The following is a chronology of me watching Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. All times are approximate.
Movie Start minus 3 minutes, 23 seconds — Why is there a commercial for "Joey" before the movie? Is that show still on? If so, why?
MS-2:09 — Another television ad, this time for a DVD set of "Will and Grace." I like movie previews, but what's with the TV ads? Man, that Jack guy is annoying. He's kind of a Stepin Fetchit for the gays.
MS+1:04 — Finally, the movie is starting. I forget, what was the original Bridget Jones about? All I remember is her kicking drug dealers' butts and wearing a big afro. Oh, wait...that was "Cleopatra Jones."
MS+10:58 — Already bored. Not a good sign.
MS+18:34 — Renée Zellweger looks completely dreadful. Horrible hair and bloated, unhealthy-looking body; ill-fitting and unflattering clothes. I used to think people were being superficial when they commented on actors' looks, but I've changed my mind. They're supposed to look good, or at least not bad. That's their job. God made the human form beautiful, and there's nothing wrong with appreciating it.
MS+22:27 — Not only is she bad looking, she makes it worse with her personality. She keeps talking about sex — not romance, but the act itself, and how wonderful it is that she's found someone to copulate with her. Needy, neurotic, paranoid and charmless...what man wouldn't want that?
Her boyfriend, Colin Firth, would be screaming and running away from her if he were a real person.
MS+24:20 — Hugh Grant! Finally! I want to dislike you because you are far more suave and handsome than I am, but you are hilarious and charming. Surely you will make this movie more bearable for me.
MS+49:31 — Tomorrow I should clean the garage...I wonder if there will be time to weed the front garden, because it sure needs it...does Chris need his air compressor back?...I think it's time for a glass of port....
MS+1:00:09 — I have now spent an entire hour watching this vulgar slattern. Where are you, Hugh? Come back and do something amusing!
MS+1:17:02 — She is not leading those Thai girls in a song-and-dance number to Madonna's "Like a Virgin." I'm going to the bathroom.
MS+1:31:51 — Why are Hugh and Colin fighting over that woman? Now Paige is telling me that this is like the fight from the first movie, of which I have almost no recollection.
MS+1:43: — At last, the end credits. I have no problem with "date movies" per se, nor do I hate the "chick flick" proper, but this movie was truly a pandering piece of tripe. I wish we had watched "The Incredibles" again, and I bet Paige does, too.
Re the MS+18:34 entry:
I've not seen BRIDGET JONES IS INSANE, but I can pretty much tell you from the first movie that Bridget Jones, the character, is not supposed to be a hottie. And many of her particular neuroses and tics and character flaws and (as they say) "issues" are based on her being overweight and plain-looking That role cannot be played by an actress who insists on looking hot.
So yes, you are being superficial.
In the first movie, Bridget was merely a bit overweight, but not unattractive. In this one, they seem to have made every effort to make her not only unattractive, but clumsy and without any offsetting personal attributes. I don't care if actors are "hot," but if you're going to make a movie where the main character is onscreen 98% of the time, you have to make her character compelling, if not her countenance.
Eric, I have to take issue with you on that too. If you had read the books, you would have had a better idea what to expect from poor old Bridget.
Okay, I admit: the second movie left a lot to be desired. But the books are funny, if vulgar, and I enjoyed them very much. I personally find it endearing that Ms. Z was willing to put on the necessary weight to play the role not just once, but twice. Most actresses would not even consider that sort of thing because of their vanity; they would probably insist on the use of makeup or a fat suit.
So no, I didn't enjoy The Edge of Reason as much as I did the first movie, but I've found worse ways to while away an hour and a half.
Yurodivi, I'll take your word for it that the book was better -- but I wasn't reading the book, I was watching the movie, which ought to stand or fall on its own merits. I didn't read all of "Lord of the Rings," but the movies are fantastic whether you did or not. Reading the books might *enhance* your pleasure, but it shouldn't determine it.
As for RZ, that's a matter of taste. I figure an actress who earned roughly $27 million dollars for a few months' work ought to do something a little bit difficult for a role. To me, Sandra Bullock does a much better job being vulnerable, quirky, and winsome. RZ's charms are completely lost on me.
Eric,
I agree about RZ in every movie but the two Bridget Jones movies. I don't much care for the rest of her work. I may be indulgent with her over these two films because I have such an Anglophilic streak.
And Sandra Bullock betrays signs of some sort of intelligence behind her good looks -- and her parents are musicians, which also endears her to me.
It was excruciating watching that movie. Does one enjoy watching a character that is such a mess – on so many different levels?
I actually had the same feeling while watching the second Spiderman movie. I mean, really, Peter Parker is just a mess. Maybe the first time round it's alright – much like in Bridget Jones – but the second time, couldn’t stand it...
Huh. I had no problem with either "Spider-Man" movie, but I can see what you mean. At least they bothered to explain Peter and Mary Jane's relationship -- he treated her well and obviously cared about her well-being, and she was spunky and cute. It wasn't "Remains of the Day," but it worked.
http://manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/2005/05/weekends-starting-early.html
Thanks for confirming that under no circumstances should Teresa and I watch that movie.
Tora Tora Tora it is!
Hmmmm .... I would like a report back on that one, johnboy. Because TORAx3 is to women approximately what BEACHES or STELLA/STELLA DALLAS is to men (i.e., strychine, arsenic and cyanide poison. Combined).
I'm not only referring to "war movie" and blood-and-guts and heroism and all that, which is inherent in the subject matter. But also the particular style of film-making in TORA RINSE-AND-REPEAT -- mathematical, methodical and deterministic. All the cross-cutting making the audience an all-seeing god, and those countdown cue cards, etc. It's war movie as "Panzer Plitz" set to a Swiss timepiece, rather than THE LONGEST DAY or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (or even APOCALYPSE NOW or TELL IT TO THE MARINES or SANDS OF IWO JIMA). As an empirical fact, that hyper-ritualistic style appeals to men far more than women.
Why do you hate your wife so, Mr. Schultz?
I did not care for B-Jones over the Edge (or whatver). The first movie I really like alot b/c I could relate to being single w/o prospects in my early 30s--though I did not carry on as she did. Nor was I overweight--until after marriage. [Men actually want to eat real dinners; single women don't.] B-Jones-2 was rehashed and not as cute the 2nd time around. Why would Colin Firth, a man of dignity and worth, be w/a woman who behaved as she persisted? Di you notice how they managed to throw a lesbian angle into the film? Can't be all hetero, can we, any more?
As for war movies, I like them. Give me a WW2 movie any day. Torax3 is great! Can't see The Longest Day too many times either.
Thank you veterans! What heros you are!