The Bridge

The Bridge

A group of German boys are ordered to protect a small bridge in their home village during the waning months of the second world war. Truckloads of defeated, cynical Wehrmacht soldiers flee the approaching American troops, but the boys, full of enthusiasm for the "blood and honor" Nazi ideology, stay to defend the useless bridge.

In 1945, Germany is being overrun, and nobody is left to fight but teenagers. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Bridge torrent reviews

Kay L (ag) wrote: Hilarious and very Canadian.

Libby W (au) wrote: it's a really terrible movie but i can't get enough of it. so bad it's good.

Josas G (ru) wrote: Proxima a estrenarse pinta para ser otro churro con parodias absurdas que espero por lo menos hagan reir

Greg W (ag) wrote: good gangster bio-pic, of sorts

Kate P (es) wrote: Just like an extended episode. Bit too clich regarding outcomes.

Rob C (de) wrote: From the many reviews I've read about Urban Justice being Steven Seagal's comeback film; I think not. I'm not doubting Seagal's talent as a bonafide bone-breaking animal, he just needs to ease back on his appearances in film. There's only so many times you can play the same character. The types he portrays seem to always be mixed up in some kind of vendetta. It's becoming over-played and honestly, just downright offensive. When his son, Officer Max Ballister (Cory Hart), is gunned down on the streets, Simon Ballister (Steven Seagal) comes out of the murky depths to find his gunmen. He leaves a trail of busted bodies which catches the attention of ESG gang leader Armand Tucker (Eddie Griffith), who sends more cannon fodder his way, hoping it will stop Ballister's own brand of interrogation. However, Ballister has more than local gangbangers after him which seems to come from every direction. Having Eddie Griffith play a gang leader is pretty weak, considering he brings no intimidating attributes to his character. He tries to present some humor into his role, even so much as adding a little Pacino-esque dialogue into his vocabulary. I see him only as a comedian and nothing more. Even then, mediocre at best. Danny Trejo makes a five minute appearance in the film as The Hyde Park gang leader El Chivo, rival's to Armand's ESG gang. He should of had some more scenes in, though. On top of Seagal's "same character" dilemma, it's blatantly obvious that he's having an asthma attack when he's rushing up and down the streets. Yes, he breaks fingers, hands, ribs; but he "huffs and puffs" between takes, it's hard to concentrate on his choreography. And to think, this film was going to have a theatrical release. I give the film one thing, though, the amount of bodies Seagal leaves in his wake. He accumulates a hefty amount with blood seeming to come out at all angles when the characters get shot (he even takes one as well). So in conclusion, why does Steven Seagal continue to go on as an actor? If this is the best he can come up with now, there's no need to keep putting out horrible releases.

Wildaly M (ru) wrote: A very interesting take on the arranged marriage dilemma. I absolutely enjoyed watching this. The musical numbers were good and the chemistry between the leads was incredible. Maybe I liked it so much because these Bollywood movies present such a fresh new take on romantic stories. I highly recommend.

Robert H (br) wrote: By this point it's pretty hard to do something original with a biopic, and now that I've seen several of them (particularly the musical kind) a pattern has emerged. Typically, they will pick a time period in a person's life/career and focus on a certain personal struggle and how they overcome it. With musicians, this often involves women and substance abuse. 'Tis the same story with Ray Charles. RAY focuses on Ray Charles' beginnings in the music business up through the point at which he came clean off of heroin (around 1966). To round out the narrative, there are flashbacks to his childhood and an extended coda which ties up a significant plot point from before and serves as an epitaph to his life and career (the film came out several months after his death). Because so many biopics follow the same formula, what distinguishes them from one another (other than the subject) is the quality of the performances and the ingenuity with which they are put together, and RAY certainly stands out from the rest thanks in large part to an excellent central performance by Jamie Foxx. The way he inhabits Ray Charles is uncanny at times, although the straightforward dramatic scenes verge on mimicry in a way that stands out more when juxtaposed with the performance scenes. For me, the performance scenes work better because Jamie Foxx was able to capture a realness and immediacy that comes from someone who is intimately familiar with performing music on the stage (as Foxx is also a singer). Beyond that I thought that the editing, particularly in the musical sequences had a certain kinetic energy that brought the performances to life. However, I found it a little distracting that Ray Charles' voice was coming out of Jamie Foxx's body when there was a few early scenes where Jamie Foxx used his own voice to sing. Even still, I got used to it after a while. In general, I thought that everyone gave a good performance, and the film had an excellent ensemble cast. One thing I also thought was done rather well was the hallucinogenic nature of the flashback scenes, which added a layer of artfulness as inner turmoil, with Ray Charles feeling guilty about how his younger brother died. What I felt didn't always work was the general formula and obligatory dramatic moments which hit again and again just how dependent Ray became on heroin. I got a little tired and frustrated with it in WALK THE LINE (although that came out the following year, and followed RAY's playbook) and felt the same way here. Yes, it was a compelling arc to have in a general sense, but it's something that's been played out a little bit too much, in my opinion. Despite the formulaic nature of the plot and story, I had a great time with RAY because of the talented actors who brought it to life, and the energetic and soulful musical numbers. RAY might rely a little too heavily on formula, but at least it's a winning one.

amy p (br) wrote: a remarkably compassionate and knowing portrayal of the limerent state -- had they been less deftly handled, Vince and his reaction to Callie could too easily have been made risibly pathetic, cringingly embarrassing, or a condescendingly tedious case-study in the psychopathology of loneliness, but they're not. the plot isn't even really the point -- which is not to say it's dull, just that its role is secondary, functionally providing some structure behind a focus on emotional textures and the nuances and subtleties of character and environment. this makes for a lovely, very gentle film, but one that's inevitably very slowly-paced -- i don't know if my short attention-span and i would have been able to make it through the whole thing if i hadn't been having an unusually patient day, but if you are in the right mood, it should be a rewarding experience.

David G (es) wrote: First. Don't watch the PG version. You have to watch the original. The PG version takes the edge away and the attraction of the movie is its edginess. So just don't. I'm not going to give a scene by scene review but will try to express how this movie felt based on the culture of the time. Disco was taking over. Rock was dead. Except to "us". Us being my close circle of friends and our girlfriends. We were the Rock version of Tony and friends. I saw, we saw, Sat. night Fever in 1977 at a theater in Vestavia called The Pitcher show. Yea, Pitcher show. Cause they had great beer prices by the pitcher. Plus really good food. Which was nice. Cause when you are high you gotta have something to eat. Right? And on Sat night we always were. High, I mean. And drunk. I was 16 at the time. Some who have not seen the movie until now probably watch it and think "what B.S. there is no way that this could even be close to real". Well, I'm telling you that it is. Actually, the film makers held back a lot. Didn't really make a big deal out of drugs. And the Disco scene was fueled by drugs. And a lot of them. Think Tony Manero was a parody? There was a Tony Manero in every disco in America at the time. Think there is racism(an overused term IMO)? The "racism" depicted was under represented also. People used terms for other races and cultures matter of factly. Didn't consider it racist. The races didn't mix. And didn't want to or see a need to. As for Annette, Tony's sometimes dance partner and side piece. Yes, she is a sad, broken and pitiful character. But Annette existed. And exists today. But you can't talk about it now. Or judge. Nope. Annette just needs some Zoloft, maybe monthly therapy and short stay in rehab. And what is it with these later reviewers calling the Gang bang Annette got "Gang rape"? She consented. Hell she did more than consent, she invited it. Saturday Night Fever is a realistic, if slightly softened version of the mid-late seventies. If the viewer thinks it is shocking or crass, well. The 70's club/party culture was shocking and crass. If you didn't live it you can get a glimpse of it by watching this movie.

Blair K (gb) wrote: this is a remake of red dust( this time called mogambo) both starring clark gable and although him and ava gardner are good together it just isnt the same as the chemistry between gable and harlow in the 1932 original.

Navin J (it) wrote: it's hard to believe that winning combination of Tara Reid, Vinnie Jones and Rachael Hunter couldn't make this movie a success... but sadly they couldn't.

Da L (fr) wrote: this film does probably the worst adaption to a videogame EVER. in fact, even if you haven't played the game, this movie would suck just as much.

Tim W (nl) wrote: Another cliched spy action film, that was more ridiculous than the first. Ice Cube can't act. I tried to like it, but that just made me hate it.