Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004)

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

An Exercise In Nonsense

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

It's soon after the first movie. Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) is now dating Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). She is insecure and jealous of his co-worker Rebecca (Jacinda Barrett). Egged on by her friends and enemy, she breaks up with him. Then she's forced to work on Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant)'s show and goes to Thailand. Bridget Jones goes to Thailand and gets imprisoned for trafficking drugs. Hilarious?It's a lot of self destructive behavior from Bridget Jones. It's the worst of TV sitcom writing. If only the characters would just talk to each other, the misunderstands would all go away. It is bad for a big screen movie. It would probably work better as a TV sitcom. Then she gets thrown into a Thai prison. Colin Firth plays his character with a little too much anger. Zellweger does a lot of fat jokes. Hugh Grant is actually a breath of fresh air delivering some lighter moments. In the end, there is nothing here worth your time.

The first film has warmth, strong characters and a sense of heart. This sequel has none of these things and feels like a pointless sequel only produced to make money.It feels like a bunch of sketches strung together by a very weak plot which is worrying seeing as it is supposed to be based on a book. It has funny moments but even these feel rehashed and tired. Zellweger, Grant and Firth are all talented but even they cannot save this film from being the poor imitation of the first film.Sequels rarely work and this one is proof. It's perhaps worth watching once but certainly not worth wasting money on by the DVD. Save your money and watch the first film.

It's very watchable so gets 4 stars but not as good as the earlier movie even though that wasn't particularly good.Hugh Grant is as brilliant as before as the caddish Wickham part, but Bridget is far more off the mark as the "Elizabeth" character even than she was in BJ's Diary. As for "Darcy", what on earth is he with this Bridget for? I doubt it's all Zellweger's fault even though I think she's totally miscast for the original very English wry humour of the newspaper Bridget - Zellweger simply can't do it. I can't understand why a British actress wasn't selected for this part or at least someone who could put over the humour as per British. But give Zellweger her due, she does try very hard and if I hadn't known the original BJ and Austen's P&P before it, she'd do as a different type of Bridget - a bit dim which Elizabeth and the original BJ weren't. No way, however, is this Bridget Elizabeth Bennet, but then the whole idea is that she isn't yet somehow the amazing Darcy adores her... There are some very funny sequences, especially out in Thailand and Zellweger's failure to be right for Bridget isn't a serious problem with the movie. The problem is why Darcy has ever fancied her in the first place - I'm not trying to insult this Bridget, just to point out that the relationship between these two characters is, as it was in the earlier movie, completely unrealistic. They are chalk and cheese! Possibly Firth is to blame for this - he is just too priggish and his whole lifestyle and career are so apart from hers that when he unbends to admit to wanting to be with/loving Bridget,it's not possible to believe him. Strange how this relationship fails because of the actors whilst Firth's excellent in a romantic theme in Love Actually. Bridget in this movie is even more embarrassing to stuffy Mark than she was in the first movie. It doesn't make sense that she makes a totally unnecessarily complete ass of herself in front of his clients time and again, and yet his career isn't suffering and he doesn't seem to mind! Whereas Hugh Grant as Daniel - brilliant! He always seems to know exactly how to put over a part. Is that he always acts the same part? I don't know or care, he's just riveting and so funny and charming on screen no matter what he acts in. Every time Bridget rejects him I wonder why as they are far better suited than her and that stuffy lawyer even though Daniel's a jerk! The theme of Daniel introducing cities/travel in his own womanising way is a very clever idea, I loved it. He'd make any travel ad thrilling! Bridget's experience with parachuting was scary. Neil Pearson is very amusing as her ruthlessly unsympathetic boss.One big surprise at the end is the girl who appears to be having an affair with Mark. What a brilliant twist! Marvellous! I never expected it for a moment. It lifted the movie's otherwise very ordinary ending!!

I don't know why they insist on making remakes when they know from the start that they cannot make anything nearly as good as the original... What a waste of time and money. Bridget Jones 2 is a classic example: this is a film that 'lives' based exclusively on the success of it's predecessor. This is a film without any fresh ideas, any style, a film that has nothing to say and is going nowhere apart from re chewing the same material of the original in a horrible fashion. Worse of all, it isn't even funny any more...What a pity to waste so much acting talent on something that everyone new from the start wasn't going to fly. In his review of the original movie, Ebert started off by saying "Glory be, they didn't muck it up" and I couldn't have agreed with him more in that instance. Well, this time they certainly did muck it up!