The first Bridget Jones film had a certain amount of charm. It owed more than a little to Jane Austen, who mysteriously enough, reviewed it for IMDb. It was based on the idea that even a Plain Jane can have a tumultuous love-life, and who knows, even snare the man of her dreams. In this film, a downright dowdy Bridget struggles to hang on to her man Mark Darcy despite her matchless ability to turn any public occasion into an embarrassment, and the depredations of the Other Man, Daniel Cleaver (who really should have been called Mr Wickham).
Sequels seldom match the original, and this film is no exception. It does start off well, as the not so intrepid Bridget, strapped to a TV camera, goes sky diving. But we are then treated to a seemingly endless series of pratfalls and mistakes on Bridget's part which stretch our credulity, until we have our heroine in a Thai jail on drug charges, and even more improbably released after intervention by the sainted Mark (who is of course a human rights lawyer is there any other kind?) I did actually see the film in the Odeon, Tottenham Court Road, with a nearly full audience who looked like a bunch of extras from it. No-one was over 40 (except me and Madame Philby) and they loved every moment of it. So perhaps my jaded cynicism doesn't count, but the original was a much better film. The minor characters remain strong Jim Broadbent's Dad, and Bridget's little circle of advisers for instance - but there is something lacking in the three principals' performances. Renee Zellweger has done great things to look the part but doesn't always connect, in fact she spends a lot of time looking like she is about to burst into tears for no particular reason. Colin Firth as Darcy does his stiff-necked number right to the end. Hugh Grant is Hugh Grant amusing, personable, charming even, but not an actor.
I liked some of the moments of pure fantasy, such as the scenes with Cleaver in the Thai resort (alas, hit by the Tsunami since) and the kindly cabbie who gets Bridget to Darcy's chambers on time, but overall, regrettably a disappointment. I see it has done OK at the UK box office, though not as well as the first film (which had a much smaller budget), so we are likely get another instalment. How about "Bridget Jones beyond all reason"?
Sequels seldom match the original, and this film is no exception. It does start off well, as the not so intrepid Bridget, strapped to a TV camera, goes sky diving. But we are then treated to a seemingly endless series of pratfalls and mistakes on Bridget's part which stretch our credulity, until we have our heroine in a Thai jail on drug charges, and even more improbably released after intervention by the sainted Mark (who is of course a human rights lawyer is there any other kind?) I did actually see the film in the Odeon, Tottenham Court Road, with a nearly full audience who looked like a bunch of extras from it. No-one was over 40 (except me and Madame Philby) and they loved every moment of it. So perhaps my jaded cynicism doesn't count, but the original was a much better film. The minor characters remain strong Jim Broadbent's Dad, and Bridget's little circle of advisers for instance - but there is something lacking in the three principals' performances. Renee Zellweger has done great things to look the part but doesn't always connect, in fact she spends a lot of time looking like she is about to burst into tears for no particular reason. Colin Firth as Darcy does his stiff-necked number right to the end. Hugh Grant is Hugh Grant amusing, personable, charming even, but not an actor.
I liked some of the moments of pure fantasy, such as the scenes with Cleaver in the Thai resort (alas, hit by the Tsunami since) and the kindly cabbie who gets Bridget to Darcy's chambers on time, but overall, regrettably a disappointment. I see it has done OK at the UK box office, though not as well as the first film (which had a much smaller budget), so we are likely get another instalment. How about "Bridget Jones beyond all reason"?