TheLittleSongbird Comparing the 1931 and 1940 versions of 'Waterloo Bridge' reminds one of comparing the 1940 and 1944 versions of 'Gaslight'. In that the earlier version is well in the shadow of the later version, but despite being different films and having elements done better in the other both are very good to great in their own way.It is hard to say which is the superior version to me, while leaning towards the more lavish and more visually polished and glitzy later version this version, which is grittier and more steamy whereas the later version is more romantic and tamer (which may be a disappointment to some), is also very good in its own way. Bette Davis, despite still being good, does have little to do in a very early role (safe to say that she did go on to better things), but more problematic is the somewhat erratic and abrupt ending, granted there is emotional impact but the outcome just seemed also too random and contrived.However, while not as lavish as the 1940 film it is a beautiful-looking film with plenty of atmosphere, the cinematography being one of the film's highlights. James Whale's impressionist-like direction also conveys a compelling realism and ensures that atmosphere and momentum is always consistent. Uncredited Val Burton's music score is lush and sometimes haunting, while there is a very intelligent script and a story that's genuinely emotional and intriguingly ahead of its time.It's driven also by the pivotal chemistry between Mae Clarke and Douglas Montgommery (or Kent Douglass), which is depicted beautifully here and some great acting. Doris Lloyd, Frederick Kerr and especially Enid Bennett give priceless supporting contributions, and Douglass' inexperience does not show in a surprisingly naturalistic turn that neither overstates or underplays the naivety, but it's the astonishing and quite heart-wrenching performance of Mae Clarke that's most unforgettable, genuinely reducing me to tears on several occasions.Overall, while this version of 'Waterloo Bridge' is in the shadow of the later version, it is just as good and well worth checking out. 8/10 Bethany Cox

atlasmb Let me say first that I did not like the ending of this film. It is a product of its time that, by today's standards, is unnecessary.In World War I, during an air raid, a young couple meet by accident on Waterloo Bridge. Myra used to be a chorus girl, but now survives by the attentions of men. Her plight seems a reasonable representation of the unfortunate circumstances that befall some single women during wartime. Roy is an idealistic and naïve soldier who, without understanding her station in life, falls rather quickly for her. Myra tries to protect Roy from his own feelings, believing she is not worthy of his love. He is persistent until it becomes impossible for Myra to avoid his intentions.Myra is played by Mae Clarke in a consistently good acting job. Her performance feels more modern than the rest of the cast's. I felt her hairdo was also modern for its time, perhaps contributing to the overall effect.Bette Davis plays a very minor role.

mark.waltz During the early days of talkies, abridged version of classic novels and plays made it to the screen at an alarming rate, from classics like "Jane Eyre", "The Scarlet Letter" and "Oliver Twist" to this, the film version of Robert Sherwood's play. Many of them are dismissed because of their cheap production values (made at poverty row studios) and because of their more elaborate remakes. In the cast of the original "Waterloo Bridge", the original is actually pretty good, and remains an obscure gem because of its director, the artistically brilliant James Whale.Mae Clarke, "the grapefruit girl", is believable as the troubled Myra, the former chorus girl who becomes a prostitute before falling in love with a soldier from a fine family. She certainly not as glamorous as Vivien Leigh who played the role in MGM's much more lavishly produced 1941 remake. The fact that she's less than a picture perfect beauty suits the part well and she comes off successfully in her favor. Douglass Montgomery (billed as Kent Douglas) is a winning handsome hero, while Enid Bennett as his mother, a very young Bette Davis as his supportive sister and Frederick Kerr as his alcoholic uncle offer fine support. Nicely photographed and edited simply to get to the point of the basic structure of the plot, this might not please purists, but for depression era audiences, it must have been a thrill. It certainly still can leave a lump in your throat as the tragic conclusion approaches.

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.