उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Sadder than this very moving film are the reactions of those who found this movie boring or too "slow." What a comment on the need for car chases and explosions that seem so pervasive in American flicks!! One of the reason I prefer foreign films.

"Mr and Mrs Bridge" is an amazingly accurate depiction of upper middle class lives, caught in the trap of repression and respectability. To watch the fate of Mrs Bridge (exquisitely portrayed by Joanne Woodward) as a woman trapped in a marriage to an inexpressive, career-focused man is to understand how women, even today, can lead limited, unfulfilled lives, bound up with a decisive husband and children who grow into self-absorbed adults, leaving their mother with a longing they won't or can't assuage.

Seeing the character of Mr. Bridge (another outstanding performance by Paul Newman), himself caught in the routine of his life, his sexual yearnings repressed, convinced of his correctness and respectability is a picture of the rigidity of ideas, values and prejudices rampant in our society, even in our own time.

An amazing and insight movie!!

"Mr. and Mrs. Bridge," directed by James Ivory, from 1990, is the story of one American family that represents many of that era, showing them in the period of 1937 until just after the war.

The Bridge family is upper middle class. Walter and India (Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward) have three children: the aspiring actress Ruth (Kyra Sedgwick, so young you can't believe it); Carolyn (Margaret Welsh), and Douglas (Robert Sean Leonard, another baby face). Walter Bridge is a conservative man, one who can't and doesn't show his feelings, an excellent businessman, by the book, and seen today, very old-fashioned, almost Victorian in his attitudes. He loves and respects his wife. India is a sweet, naive woman who doesn't know much of the world, but is exposed to it through her high-strung, independent-thinking friend (Blythe Danner) and her art classes. India takes her husband's opinions and does what he wants. The few times she puts forth other ideas, she is shot down and accepts what he says.

When it comes to their children, both of them are out of it. Walter is a fair man, and when Ruth wants to go to New York, he allows it under certain conditions; when Carolyn wants to marry someone beneath their class, he hears the young man out and gives his blessing; and when Douglas wants to join the Air Force, he counsels his son to stick with his education until he's drafted.

This doesn't mean that Walter and India know anything about their children's' private lives or the sex they're having. Walter is far too rigid to consider such a thing, and India is too naive.

This is certainly a picture of a different time, where the older generation didn't give their emotions much play, when women went to lunch, took art classes, and everything they did revolved around their husbands, and when the man's word was law. Yet we can see the beginnings of change around the edges in their children's' lives of what's coming.

The acting is marvelous, particularly from Paul Newman, who at 65 was still gloriously handsome; and from Blythe Danner, who belonged, perhaps, in a bigger city than Kansas City and among a more liberal crowd. I see where Joanne Woodward's performance has been criticized here; some of it, I gather, was because of her age and also because the character says some things considered out of character as compared to the books on which the film is based. Still, she has the sweetness, the caring, and displays the narrow thought of the character.

If the film is slow, it's because of the time period in which the film is set. You sat in the living room in the evening and listened to Nelson Eddy on the radio; you went to see A Star is Born with Janet Gaynor and Frederic March; it was a more leisurely life and a quieter one. Interestingly, it was a time period in which great self-analysis and deep thought could have emerged, but it wouldn't be until after the war that psychiatry (compared to astrology by Walter), women in the workplace, and changes in morality came into vogue.

Today we live so differently - it wasn't all it was cracked up to be back then, and life today sure isn't all it's cracked up to be now. A film like this does make one long for just a few of the old ways in terms of lifestyle perhaps - the simplicity, the sense of family, but in its repression and views of women, no way.

This film is based on two utterly unique novels by Evan S. Connell called 'Mrs. Bridge' and a companion novel published some years later, 'Mr. Bridge'. In 'Mrs. Bridge' Connell presents events in the title character's life and marriage, always from her heartbreakingly naive perspective, yet managing to convey the true nature of the events at the same time. This brilliant technique results in a portrait that is as much comic as it is pathetic. In 'Mr. Bridge' the author presents the same marriage, this time from Mr. Bridge's perspective, a much less comic, though no less tormented character.

The film fails to find an equivalent technique to present the parallel perspectives of the novel, those of the two main characters as well as an omnicient, often ironic narrator.

Nevertheless, I think the film could have succeeded more than it does if it were not for the misconceived role of Mrs. Bridge. First of all Joanne Woodward is too old for the part by twenty years or more and appears more like the children's grandmother than their mother. Secondly, she, and the author and director, create a highly emotional, always-on-the-verge-of-tears character that totally misses the central theme of the novel which is that Mrs. Bridge is completely out of touch with her emotional self. Her unhappiness lies deep beneath the surface of her everyday life. She copes by either doing as she is told by her husband, or by resorting to platitudes or the values of her middle class upbringing. In one of the first scenes of the film, Mrs. Bridge bursts into tears in her husband's presence and expresses insights about their marriage that are completely beyond the capability of the character in the novel. This robs the film of any chance of catching the ironic tone of the novels.

Paul Newman is perfect as Mr. Bridge, but again without the interior perspective, much of the essence of the novel is lost. The other actors are all fine, especially Blythe Danner. The scene in which Danner tries to explain to Mrs. Bridge the depth of her unhappiness and Mrs. Bridge can only respond with bromides and offers of tea gives a hint of what the film could have been.

The film is certainly a noble failure and worth seeing. But if you want a completely brilliant reading experience, get the novels.

Mr.&Mrs. Bridge is an interesting character study of a pair of a typical married couple during the years before our entry into World War II. The film does provide a good insight into the American mindset of a Republican oriented couple of the period, hardly the political orientation of its two stars.

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward are the Bridges with two daughters and a son who are all reaching adulthood. Kyra Sedgwick is the rebellious Bohemian type who just wants to shake the dust of her conservative roots and fly. Maureen Collins wants to get married and she makes a disastrous choice of a husband. But that is partly to get away from her father's ideas. And son Robert Sean Leonard is an Eagle Scout and apparently a chip of dad's old block. But he thinks there is more to life than his father's ideas. He's looking to join the army.

The film netted Joanne Woodward an Oscar nomination for Best Actress and she is the most interesting character in the film. She longs to recapture her youth when Newman was apparently a far more passionate individual than the stuffed shirt lawyer. She tries to shake Newman out of his smug complacency, but ultimately fails.

The Bridges are an interesting pair, but ultimately not very satisfying. I have to applaud the characterizations which are first rate, but this story which seemed really not to have a point just left me cold.

However fans of Newman and Woodward will like Mr.&Mrs. Bridge.

Slightly above average depiction of probably typical middle-class, middle-American family of the 40's and '50s. Very good acting by Newman and Woodward but so little plot that many will fall asleep. Typical Ivory lushness for period and good photography.

My first thought upon seeing this depression-era period film was that no one could have ever been so stuffy, stupid, and socially constrained as the middle age/elderly couple played by Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. But, then, I remembered that my grandparents were just like them, as were most of their contemporaries. What a limited life they led, and thank god for today's enlightenment.

That women could have ever been so totally and willingly dependent, physically and mentally, on their husbands is now hard to imagine, but it did happen and was typical in the days when women did not work outside of the home. The film showed, over and over, dependency scenes that emphasized the helplessness and powerlessness of women in those depression era days. It got real aggravating after a while, but was offset somewhat by Woodward's character's inner goodness and sweetness. She was dumb as a mud fence, though.

Newman was terrifically stuffy and dictatorial in his role and Woodward was terrifically dependent, incompetent, weak and stupid in hers. Wonderful work, and they both often had me steaming with their respective behavior, as I put up with a lot of this type of baloney when young. As their daughter, Kyra Sedgewick showed well that the "future" was going to be a lot different for women than the present by her unmistakable signs of emancipated behavior.

The film's story was ended so well by Woodward's character getting stuck in her car in her garage, as she was so dependent and ignorant about how to do anything in life for herself that she sat in her car for hours without even trying to figure out a very easy solution to her problem. At the end, she was merely sitting there waiting and calling for many hours for others to "rescue" her from her easily solved predicament(if she only could have had an original thought), just as she had done all her incompetent and dependent life. What a great ending, and a great example of how not to be in real life. Thank god again that things have changed.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, in addition to the storied couple (in real life) playing Mr. and Mrs. Bridge--I thought the story line excellent. I actually grew up in Kansas City not long after the time period in the film and my family lived much as these people. The film's "slowness" represents that time---Paul Newman's close and steady pace, his awareness and lack of awareness of the world around him are intriguing. Joanne Woodward and Blythe Danner represent to very different types of women (of the time) but gives the viewer the sense that they are both trapped, one willingly and the other not so willingly. I weep for the Mother (Joanne Woodward) who wants to be close to her grown children but is too limited in her own world to really know how. The children are at fault in many cases, but it's sad nonetheless. The "wedged" car in the garage door opening sums up the Mother's inability to control her surroundings and the very fact that the husband was angry when he arrived home only underlines this fact. Thank God he seems to have loved her!

Lush period settings abound, Mr. and Mrs. Bridge is a visual treat; just what you expect from a Merchant/Ivory production. This time its upper-middle class comfort in pre-WWII Kansas City. The Bridges, a somewhat neurotic waspy-lawyerly family, consist of Woodward and Newman trying to prepare their two children for adulthood, or at least their twisted idea of adulthood. An interesting setting, the movie lacks a story to tell. We are just eavesdropping as the family goes through an assortment of small crises. There is no plot per se, we just watch.

It's ok if you like this sort of thing, and Newman and Woodward are always good. This movie's a toss-up, not good, not bad.

This is probably the least interesting of the Merchant Ivory movies. It's not based on a great novel just an average one. The strong point is Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward acting well. There are some insights into changing values and attitudes of the time but it's just not that interesting.

Nothing very eventful or dramatic happens. It's just a meandering story about a family in the 30s with the main character being the mother. She has a emotionally distant husband who loves her in his own way. She is unappreciated by both him and her children who have their own struggles. She has a friend played by Blythe Danner going through some sort of breakdown. They have a little trip to Europe.

In the end if feels more of a waste of time. While Merchant Ivory usually selects interesting novels or subjects to adapt I don't know why they decided on this rather boring story.

It's far from a must watch.

Films produced under the Merchant/Ivory banner are, as a general rule, respectable, literate, and often more than a little bit dull. But here's an exception (to the last rule, at least): an intimate, snapshot diary of an ordinary, middle-class, mid-American couple, played by the off-screen couple of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. Ruth Jhabvala's sensitive adaptation of the twin novels by Evan Connell is highlighted by her customary wit and attention to detail, with Newman and Woodward improving on the title roles by adding in their performances subtle shades of character which can't be written into any script. The episodic, slice-of-life structure doesn't allow for any dramatic momentum, and there isn't much of a message beyond the observation that native mid-westerners are emotionally repressed, but under James Ivory's typically graceful direction (and with the help of a first-rate supporting cast) it's an uncommonly rich film, full of privileged moments.

Out of the Merchant Ivory productions I have seen, Mr and Mrs Bridge is my least favourite probably. That said, it is not a bad film, far from it. The production values are superb, I loved the beautiful cinematography and the scenery and costumes are equally exquisite, while the soundtrack is well-chosen and well-incorporated. Richard Robbins' score is a nice touch too. In general, the script is thought provoking and touching and the characters are believable. The direction is also solid, and the acting particularly from Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward is excellent.

However, the film is in my view overlong, and further disadvantaged by one too many scenes that drag badly. While I was touched the story and admired it, some of is episodic and could have done with more cohesion. Overall though, I did like the movie but I prefer Remains of the Day, Room with a View and Howards End over Mr and Mrs Bridge. Worth seeing for the production values and cast. 7/10 Bethany Cox

"Mr. & Mrs. Bridge" is a film that really frustrated me. It featured some terrific acting and the Newmans were terrific. Mrs. Newman (Joanne Woodward) was so good that she was nominated for an Oscar. But the story...well, it left me very flat and featured one of the worst endings I can recall in a movie.

The story begins shortly before WWII, probably sometime in early 1939 or so. The Bridges are a very successful family. Mr. Bridge is a top attorney, they are members of the country club, and they have plenty of money. However, through the course of the story there is a certain whistfulness...as if to say 'is that all there is to life?'.

I couldn't believe the way the movie ending...it actually made me feel kind of mad. Instead of providing some sort of ending, the story just ends and then a few sentences appear on the screen talking about what happened to the Bridge children! Imagine...spending this much time watching yet no real finale. It literally looked as if they ran out of money and just stopped filming. Very frustrating...especially when the acting was so good!

I first saw this movie when released in 1990 and just watched it again, partly out of curiosity as to whether i would feel differently about it. I don't. I still see it as a movie with all the right things going for it but just missing the mark.

The acting, writing, cinematography, etc. are all exemplary. It is, i believe, the movie's episodic structure which ultimately makes it seem rather uneventful when, in reality, the story is made up of many quite important events. An episodic structure, can work just fine, of course, but, as with most successful stories, it still needs to have a certain "build" to it in order to really satisfy. If that "build" IS here in this movie, it is so muted as to be incoherent to most viewers. Not that Mr and Mrs Bridge is not worth viewing! In fact, its thematics are well worth discussing. In my eyes, the parents represent an older, more traditional way of life on the verge of irreversible change, as personified by their children (though one or two of them eventually settle back into the groove). The country club/tornado sequence seems especially significant in light of such a reading, that a "storm" is on its way and they had better take cover. That Mr Bridge should remain steadfast in its occurence speaks volumes about his character. There are myriads of wonderful little character traits, etc., in this movie worth pondering, by the way.

While Mr Bridge is a fascinating persona, it is Mrs Bridge who, for me, remains central to the film. In fact, it might be THE major statement of the movie that this suburban woman has begun to awaken to how sheltered (stifled?) she and others like her have been. Though she does yearn for more--in a sense she really does want to be fully awakened--she never becomes more than vaguely enlightened. She realizes--even accepts with a great deal of comfort--how "lucky" they are to have lived such a privileged life. Though there have been many victims of female discontentedness (e.g. her friend Grace), she and many like her have adapted quite well to their mode of survival and comfortable living. It simply means sacrificing all of those crazy dreams that artistic types pursue, not to mention sacrificing passion--real passion--for life.

There are many significant instances to underscore Mrs Bridge's circumstance as a woman dependent on her man, but none better, perhaps, than the at the end of the movie as a pampered victim in a car: "hello? hello? is there anybody there?"...indeed!

Starring Paul Newman & Joanne Woodward and based on the 2 novels by Evan Connell: "Mr. Bridge" & "Mrs. Bridge." Mr. Bridge (Newman) grew up in a modest family in a small, rural Kansas town and rose to become a prominent lawyer in Kansas City, MO, in the 1930s - early '40s, a member of the country club set and affluent society. He's reached his apex BUT, having grown up in a family in a much lower social position & totally unfamiliar with higher society, he's inwardly fearful of a gaffe that would destroy his new found prominence--so he relies mainly on his sense of what his and his family's 'proper' role & appearance should be (and becomes very rigid about it & somewhat snobbish). His extreme reliance on maintaining these roles stifles him--and his wife (Woodward) even more--and results in their children distancing themselves from their parents and seeking less restrictive patterns.

The narrative is in the "slice of life" style: no plot, no conflict resolved, no definite ending: as if the viewer looks in on these lives at various points--sometimes briefly, sometimes longer--and stitches those views together to form a collage, the whole, rather than creating a more seamless narrative in the more usual style.

Set & filmed in Kansas City, MO (& with bits of KC jazz!!) it captures quite well some gender & social role aspects of affluent KC society in the 1930s-early '40s era: male dominated in which women were to raise kids, help their husbands, and be agreeable to them. The 3 Bridge children rebel, of course, against the patterns of their parents, each in their own way. IMO, while the film's quite interesting it's not that enjoyable: it shows the effect of strictly living out one's life in a role (Mr. B's) rather than being more flexibly human. (Also interesting was the view of that social class at that time: Although set in the mid to late Great Depression era, among this affluent class there was no mention of it except to be anti-Roosevelt and demand that all peoples earn their livings despite the severe nation-wide unemployment then existing).

One easily anticipates how much WW-II & the USA's 1941 entry into it will change forever the expected and accepted gender and social roles current at that time in the USA. It's a fascinating look back at a former era.

This role for Newman is definitely not typical of his usual but he conveys Mr. Bridge's very constricted life quite well as does Woodward as the suffering but compliant Mrs. Bridge.

The movie was just little slow & Boring, however everyone did well. Woodward was good as a well done housewife and look after her son & daugther, Paul New's charcactor was wonderful ! But the ending disappionted me. The movie should have been better. 6/10

This is definitely a nitch film that will not appeal to a mass audience. It's a rather uneventful story of a mid-western upper class WASP family, and the cultural milieu of their times. Set in the time frame of pre-World War II America, it is a series of vignettes of various characters' lives. Everything about the production is first class; from the acting to the lush settings. This is a film for those who prefer subtlety over action. This ain't a popcorn film, it is a movie for a quiet time where you can sit back and watch a serious character study. Too, a knowledge of the history of the time would be nice -- but not essential. I'll give it a solid *8*.

For a decade or so, James Ivory directed a series of remarkable historical dramas that developed a well-deserved following, such as A Room with a View and Remains of the Day. Though this has a cast equal to the best of those, and the acting is indeed very fine, it is by no means as enjoyable as those masterpieces.

The problem lies in the story. Mr. and Mrs. Bridge tells the story of an affluent couple in 1940s Mission Hills, KS. They are extremely sexually repressed, but it's not just a matter of sex. They have accepted all the upper middle-class values of their day, to the point that they simply do not allow themselves to live.

Other movies have dealt with this same situation, and been more enjoyable because at least one character came to a realization of how those values imprisoned her/him and "made a break for it." Right off hand I think of Revolutionary Road, the 1950s story in The Hours, the wife in Pleasantville, etc. The Bridges go to Paris at one moment and the art in the Louvre seems to speak to her, but it never leads anywhere. Her best friend, who feels trapped in such a life, finally commits suicide, but it doesn't bring about an awakening in Mrs. Bridge. Finally, and perhaps symbolically, she becomes trapped in her car - but is towed out and goes on as before. From what I gather from some of the other reviews, Mrs. Bridge is presented as a dullard in the novel on which this is based, and her failure to see how lost she is presented as funny. That's certainly not the case here. We are supposed to sympathize with her, but she's so impervious sometimes, and downright dim-witted, that it's very hard to do so.

Two hours of this is too much, and the end, which marks no change, emphasizes this. The story and the characters simply are not interesting enough to justify sitting through the movie, as well as it is acted and as beautifully as it is filmed. We get the point in the first 15 minutes or so; the rest of the movie adds nothing to that.

I honestly cannot recommend that anyone watch it.

Sleep inducing story of an old married couple and their children. Walter Bridge (Paul Newman) is a mean obnoxious old man who treats everybody like dirt--especially his wife. India Bridge (Joanne Woodward) plays his long-suffering wife who fights to keep the family together. Their children--Carolyn (Margaret Walsh) and Douglas (Robert Sean Leonard)--want to live their own lives.

Long, boring and wildly overpraised movie. This is one of those small art films that critics fell all over themselves raving about (mostly because they couldn't figure out what it was about so it MUST be intelligent). What this actually is is a character study of a heavily dysfunctional and VERY dull family. Nothing wrong with character studies but the characters have to be interesting...and these aren't! The script is by the numbers and has been done before in many other better films. Also this movie drags out for OVER 2 hours! You keep waiting for something to happen...and it doesn't! I was fighting to stay awake through the whole thing. The acting is all good (especially by Newman and Woodward) but it can't save such a dull film. Mostly forgotten...and for good reason! I give it a 1.

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward affirm their status as some of America's greatest movie stars in the Merchant & Ivory vehicle "Mr. & Mrs. Bridge". They play the title characters Walter and India, living in 1939 Kansas City. He's a conservative lawyer: doesn't like to see any change in their lifestyle, won't let an approaching tornado interfere with dinner, and even considers Roosevelt's policies to be socialism. She's a housewife: everything at home is based on wholesome cookbooks, and it's rather awkward when she finally learns about the reproductive system and has to tell her children (in short, an air of Marion Cunningham).

Yes, it looks like nothing's ever going to change in this household. But looks can be deceiving. You see, their daughter Carolyn (Margaret Welsh) wants to marry a boy without Walter's permission; daughter Ruth (Kyra Sedgwick) wants to move to New York; and son Douglas (Robert Sean Leonard) is hanging out with a Hispanic girl. To crown everything, India's friend Grace (Blythe Danner) is beginning to challenge the status quo; she might even be losing her mind.

Now, Walter can deny all this. But he can't ignore it. As they move into this new era, things are going to be different, even if some awkward - maybe even unpleasant - situations have to arise.

This movie was definitely an interesting look at an America slowly but surely crumbling. The cast members all do a top-notch job. Also starring Austin Pendleton as Grace's husband. I wonder if Marcus Giamatti, who plays Ruth's hubby, is any relation to Paul Giamatti.

the two books this movie was based on are some of my favorites. they perfectly, poignantly, and sometimes humorously capture the lives of an upper middle class couple of their time. the movie did a good job getting some parts right, but of course it pales in comparison to the two books. for those who live in or know kansas city well, its an interesting film. i live in the neighborhood in which it was set and go to the same places the characters did. otherwise, its still an interesting study of the lives of its time period.