The Girl on the Bridge

The Girl on the Bridge

A young woman's suicide attempt is stopped by an old man passing by. The two fall in love -- but the relationship between the young girl and old man is threatened when a blackmailer from her past shows up.

An elderly watchmaker stops a beautiful young blonde from committing suicide by throwing herself off a bridge. They eventually marry, and things go well until a man from the woman's ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Girl on the Bridge torrent reviews

K K (fr) wrote: Almost real-time boxing movie, this was a real surprise. Very engaging, and beautifully filmed. Also a nicely restrained performance from Audrey Totter who gets to step out from her "bad girl" typecasting.

Jarrett M (fr) wrote: make sure you know Spanish other wise read the subtitles and laugh at will........A Caaaasa de me Paaaadre

Jude P (es) wrote: Obviously, This is overrated. Predictable.

Delicate I (mx) wrote: Don't listen to the critics. If you have loved,been let down and brought back up again. Watch this.

Barry Y (it) wrote: Surprisingly enjoyable.

Samantha B (gb) wrote: This clash of near pornographic scenes, poor effects, and a sloppy plot line is highly distasteful. As a lover of Lost and the character Sayid, this officially tainted my opinion of him, as I repeatedly asked myself throughout the film, why would he do this role??

Tamatai N (us) wrote: As with practically anything else this saga, this stands as an absolutely brilliant piece of film-making that acts as a fitting conclusion to the Stand Alone Complex series and a good bridge that leads into the two films. The animation is simply mind-blowing (one almost forgets that it is, indeed, an animated film), the characters are deep & interesting and, in typical GITS fashion, the storyline offers some fascinating and eye-opening philosophical and political speculative theories as to how humanity will evolve and shape itself in the near future. It's nothing really that hardened GITS fans haven't seen before, but, like I said, it's a great finale to the series that also stands alone as an excellent film.

Patrick B (es) wrote: I don't care what people think; I love this film. It's consistently hilarious as long as you do as intended, and don't take it seriously.

Amy H (jp) wrote: Poor story line, so predictable! And some parts are so unnecessary you just wonder why bother. It's not scary! But the only good thing is Sid Haig is not a clown in this movie and actually a good man!

Soham G (ru) wrote: "Centered around mindblowing performances by Rani Mukherjee and Amitabh Bachchan, Bhansali creates a perfect remake of "Miracle Worker" and a film so moving and resonant it is one of modern Bollywood's ultimate masterpieces."

Aniko V (ag) wrote: appears to be a remake - and can't quite fathom why one would want to revive this story. certainly wasn't worth it.

Ahmed D (it) wrote: Quizzing entertainmentThe quiz show is an ethical journey. Set in a time when corporations and show business enjoyed unfettered expansion, it delves into the moral questions that arise in a consumer-centric world. The movie, based on real events, embodies a phase when America shifted in terms of what they expected of 'challenge shows'. The movie, with its retrospective lens, has a recurrent theme of ousting the old with the new, leaving the audience to juxtapose that with today's television culture. The film's first scene sets the tone for the movie, with Harvard lawyer Michael Goodwin, saying "It used to be the man drove the car, now the car drives the man". It preludes the movie's exploration of the level of control that products and their envy now have over our lives. The movie's main focus, the rigged quiz show, is an embodiment of this envy; how consumers are enthralled by the concept of "big bucks". The sponsor of the quiz show, Geritol's owner explains to Michael Goodwin about the audience "They didn't tune in to watch... intellectual ability. They just wanted to watch the money". This obsession with money is what led the producers to rig the quiz show and pitch the idea to Charles Van Doren.Charles Van Doren, an affluent, erudite and handsome young man is introduced as the son of Mark Van Doren, who is a famous poet himself. The movie follows the joining of Charles Van Doren in the quiz show called "twenty-one" and then his agreement to be fed the answers beforehand in order to choreograph a more entertaining show. Charles Van Doren dethrones a long running contestant, Herb Stempel, who is forced to take the fall because he is not deemed to be telegenic enough. All these events reek of show business's corporate underbelly and the tactics it employs. The movie uses this for retrospective look into a time when the production methods of such entertainment were revealed to be mired with deception and as a result caused a shift in the reception of the product itself.The product still exists today. The incident itself may have been forgotten but its ripples are evident in today's show business culture. Now we don't see challenge shows about knowledge but instead games that a child or a "5th Grader" could master. The movie attempts to show how the deception that was revealed through "Twenty-one" is not gone now but just implicitly consensual between the consumer and producer. We allow ourselves to be deceived for entertainment. We realize that there is nothing special for what the contestants on TV now get huge sums of money but we enjoy it anyway for the fact that it's thrilling. The movie draws this parallel so that we end up asking ourselves "Is this any better? Have we evolved from the show business portrayed here?". The fact that not much has changed is why at the end of the movie Goodwin says "Hey I thought we were gonna get television. The truth is television is gonna get us".Charles Van Doren inserts an interesting dilemma when he is first pitched the rigging idea. He says "I am just trying to imagine what Kant would make of this". This is followed by the producer, Dan Enright, saying "Think what this could mean for the cause of education. Forty million people would watch...". The dichotomy between the question and the answer is deliberate and obvious. Kant argued that acts were never to be judged by consequences but based on their nature alone, so the resulting utilitarian justification given to Charles Van Doren is a testament of how he is treading into hypocritical and dangerous waters. All that he pursues from then on is a mockery of his noble profession. The movie highlights this in a light-hearted scene.Charles (angrily to Enright): "I am a college professor!"(Messenger boy enters room)Boy: "They need the Professor in make-up"Thus the movie not only attempts to show this dichotomy but works on a deeper level of societal perceptions. It shows how professors were respected and awed by society on the basis of their work but people like Herbert Stemple, although remarkably gifted, were judged based on their economic and racial standings. The movie beautifully shows Herb Stempel's defeat when he is first told how he is to answer wrongly on an easy question. As Herb argues over how humiliating this would be, the producer shuts him up with " For 70 grand, you can afford to be humiliated". As Herbert realizes how the Van Dorens of this world would always leave him in the dust, the camera pans away - as if to signify his diminishing self esteem. The movie's figurative screenplay complements the theme of out with the old and in with the new. During a garden party scene, the tension between the Van Doren father and son becomes apparent. However, Charles gives his father a television set as a birthday present and the camera zooms on the shiny wooden box. This shows how Charles indicates to his father where the world is going and how even though his father hadn't kept a television in the house Charles was now in charge through his fame.The genius of the movie is that it does not clearly demark the lines of good and evil. As Charles says in his soul-searching confession speech "...about good and evil. They are not always what they appear to be". This raises the question what was so evil about Charles or the producer's action? The sponsor make good off of it, so does the network, the contestants see money they would never see and the public is entertained. The reality that we know the act to be wrong but can't justify why is a poignant moment for the audience. It reiterates how most of the show business world is run, it is pure entertainment with nothing else in mind and insofar as that remains the ultimate principle, anything goes. Once we allow to give ourselves up by watching these shows, we cannot expect pure and truthful realities but instead contrived forms of entertainment.The movie is a constant battle between the old and the new. It encapsulates how the show business world deceived thousands and leaves to us to draw the parallel to today. It shows how Charles replaced the old running star of the TV show and then how Charles replaced his father's fame through television and very obviously the movie shows how show business transformed from old to new but stayed in culpability, the same. The Quiz Show is a thought-provoking watch about the ethics of entertainment and culpability of individuals.

Gmd E (mx) wrote: It's beautiful and funny,but there is not enough story under Fantasias phantasmagoria.

Cathie D (mx) wrote: Terrible portrayal f women