the shot, which seems emphasise the height of the frame as being equal to the width. The camera is constantly moving round, often giving us 360-degree coverage of a location. It's as if Whale, freed from the limited proportions of the stage, is now striving to give us a sense of the "real world" spaces that motion pictures can take place in.Another great thing about Whale is that he makes very abrupt and effective changes in focus. Take the moment when Mae Clarke and Kent Douglass both realise that the other is American. Up until that point the whole scene had been in long mid-shots, with a lot of movement in the frame, but then we suddenly cut in to these bold close-ups with no intermediary ground, and the moment is given great weight as the point at which the couple "clicked". There's an even better example in the scene when Clarke and Montgomery get to know each other in her apartment. Again this is mostly in mid-shot, with the occasional head and shoulders shot. However, once Douglas has left and Clarke slips into character for her "night job", there is again this very jarring cut to a close-up, this time of Clarke in her dressing-table mirror. It's a sudden and very deliberate stepping from the carefree world of the courting couple to the very private space of Clarke and it makes the shift in tone at this point all the more palpable.The leading couple, Clarke and Douglass (later credited as Douglass Montgomery in pictures such as Little Women) were two of the many stars who were fairly noticeable in the early sound era, but would soon fade into obscurity for one reason or another. I have seen them both in a number of other roles, but never has either of them been as good. Clarke has a really natural feel for the dialogue, and shows great understatement with her near-deadpan facial expressions. Douglass too is very restrained, managing to give a believable portrait of Roy's naiveté, his one break into powerful emotions very credible. "Restraint" and "understatement" are not words that could be applied to the rest of the cast, who by and large are a delightful rogues gallery of hammy oddballs. We have some sharp-tongued cockneys like the potato woman and the landlady, played by Rita Carlisle and Ethel Griffies respectively, both of whom would roughly reprise their roles for the 1940 remake. Best of all however is Frederick Kerr in one of his unfortunately small number of film appearances, doing his typical blustering aristocrat act. Many of his curmudgeonly mutterings were no doubt written specifically for, if not by, Kerr himself. Players like these add spice to the production and give contrast to the subtlety and seriousness of the leads.Waterloo Bridge is one of those pictures that have been revived today by the magic wand of the "pre-code era" label. This tends to be a bit of a double-edged sword, because while on the one hand it allows for DVD releases of pictures that would otherwise be nigh-on impossible to see, it means they also tend to get remembered and analysed for their sauce and sass more than for anything else. But aside from the somewhat frank handling of prostitution that marks it as a product of its time, Waterloo Bridge is a fine, stirring drama, which thanks to the efforts of its cast and director has a sense of realism, immediacy and intimacy rarely seen in pictures of that age.

secondtake Waterloo Bridge (1931)An amazing movie. Set in London during World War I, directed by the man who directed the original (and also amazing) Frankenstein, and with photography by the less known but first rate Arthur Edeson (Frankenstein, yes, but also Casablanca, no less). And throw in an astonishing actress, Mae Clarke, and you can see why it doesn't falter. She plays a struggling chorus girl and prostitute with snappy, lively believability. The lead male, Douglass Montgomery, playing a sweet hearted American soldier, is also a surprise face, totally charming, a perfect complement to Clarke. As characters, the young soldier's bright optimism brings out the best in the struggling but good hearted street girl.The story is fast, and not completely predictable, and has a blow-out of an ending, really nice. Though set in the teens it feels modern (maybe too modern, historically). I never knew that London had a kind of Blitz experience in WWI, just as they would a decade after this film was released, and looking it up I found the Germans used zeppelins over London in the first war much the same was as they did (with planes) in WWII--to demoralize the civilian population. It adds tense excitement to the film throughout, and to the last scenes in particular, even if it isn't completely realistic (for some reason people don't scramble for cover even as the bombs are being dropped, maybe to portray that stiff upper lip thing). Is this just a silly romance? No, no way, not when the two actors in it are so fresh and convincing, giving sparkling, nuanced performances miles away from the stiffness we associate with early sound films (or with many silent movies). This is a first rate and fast movie and honest, only 79 minutes long, with fully formed soundtrack and solid supporting cast (including a young Betty Davis, who is already confident and familiar as the sister of the leading man). The LeRoy remake of 1940 is a testimony to the strength of the story (and it is also really good). But if you want to see an early gem on its own terms, here it is. Highly recommended.

tfun28 First I have to apologize for my bad English, but I hope the text can be understood nevertheless.I think that this is a great movie. It appears astonishingly modern. What I appreciated most is, that the story is not about a conflict between bad and good characters. Rather it's about the inner conflict of Myra, who hates herself, so she can't accept the love of another man. The mirror scene, when she puts on her make up before she walks the streets, is amazing in that respect. In the mirror we see her on one hand through the look of the others, of her 'clients' (as well of us, the spectators), who see in her (only) the prostitute. On the other hand it is also her own look at that part of herself, which she hates. So one could say, that she sees herself through the others. (I like this 'lacanian' logic though it may seem presumptuous).As well the final scene, where they kiss while in the background London is bombarded by a zeppelin, is great. There seems to be a relation between the war and the strange love affair, which is only possible in a world which is out of control.The second thing I noticed was, that there are many long shots and just a few close ups. So it has an incredibly realistic look. It reminded me somehow of the films by Ingmar Bergmann, who (as far as I remember) also tried to explore the torn subject.The ending is erratic. Why is she killed? Is it a punishment from god? For me it seems a bit like it, because we see in the last scene the fur again, which Myra had received from a 'client' in the first scene. So it could be read as a symbol for her greed or her morally wrong decision (leaving the theater), that led her astray. But her death could be also read as a 'carpe diem' motif, which points again at the war, that confronts the human being with the possibility of a sudden, unexpected, unjustified death by accident.It is exactly this (moral) ambiguity, which makes this a great movie.