Add a Review

  • First, the positives – Colin and Hugh are still hitting their marks. Even though he might not know why, Mark positively adores Bridget. Colin gets that and twinkles, melts and warms in all the right places. Same goes for Daniel– he's drawn to his Bridge for some inexplicable reason. Hugh Grant really ought to be looking for a patent for that mojo he works so well. All of the original actors are back as Bridget's parents and her "dating war command" of pals and all have a natural, easy chemistry that works. But, the negatives, they are a-plenty.

    Biggest problem here was the complete tone change. In the first film, we were on the ride with Bridget...seeing things through her eyes, groaning as she put her foot in her mouth again and cheering for her to finally get it right. However, in this movie, it feels like someone stuck her up on a stage and spent 2 hours throwing pies and tomatoes at her cause it seemed real cool. She's not in on the joke here, she IS the joke. Her few extra pounds are no longer just a part of the package – they are the end-all of her worth as a person. It feels like the folks behind this film don't even LIKE the character – they just think it's real cool to humiliate her as often as possible. It doesn't even look like they bothered to send Renee to makeup or wardrobe – she (as Bridget) was pleasantly plump in the first film, but never dowdy. The character is downright frumpy in this movie with a perpetual case of bed head and clothes that look like castoffs from Mayberry. And Renee plays into it with her acting choices – Bridget was frazzled in the first movie but still retained her dignity most of the time. She's a perpetual victim in this one, though, and even though Renee is still cute as a button and incredibly endearing, some of Bridget's spark is gone.

    What happens after the happy ending? Couple realizes that they are each real, flawed people. And the movie makes it seem like Mark is at that point – never tries to change Bridget, never gets angry and her constant mishaps amuse more than annoy. But, as each of Bridget's tantrums unfolded, I kept asking myself why in the WORLD the man was still there. Bridget's keen on him but doesn't trust him. She likes to be with him but is suspicious of his actions without any real cause. Now, we know she's an insecure character and feels like she's not classy enough to fit into his world. And if the movie built from that, maybe we'd have a different story. But the obstacles they face are external. The characters never make decisions on their own – something or someone else makes them feel a certain way or forces them into a course of action that decides what will happen next. And Bridget's reactions almost make it seem like somehow, over the course of the last 'six weeks', she's regressed to a girl in the schoolyard stomping her feet when her boyfriend does something she doesn't like.

    Another problem – the utter lack of subtlety. Why include one fat joke when 3 or 4 plus a butt shot can fit into the scene? Why spend most of the movie dropping hints about a reveal when you can beat the audience over the head with it in one of the final scenes? Why have Daniel make one joke about stealing Mark's wife when he can drop another one 30 minutes later? Oh look, matching Christmas jumpers – how cute. Most of the funny in this movie comes from certain 'episodes' as opposed to the dialogue. I loved the ski trip and Bridget's 'magic mushrooms' in Thailand. But, when the characters are actually talking to each other, they just aren't that funny. Most of the jokes are reruns from the first movie that feel stale. The naughty jokes are kicked up a notch but everyone in my packed theater, including me, either grimaced or sat stone-faced through most of them. Note to filmmakers: dirty has to actually BE funny to be funny.

    This feels like a movie about a woman made by men who think wet clothes, girl-on-girl action and butt close-ups get it done. I read some interviews that said that Renee would only do a second film if it took care of Bridget and held up the standards of the first. I almost wonder if someone slid her this script on the first day of shooting as a rewrite once she'd already signed on the dotted line. This felt like a bleached, harsher version of the first– the warmth is gone. I know there was a different director and I really don't think the new kid gets why Bridget was/is such a phenomenon. As much as I was looking forward to this film, I wish they'd never done it.

    Oh, and also, as a P.S. – if I was a Thai woman right now, I'd be suing Working Title and Miramax for defamation of character for their version of 'Fun with Stereotypes'.
  • jo-2412 December 2004
    The problem with a sequel is that expectations are high - particularly after a film as successful and engaging as BJ1. I knew already that the new film did not adhere to the second book so I didn't expect to be making comparisons. However, this movie was frankly ridiculous.

    My problem with the film in main was that the character of Bridget was over-parodied. She is not supposed to be so much fatter than everyone around her, or as scatty and ungainly as she is portrayed in the film, which makes it harder to believe that there are 2 men and a woman after her.

    The first film's success was due to the protagonist being charming and endearing - she made "human" mistakes (for example, the "blue soup") and fell for an unsuitable man who cheated on her. We felt sorry for her but also felt that she was funny and kooky and wanted her to "get her man" in the end. In this new movie she is frankly annoying, and we are almost incredulous that Mark Darcy should want her at all. They have nothing in common, the reason they break up at the beginning is not believable in any way, and the reasons they reunite are just as difficult to comprehend.

    I also felt that the characterisations were not as layered as in the first movie, and the stupid lesbian twist didn't seem to make any sense.

    It is a shame that they were so close yet so far with this new film, because in a way it negates the success and hilarity of the first one, which was a classic, intelligent portrayal of a 30-something singleton looking for her man. BJ2 is just a badly-made slapstick about a fat, unattractive girl who looks a complete mess and doesn't seem to have any self-awareness whatsoever. Sorry to be so harsh, but with the weight of the various names attached to the film, expectations were high.......
  • First rule of comedy: Be funny.

    But the makers of "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason" don't bother with such trivial matters. Not when they've deluded themselves into believing that merely bringing back Renée Zellweger, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant and a few others would automatically make the sequel funny, too. They were wrong.

    The 2001 original was funny and charming. It had verve and wit. Bridget (Zellweger) was normal, as were her dilemmas and crises. She was plucky, resilient, but never a fool. We identified with her. Daniel (Grant) was delightfully caddish, Darcy (Firth) properly funny.

    The sequel squanders a tremendously talented cast, none of whom seems to have a clue what to do. I don't know if they're wholly to blame - they're stuck in a dud. Although again based on Helen Fielding's novel, this has none of the original's wit or zip.

    Although the sequel begins only four weeks after the original ended, Bridget, Darcy and Daniel have become caricatures of themselves. Their behavior's cartoonish. You know this film's in trouble when Grant simply slums it as a rake and Firth sputters about as if he's wondering how on earth he wound up agreeing to make this horrible picture.

    The film relies completely on Zellweger's star power. She's game, but gives quite possibly the worst performance of her career. Bridget's become a daft twit. She's lost any semblance of intelligence. With nothing genuinely funny to fall back on, director Beeban Kidron gets Zellweger to simply waddle about the place trying to eke laughs out of us. Unfortunately, Zellweger's shtick is barely amusing and gets tiresome very quickly.

    The idea of laughing at a large, buxom lass while she pratfalls her way through a horrendous film must strike a chord with some women. At the screening I attended, I sat next to four women who did not laugh - heck, I didn't hear even a chuckle from them – throughout the entire film. Yet, they applauded at the end, as if they'd just discovered their anthem film.

    It took four writers - Fielding, Andrew Davies, Richard Curtis and Adam Brooks - to write the drivel for this movie. They never find the right tone even once. Every joke is telegraphed or straining to be funny. This utterly unnecessary movie seems, at times, like an extended music video. But even the songs are predictable. During two scenes - at the Bangkok airport and an idiotic fight scene in a fountain - the music was so loud, it completely drowned out the dialogue. I don't know if the theater was to blame for this problem, but I suppose it was a blessing in disguise given how insipid much of the dialogue is.

    This film is devoid of any novelty or humor. By the time we get to an excruciatingly long and unfunny prison sequence featuring yet another sorry moment that tries desperately to be funny - a chorus of Madonna's "Like a Virgin" - this film has gone so way off the tracks, there's no hope of it ever getting back on. This is a great example of a film being made because of star power and the need to make money, regardless of whether it was good or funny.

    The sad thing is some terrific independent films are struggling to be released wide right now. But tripe like Kidron's film gets widely released a week early. "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason" is lousy storytelling, rotten acting and awful film-making.
  • But, oddly enough, I still liked this version of The Edge of Reason.

    It's hard to put my finger on why -- because I'm not quite sure why some of the book's original plot lines were ommitted, and because I thought the Rebecca subplot was gratuitous -- but I did like it.

    The first book was not-so-loosely based on Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice." The first movie left a lot of that in, and even included a lot of "inside jokes" for those of us who are familiar with that delightful book and the filmed version starring Colin Firth as Fitzwilliam Darcy. "The Edge of Reason" was not-so-loosely based on another Jane Austen novel, "Persuasion," but any overt Austen references are completely wiped out here.

    The character of Giles Benwick is based on an Austen character named Benwick who has recently lost his fiancée, but that is the only Austen reference from the book left. It's a shame, too, because I liked that particular subplot in both Austen's "Persuasion" and Fielding's "Edge of Reason."

    Given that I've complained about several aspects of this film, I'm still rather surprised that I liked it. Could it be because Bridget is still Everywoman and because Mark Darcy is still the Perfect Man (and probably because he's still played by the ever-dishy Colin Firth)?

    Who knows. All I do know is that it was cute, it was funny and it was entertaining. You can't ask for much else.
  • Having now seen The Edge of Reason (for the first time), I am prepared to spend a moment responding to the inevitable criticism (inevitable because I've already read hints of them on the boards and in some reviews). WARNING, MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD....

    1) They didn't stick close enough to the book. *** Ah, isn't this the mother of all complaints? In fact, many other complaints are just a variation on it. But here goes. First, there is no way they could have put in everything from the book (and most complaints are about parts that were omitted), because the movie would be way too long. Second, most things in the movie actually were from the book, or a variation on a scene from the book (e.g. Bridget's parents' wedding, in lieu of Jude and Vile Richard's wedding). And what's so bad about some new stories for Bridget? It's just more Bridget to love (not unlike her wobbly bits).

    2) Yes, but what about the interview with Colin Firth? *** Haven't we heard this before? Obviously they left it out because Colin Firth was already in the movie as Mark Darcy. Also the book The Edge of Reason was written when Pride and Prejudice was slightly newer on video in the UK and was part of the contemporary pop culture of the day. (Although, I admit it still has a very strong fan base!) There are other cultural reference in the book, Edge of Reason, that just couldn't be put into the film without dating it (e.g., the death of Princess Diana). (P.S., Pride and Prejudice fans should listen very carefully to Bridget's comments to Shazzer when returning from Thailand.)

    3) Why'd they bring back Daniel Cleaver? He wasn't even in the book! *** Aha, but you're wrong there! First, there's Bridget and Daniel's phone conversation about where Germany is located. Then some time later, Bridget accepts a dinner date with Daniel, and even buys condoms "just in case." He comes to Bridget's flat and makes a pass at her before Bridget comes to her senses and throws him out.

    Granted, they expanded Daniel's role quite a bit for the film, but I happen to love his sleazy charm. He is funny, funny, funny, and Hugh Grant is perfect in the role. (Look for a little jab at Hugh Grant in the Thailand scenes.)

    4) So many scenes seem to be a rehash (or should I say retread) of similar scenes in the first movie. *** There are indeed events which are similar to things that happened in Bridget Jones's Diary. But they are not presented as something new and unique - instead they are an opportunity to look back nostalgically and compare how Bridget's life has changed. (If you haven't seen first movie - heaven forbid - they can be new and unique.) For example, the silly Christmas jumper that Mark Darcy wore at the first turkey curry buffet has a whole new significance this year.

    5) What, another Darcy/Cleaver fight? *** Oh come on, you love it! (I did expect Pat Benatar's "Hit Me with Your Best Shot" to break out at any time, and was quite disappointed that they didn't choose it as background!) The fight is fantastic, and totally in context with this movie - there is a good reason for it.

    6) Bridget already had her happy ending in the first film, why do we need another? *** Aside from the fact that Helen Fielding wrote a second book? The end of Bridget Jones's Diary said "the beginning..."; not a promise of a sequel, but a reminder that life doesn't end with a kiss in the snow. This is the story of how a long-time singleton copes with being part of a couple (not very well).

    7) They messed up the time sequence, and Bridget's age. *** Yes they did! My biggest pet peeve, in fact. Six weeks after the kiss in the snow should have been Valentine's Day, not a turkey curry buffet. And how can Bridget still be 33 at the end of another year? Not to mention that her "tombstone" says she was born in 1972....Come on, I'm three years older than when Bridget Jones's Diary came out, it's not fair that Bridget is a year younger! (Okay, I am not going to defend this flaw in the movie. But I suspect that most viewers will not be as troubled by it as I.)

    So yes, the movie's not perfect, and it's not everything that a die-hard Bridget Jones fan would want. (I don't know that any movie could live up to those celestial expectations.) But it is v.g., and those who are Bridget fans will probably want to watch it many times. Those who just want to see a funny movie will like it too. Those who prefer explosions and gun shootouts should probably go elsewhere.

    Since this is a review, I should also mention that Renee Zellweger was better than ever as Bridget (when I read the books, I now picture her as Bridget); Colin Firth was absolutely gorgeous, of course, and managed to crack his haughty Darcy-esquire facade with melting smiles on a number of occasions; and Hugh Grant was the very portrait of a posh cad.
  • It seems that, now, even romantic comedies have gone the way of cookie-cutter action flicks in their being too formulaic.

    Spare yourself watching this movie. The gist is this: the new Bridget Jones is a blubbery, stupid, awkward woman. She goes on various trips and social outings, never failing to fall down, make stupid comments, spill things on people, put her makeup on wrong, etc etc ad nassssseum. Think slapstick comedy. Think the Curly from the 3 stooges, getting bonked on the head for the 212th time. It gets old fast.

    In the first movie, I think a lot of girls could sympathize with her flub-ups and awkwardness because Bridget was also witty and intelligent, in spite of her shortcomings. Only this time around she's pretty much just a waste of space.

    Oh, by the way, there isn't actually any plot development for the movie. Just endless scenes of Bridget making a fool of herself.

    They always say sequels are worse than the original movie, but I've never seen one so much abysmally worse than the first.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I fell in love with Colin Firth when I saw "Another Country" for the first time, then the amazing "Tumbledown" to arrive to "Apartment Zero" when I decided that Colin Firth was, without question, the best actor of his generation. If I got involved with Bridget Jones at all was because he was in it. Bad move. He is not really in it, maybe a virtual replication of him but not him, not the actor who gave life to the British soldier in the Falklands of "Tumbledown" or the lonely guy who allows the devil into his flat because he looks like a movie star in "Apartment Zero" or the intellectually and politically alert young man of "Another Country". "Bridget Jones 2" is a pitiful mess. The first Bridget was also a sort of mess but wasn't pitiful. Things get worse all around. The quaint sub title of this thing is "The Edge of Reason" The edge of what?
  • morello-213 November 2004
    not particularly faithful to the book (but what film ever is) BJD2 is still a great film, with stuff to make you laugh, and stuff to make you cry all rolled into one. The added bonus of the second BJD is of course, the increased screen time of Colin Firth. The close ups of Mark Darcy's face are enough to sell the film on their own. He looks happy/sad/confused/amused/pained all at once, result; a hilarious mix of ridiculousness and good looks all for the price of one.

    certain bits have been missed out, which is a shame, as they would have been really funny, and other things have been changed, such as the character of Rebecca. It does lessen the overall affect of the story, but still, as a stand alone film, i'd rate it 10/10.
  • Oh the expectations are high and the studio is bumping up the release date but what about the film? In the case of Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, it was inevitable that the freshness and sheer pleasure of a funny, heartfelt love story of Bridget Jones's Diary, would be a hard act to top much less follow. While entertaining in its own way and filled with enough charm and wit to keep things moving and interesting, it is a step down for the Helen Fielding heroine. No Oscar nominations are forthcoming this time.

    Not a couple months have passed as our favorite British journalist (played with gusto by Renee Zellweger) is dating her dream beau, Mark Darcy (Colin Firth returns as a noble steed). Slowly, our Bridget notices a young female clinging to her man on a regular basis, and with life full of its insecurities, doubts and suspicions are thus born. Enter handsome Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant is as dashing as ever) who wants to rekindle an earlier romance with Bridget who wonders if he has mended his philandering ways. That pretty well sums up the main storyline. There are a few other minor story threads such as Bridget's parents getting remarried, but they are few and far between.

    Zellweger is always appealing even as an overweight, accident-prone romantic. Fans may be a bit startled to see her appearance after a few years of terrific performances in slimmed down roles. Firth, who was handpicked by author Fielding, duplicates his steady, straightlaced lawyer while Grant spices the sexual scenery with his bad boy ways. You will recognize returning supporting characters from before including James Broadbent as Bridget's dad, a role that is minimal at best.

    While the screenplay has some nice bits of dialogue and one-liners, the whole thing just doesn't come together as a satisfying whole. There are no real surprises here in the story even though it contains a couple of mild shocks in plot line. The direction is not as crisp as before-this time Beeban Kidron(Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar) takes the helm in not quite inspired fashion. Where is original director, Sharon Maguire? Maybe frequent scribe Richard Curtis would have been perfect. Just one of his story lines in Love Actually is as good as or better than anything in Edge of Reason.

    Perhaps the biggest problem with this film is that it is a chore to find anything truly engaging or to feel any sympathy and concern for Zellweger's character. In addition, there was an absence of really funny situations without seeming to be contrived. Maybe that's being picky, but that's the level of satisfaction Bridget Jones's original incarnation has engendered.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Why anyone made this film is completely beyond the edge of reason. I was absolutely fuming when I came out of the cinema and was desperate to give those robbing b*****ds a good spanking for making me pay TEN EUROS! to see a film which just blew me off the hook... and onto the sharp edge of my temper. Ooooo, how dare they make a really good and entertaining film and then con us into thinking that the second one would be just as good. Robbery. Absolute robbery. I am a huge fan of romantic comedies but this one was just...(what's the word?) terrible. Please don't see this film. I'm begging you. You will regret it for the rest of your life. I think I'll give this film a generous 2 out of 10 because I am in a kind and caring mood.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

    Let me start by saying I really really REALLY wanted to like this movie. I absolutely love the first one and though I am aware of the fact that sequels, in many, actually most, cases are bad I hoped against hope that this one would be the exception.

    I was wrong. This wasn't good but not only that, it bordered on camp. Before I saw this I'd never have thought that Bridget Jones the sequel could be anything less then at least slightly above average, say a 6 or so. Not so. Everything that made the first a classic is gone here.

    The movie seems to have one purpose and that's break up Bridget and Mark, have all these outrageous things happen to Bridget and then get the two of them back together. That's it. That's the movie. The first movie was a story. A wonderful, delightfully sweet tale of a single woman attempting to find her way in this world and her ultimate meeting of Mr. right. It is sweet, humorous, always interesting, well acted and ultimately delightful.

    This movie The Edge of Reason is not a story. It's a series of forced, over the top events that almost turns the whole story of Bridget Jones into an unrealistic, bad soap opera like, fantasy. It's almost a parody of a lifetime movie. I didn't expect this to be of the original's caliber but I had no idea it would be like this.

    The movie is so forced it is almost painful to watch. The things that happen to Bridget are not believable. The whole thing with her winding up in prison seemed almost a last minute add on and came out of nowhere, and actually it's really not the kind of thing to turn into a joke anyway. Even her almost getting back with Grant didn't ring true. And there wasn't much that was funny either. The story had no cohesiveness and not even much of a plot except to keep Zelwgger and Firth apart or squabbling.

    All the music got on my nerves after awhile. That thing with Rebecca declaring her love didn't ring true. The split between Bridget and Mark in the first place didn't ring true. Nothing rung true. What was the point?

    The first Bridget Jones was such a hit because it was GOOD. It was believable and entertaining and cohesive and just plain funny all at once. This was none of that. It wasn't a 1 or 2 but did come close to being turn off in midstream material several times. Ultimately the one main good thing it had going for it is they didn't change the cast though they seem to have changed everything else.

    The performers were fine, great, no problem there. The ending was happy. Good, Bridget And Mark are likable, very likable, both individually and together so that's a good thing. But who'd have ever thought that the sequel to Bridget Jones could be IRRITATING? I loved the first one so much and really wanted to like this. Unfortunately that was not to be. Hopefully no part three unless by some miracle they can eliminate the problems that were so present in this one. 4 of 10 is my vote.
  • Sometimes sequels to a very good movie do not work as well, and this one unfortunately is one that does not work as well as its original. One person in our party watching this movie in fact called it "painful".

    The original Bridget Jones Diary worked very well, at least in my opinion. It worked well not only because of a good story line, great casting and great acting, but the script and direction made the film also both witty and fun. In a sequel, often we are promised just part of that formula – the basic story line and a similar cast. Yes, this film does have a similar story line and a similar cast, but the script and the direction fall far short of the original. Hence instead of a witty fast paced fun movie where we laugh along with Bridget Jones, we have a slow moving non-funny movie that mostly seems to laugh at Bridget Jones and not with her.

    The movie seems to lack the new elements that would make a sequel like this interesting. Instead it seems to fall back and simply exaggerate some of the elements of the first movie. It is "Over the Top" as one in Britain might say. Unfortunately this exaggeration tends to make things less funny and not funnier. In the first movie businessman Hugh Grant is mostly a businessman but is occasionally selfish and occasionally sexually selfish. In the second movie he spends less time as a businessman and more time just seeming out for himself. In the first movie, Bridget sometimes has low self-confidence. In the second movie, she almost always has low self-confidence. In the second movie, the Colin Firth character seems to try to be even more nerdy than in the first movie. In the first movie Bridget is plump. In the second movie, she is plumper. Now, I could afford to lose a few pound myself, but hopefully you get the idea. The second movie exaggerates the first trying for more laughs. But on the path it loses itself and is much less witty and funny.

    Now, one cannot blame the actresses and actors for this. I felt that Renee Zellweger, Hugh Grant, and Colin Firth did their usual great jobs. For that reason alone, this movie may be well worth watching for you. It was because of the actresses and actors that I wished to see it. To make the movie great, however, it needed a script and direction to match.
  • bmor0709 December 2004
    Warning: Spoilers
    This really is a soulless piece of film. The filmmakers have taken the few things that were funny and/or original from the first, and have over-exploited them to lengths of insane proportions. Bridget is too stupid. Darcy is too nice. Cleaver is too much of an asshole. Pile these horrendous characters between countless shag jokes, and what is quite possibly the most absurd story of any film this year, and you're left wondering what the hell happened to the original that was actually relatively witty, and at times, dare i say it, clever. Some of the sequences in this film are as painful as having your eyes injected with heroin, and if you pay ANYTHING to see this, you are being ripped off. Avoid.
  • tbishopp20 November 2004
    1/10
    sad
    after much anticipation, i was only left with disappointment. all i can say is this: hellen why did you let them rewrite the edge of reason? i read both books shortly after the first bridget jones came out, and to say that this movie is suppose to be The Edge of Reason is selling the book short. the movie has nothing to do with the book other than having the same characters. i just find it sad, that no one will get the chance to truly love this story as much as me due to this movie. if anyone wants to really get to know what bridget is about, they should read both of the books. maybe someday we will be able to get someone who likes her for the way she truly is, instead of what they believe she should be.
  • nermal7214 April 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    After discarding the book 'Bridget Jones' Diary' before completing the first chapter I was actually quite surprised by how much I enjoyed the film. The sequel however was not only boring but an insult to my intelligence. Or perhaps I am wrong...perhaps English women are all in-bred idiots, however I can't say I noticed this when I was last there. Or perhaps those tourists who are currently facing the possibility of the death penalty due to suspicion of drug trafficking should stop being so glum and just have a good old sing-along. Personally I would rather chew tin foil than have to sit through this pap again.
  • howie7313 March 2005
    An embarrassingly awful sequel to the original outing, this should have been subtitled The Edge of Tedium rather than The Edge of Reason. In what seems a cynical attempt by the producers to profit on the success of the first part, the film is bland, predictable, clichéd and boring. It has the same horrible production values of Love, Actually but it isn't quite as bad as that film which is saying something. The film seems rushed and every scene seems to have been dreamt up by a marketing board desperate to recapture the freshness of the original. Zellwegger seems tired in the film, while Firth is incredibly boring and it makes you wonder why on earth they would have made such nonsense - money methinks. Grant is barely in the film but when he is, he plays himself yet again. Technically, the film is not that slick. Some transitions are poorly handled while Bridget's narration is barely audible at times when there is annoying background music on. The various pop songs are used as marketing tools rather than with any bearing on the story. Should sell bucketloads in the shops. And why on earth use Beyonce's Crazy in Love as music for the end credits? Frankly, this film is an insult to the intelligence. Comedy doesn't have to be this dumb, does it? A stinker for all concerned.
  • Having sat through the movie with a female friend, I now know that life will only get better, since seeing this movie was the absolute worst two hours of my life. I would rather have stomach cramps for two hours than watch this horrible tripe again.

    I am a male - not the intended audience. I believe that the intended audience must be people with dementia. They would be spared the pain of possibly remembering even one second of this unbelievably bad movie. This movie deserves a rating of zero, plus, everyone involved with this film should be sentenced to prison.

    Never has there been a more insulting movie passed on as entertainment. I seriously worry about those who enjoyed it.

    Rating: -infinity of 10
  • This dismal sequel to Bridget Jones' Diary is terrible. It takes place one month after the first film and she's contemplating her relationship with Marc Darcy(Firth). Renee Zellweger returns with her fake British accent and far more pounds than the first one. This is basically the same story as the original. The same jokes where Bridget gets embarrassed is horribly over done and unfunny. The appalling script some how finds a way to break up Bridget and Marc so that Daniel Cleaver(Grant) can enter the screen to trouble Bridget's relationship. Of course, the movie had to have another sissy fight between Firth and Grant in the hopes of getting a laugh but is just stupid and repetitive.

    Overall, this movie attempts to be a romantic comedy, but turns out to be a blundering and repetitive sequel. This movie is even worse than Disney's money greedy straight to video sequels such as Lion King 1 and a half, Little Mermaid two, and Cinderella two. This movie is so appalling that it makes you want to leave the theater, hop on a bus, and go stab those horrible screenwriters that made us sit through 108 min. of pure crap. If you're ever going to walk out on a movie, it would be this one. So if you're planning on seeing this crappy movie, make sure you can bring a handgun so you can blow your brains out. Believe me, it'd be better than this.

    1/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Bridget Jones's Diary was a near-flawless and thoroughly entertaining movie experience, with a script awash in witty dialogue, charm, creatively realistic situations and armed with comedic edge to spare. Unfortunately, all of the above attributes have been replaced in this second outing with triteness, predictability and, worst of all, lack of any edge whatsoever. The ace in the hole here, of course, is still Renee Zellweger's magnificent, heartfelt portrayal of the title character, which saves said sequel from being a complete waste of talent, energy and, ultimately, time.

    It starts out encouragingly enough, with Bridget joyously savoring her love affair with Mark Darcy (the always-appealing Colin Firth), but then the rot sets in - literally (in their relationship, when she realizes that Darcy's a snob and a twit in oh, so many ways) and figuratively (in the exceedingly trite and tedious plot, which eventually winds up including -=- SPOILER ALERT -=- Bridget's stint in a Thai jail and lesbian overtures from a colleague of Darcy's) -=- END OF SPOILER -=-, all accompanied by the most un-subtle soundtrack in the annuls of recent movie history.

    Number of cigarettes needed to sit through this bit of a sticky wicket: 2 packs.

    Number of alcoholic beverages needed to accompany said ciggies: innumerable.

    My IMDb rating: 5 (equivalent to 2-1/2 stars).

    Leaving the theatre with my sanity still intact: PRICELESS.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Directed By: Beeban Kidron

    Starring: Renée Zellweger, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Jacinda Barrett, Gemma Jones, Jim Broadbent, Sally Phillips, Shirley Henderson

    The opening of Bridget Jones: The Edge Of Reason just looks like it is asking for trouble. The first half hour features lame references to The Sound Of Music and The Spy Who Loved Me, and fails to recapture the magic of its forerunner's opening. Having Bridget sing All By Myself in Bridget Jones's Diary felt genuine; having her recreate THAT parachute dive (with Nobody Does It Better playing in the background) just seems desperate and obvious. But The Edge Of Reason does recover, and, in the end, provides warm enough entertainment.

    What problems does Bridget (Renée Zellweger) actually have this time? Well, none. She's happy in her relationship with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). And that's the problem. Everything is all too right. Several emotions, including jealousy, begin to surface when one of Mark's work colleagues, the exceptionally fit Rebecca (Jacinda Barrett) arrives on the scene. Bridget is also about to find her hands full thanks to the coincidental, but not surprising return of her former boss, Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant).

    There's nothing particularly wrong with The Edge Of Reason, it's just missing the spark that nearly lifted our first encounter with Bridget up to the level of maximum marks. Thankfully, no amount of inconsistencies and unlikely happenings, coupled with a preposterous narrative that would make Love Actually seem coherent (Richard Curtis hasn't really learnt anything, has he?) can hide the fact that I left the cinema quite contented.

    Renée Zellweger, though not quite as consistent with the accent this time, can play Bridget in her sleep. It's clear the role was made for her, and she doesn't need to do much. Alas, this is also a problem. She no longer has a point to prove, and as a result it looks like she literally IS sleepwalking through the role. It's a complacent performance that screams, "Look, now I've got an Oscar, so I can do this without trying too hard." Her heart just doesn't seem in it.

    In fact, "heart" is what this film lacks as a whole. The warm glow of the previous film has been replaced by a decorated sitcom feel, with a fast, frantic pace that moves from one sketch to the next. The likes of Bridget and Mark don't feel real anymore; they're as deep as Bridget's friends, despite the actors' best efforts. The effortless charm of Bridget Jones's Diary is still here, but only in spurts.

    What a relief the second half of the film is then. Perhaps this has something to do with the arrival of Hugh Grant, whose comic timing is as immaculate as ever. Just like one of the film's main subplots, his entrance may be incredibly contrived, but it has ENERGY – something that is sorely missing from the film's opening half hour. As far as everyone else goes…well, Colin Firth is as dependable as ever, but he does nothing to write home about here. But it is good to see Sally Phillips getting more screen time (even though Shirley Henderson and Jim Broadbent are both wasted), and Jacinda Barrett is irresistible in her small role. Rebecca actually hides a little secret that may be offensive to some, but hilarious to others.

    I think the problem with The Edge Of Reason lies with Beeban Kidron, the director. Where the original's director, Sharon Maguire, gave us smart, unforced comedy with a feeling of novelty, Kidron piles on the slapstick so heavily to the point where what's on screen is only occasionally funny. I could also add that Kidron has not only added more slapstick to this film, but more product placement. (If Galaxy, Coke and Ben & Jerry's really are the answer to all the world's problems, I suppose it's not hard to see where Bridget gets all her weight from.)

    The Edge Of Reason functions perfectly as a romantic comedy matinée, but it's kind of disappointing – no, make that sad – when a film you thought would be one of the real high points of the year ends up joining the list of disappointments. On this evidence, I can definitely wait for Bridget Jones to write another diary.

    Rating: *** (out of *****)
  • Were we supposed to care about any of these characters? Mark Darcy and Bridget were terrible together. They couldn't go even one scene without squabbling and picking at each other. How could the audience believe there could be anything enduring between them? Poor Renee! Gaining 30 pounds just to star in what was one of the most tedious movies I've ever seen. Perhaps the movie could have used the same director and screenwriter that the first one had. I really enjoyed the first BJ movie and was sorely disappointed by the second. I LOVE all the actors in this film, but I found myself embarrassed for them. The first movie was smart, witty, and fresh (screenwriting, please!) This predictable mess imploded under its own weight of countless, irritating apologies and shrill dialogue.
  • scottlad7916 November 2004
    Lets get one thing out of the way; I did not enjoy the sequel to the enormously popular Bridget Jones. Maybe it's because I am of the male gender, or maybe because some of the rather poor reviews I had read before I went to see it prejudiced me in some way. Maybe I didn't like it because it was all too similar to the original or maybe because it smelt like a good vintage, age old cheddar. People will like it and it will probably make loads of money, but it wasn't for me (or most males).

    Anyone who has seen the first film will know the plot as it almost identical, except for some desperate seemingly tack on plot parts (including Bridget ending up in a Thai prison teaching a cell full of prisoners Madonna songs). The humour seems forced and when all else fails it relies heavily on cheesy cliques and schmaltz. This worked reasonably well in the original, but surely a sequel has to be more than a rehash of a one trick pony.

    Zellweger is good as Bridget, just as she was in the first film (her English accent is excellent), Firth solid, but yet again it is Grant who steals the show as the gloriously smarmy, and downright seedy Daniel Cleaver. The downside is it is just far too similar, Firth and Grant fighting anybody? It is better made than the first film and looks a lot better but why does a film like this need a true wide screen 2.35:1 ratio? It is far more TV screen than true wide screen. There is not enough going on to warrant having this and just annoys with major close ups of Zellweger and the rest of the cast. Great for sc-fi, not for rom-com.

    All in all, a lot of people will like this film, but for me, it was a case of far too much, all too similar. Boys 4/10, Girls 7/10
  • em_19869 December 2004
    People slagging this film off is really doing my head in!

    I've seen it three times, and still say (which i never say?!?!?) that it is better than the first one!

    people keep saying that Mark Darcy isn't as sweet in the 2nd 1...but wasn't he an arrogant arse at the beginning of the 1st film?????

    And there is no such thing as a happy ending in romance, and those people who think that life is a bed of roses after the rainbow need to wake up...this is reflected very well in this movie.

    And people complaining that the characters haven't changed! take a reality check! how much have you and your friends changed in the last year? you want a film about a normal woman making it in the world and then moan when you get it! of course they're the same....its only been a year and they're the same people!

    In the 1st film, everyone knows that Bridget is insecure...the dilemma with choosing the knickers for example, so why don't they want to see that now? do they think that as soon as you get a boyfriend you all of a sudden become more confident? she worked so hard to get a decent boyfriend, and had little confidence after the Cleaver incident, so of course shes going to be jealous and nervous!

    Yes the chances of a normal London singleton becoming famous are slim...but what you've got to remember that this is a movie based on novel...and ITS NOT REAL!!!!!! shes the same Bridget...she looks the same, acts the same and has the same share of bad luck! and if i remember, she actually started to become famous in the 1st film...so before anyone criticizes from that angle, maybe they should watch the first film again.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Being male, I suppose that I'm not the target audience for this film, which is just as well, because I thought that it was rubbish. The performances are all good as far as they go, but the script is simply feeble. The plot is this: a slapstick comedienne called Bridget Jones is in a relationship with a high-powered human rights lawyer called Mark Darcy. However they find that personal differences are coming between them: she wants to go to parties, accidentally insult everyone there, and then fall down the stairs; while his interests include showing no vestige of humanity, being upper class, and smouldering in the background. Several crashingly unfunny scenes ensue: she suspects him of having an affair and falls off his roof trying to spy on him; they go on a skiing holiday and she falls off the ski-lift and then down the mountain; she tries to order a pregnancy test in Austria using a combination of mime and terrible mock German: all deeply second-rate stuff.

    Then re-enter Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant): the attractive but untrustworthy philandering ex-boyfriend (worryingly I thought that Hugh Grant was the best thing about this film, and generally I can't stand him). Somehow or other Bridget and Daniel find themselves traveling to Thailand together, where there are some moderately amusing moments: she accidentally eats an omlette made of magic mushrooms; his attempts to seduce her are interrupted by the arrival of the Thai prostitute he'd pre-booked (he looks at the Thai girl, then at Bridget, and says "well I'm up for it if you are"). On the way home however she gets thrown into a Thai prison for accidentally smuggling cocaine: she spends her time in there discussing superbras and teaching the other inmates to sing Madonna songs.

    Disappointingly though she is eventually released, thanks to the superhuman efforts of the tight-lipped but devoted Mark Darcy, and the mediocre comedy continues: Mark and Daniel have a pathetic fight in a fountain; Bridget gets soaked by a bus driving through a large puddle next to her; and (for the fortieth time in the film) whilst trying to discuss personal matters with Mark while he's at work, Bridget finds herself being humiliated in front of a room full of important international figures.

    There are a couple of pointless subplots: her parents decide to re-affirm their marital vows; the sexy other girl who Bridget suspects is sleeping with Mark, actually turns out to have a lesbian crush on her. But overall there isn't a single genuinely funny moment in the whole film. Some of the scenes in Thailand have a certain charm, but almost all of the jokes have either been done to death already, or are just stupid slapstick nonsense. But as well as being unfunny, I thought this film was wildly unconvincing: Bridget Jones is meant to be a sort of everywoman, an ordinary thirty-something single girl who everyone can relate too. But she spends her whole time accidentally engineering herself into ridiculous situations. OK everyone's humiliated themselves in front of their partner's colleagues once or twice, but she does nothing else: it is her single defining character trait. For instance she's never skied before, but she claims to be an experienced skier, and then takes a chair-lift to the top of a mountain. This is profoundly foolish behaviour: is she really so deserving of sympathy when disaster inevitably strikes? Meanwhile Mark Darcy brings new meaning to the term "one-dimensional": he's polite and perfect, but he hardly ever shows the slightest emotion or interest in anything whatsoever.

    I admit that I'm not the sort of guy who likes chick-flicks in general, but if you absolutely have to see one, there are any number of romantic comedies which are more plausible, more romantic, and funnier than this one.
  • This new movie is OK, but I would have liked to have seen Sharon MacGuire direct instead of someone trying to steadfastly follow the tone of the first one. The narrative is very shaky and the first half of the movie was one embarrassing gag after another with only a few allusions to the original book (it veered off severely at certain points and made Bridget's friends and family very periferal to the story). Nevertheless, I think I identified with this movie more than the first one even though I liked the first one better.

    As for the weight, I am very familiar with those issues. I personally think the director made sure Renee's clothes did not look right or fit her to make her weight issue more noticeable. All those sleeveless outfits helped. Her weight was always supposed to be around 130 lbs and she did not look that chubby in the first movie. I have a theory, this might have something to do with Richard Curtis who co-wrote this movie and wrote and directed Love Actually. He made a lot of fat jokes at the expense of the PM's love interest in that one. I think the battle to keep a decent weight is a very private one and it is a lot easier to cast a naturally thin woman who can put on or take off weight with more ease than one who is naturally a Bridget-sized person who struggles with weight because there are too many jokes in the movie about her weight. I think that kind of stigma can live with a person. Renee dropped most of the weight within two months of wrapping the film.

    I do like the "just as you are" theme of the movie. The idea that someone could like Bridget in spite of her inward and outward flaws (and her paranoia) and could find her an intrinsically good person is a really good message. The fact is, most romantic comedies use gorgeous women, give them minor flaws or insecurities ("woe is me, I can't get a man!) and the guys eventually swoon for the girl. In the case of this movie, while the slapstick might have felt unrealistic, the romance felt real. Darcy never stopped caring for Bridget and he fought for her (literally) because he wanted to protect her from all of those who though he deserved better than her.

    Overall, this movie is uneven but good because you can identify with the characters
An error has occured. Please try again.