Watching Bridget Jones:The Edge Of Reason, one very easily gets the impression that this film could have been made a lot better. The tag line is "Same Bridget - Brand New Diary" and what I say in response to that is, too right it's a brand new diary. It's definitely not faithful to Helen Fielding's novel, that's for sure.
In the novel, you get the feeling that Bridget matures because of the experiences that shape her during the course of this year in her life. In the film, she just seems to be a caricature, what the director thought was a stereotype of the character Bridget Jones. The Turkey Curry Buffet at the start was an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it was necessary, and I'm definitely not sure about the Sound of Music bit. It seemed to introduce another theme - almost that of a fairy tale - that, had the plot of the novel been followed at all faithfully, wouldn't have been at all necessary.
Her appearance at certain points (in fact, in many parts of the film) verges on the ridiculous. I know Bridget is obsessed with her weight, but surely she isn't so desperate to be a size eight or ten that she's going to buy these clothes and then wear them whether they fit her or not. In the novel, we know that Bridget is of an upper-middle class background, born to a mother whose life revolves around social entertaining, and who got a degree from Bangor University. Watching the film, one gets the impression that Bridget went to school and then maybe began college but never finished it. She is not supposed to be such an idiot and she does have a bit more intelligence than the film credits her with. Surely she wouldn't have worn such an unflattering dress to an evening event that was important to Mark?
Daniel Cleaver did NOT need to take up so much time in the film. The reason Bridget goes to Thailand is originally meant to be to get away from it all - why does it all end up coming with her? Daniel is an interesting character, but the novel makes it clear that she has actively moved on from him. The Thailand section of the book helped her to sort herself out - the film didn't convey this at all.On a related note, if Mark (as we find out) was contacting all his diplomatic contacts to secure Bridget's release, how come he had time to go and pick another fight with Daniel?
I would have liked to see the everyday things Mark and Bridget did (eg. the food shopping trip in the novel) and I didn't see the need for the twist regarding Mark's role in getting Bridget freed. If the director had followed the real plot, it would have been unnecessary.
On a final note, given that Jude and Shazzer were already present in the film, what was wrong with having Vile Richard and Jude's wedding at the end? I would have loved to see that wedding, not only to see Vile Richard but so that Mark could have demonstrated to Rebecca that Bridget was the woman for him. The book is long - maybe a two-part TV drama would have been more appropriate - but if the plot of this film was evaluated, I'm sure they could have taken out the unnecessary bits and added some more of Helen Fielding's story instead.
In the novel, you get the feeling that Bridget matures because of the experiences that shape her during the course of this year in her life. In the film, she just seems to be a caricature, what the director thought was a stereotype of the character Bridget Jones. The Turkey Curry Buffet at the start was an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it was necessary, and I'm definitely not sure about the Sound of Music bit. It seemed to introduce another theme - almost that of a fairy tale - that, had the plot of the novel been followed at all faithfully, wouldn't have been at all necessary.
Her appearance at certain points (in fact, in many parts of the film) verges on the ridiculous. I know Bridget is obsessed with her weight, but surely she isn't so desperate to be a size eight or ten that she's going to buy these clothes and then wear them whether they fit her or not. In the novel, we know that Bridget is of an upper-middle class background, born to a mother whose life revolves around social entertaining, and who got a degree from Bangor University. Watching the film, one gets the impression that Bridget went to school and then maybe began college but never finished it. She is not supposed to be such an idiot and she does have a bit more intelligence than the film credits her with. Surely she wouldn't have worn such an unflattering dress to an evening event that was important to Mark?
Daniel Cleaver did NOT need to take up so much time in the film. The reason Bridget goes to Thailand is originally meant to be to get away from it all - why does it all end up coming with her? Daniel is an interesting character, but the novel makes it clear that she has actively moved on from him. The Thailand section of the book helped her to sort herself out - the film didn't convey this at all.On a related note, if Mark (as we find out) was contacting all his diplomatic contacts to secure Bridget's release, how come he had time to go and pick another fight with Daniel?
I would have liked to see the everyday things Mark and Bridget did (eg. the food shopping trip in the novel) and I didn't see the need for the twist regarding Mark's role in getting Bridget freed. If the director had followed the real plot, it would have been unnecessary.
On a final note, given that Jude and Shazzer were already present in the film, what was wrong with having Vile Richard and Jude's wedding at the end? I would have loved to see that wedding, not only to see Vile Richard but so that Mark could have demonstrated to Rebecca that Bridget was the woman for him. The book is long - maybe a two-part TV drama would have been more appropriate - but if the plot of this film was evaluated, I'm sure they could have taken out the unnecessary bits and added some more of Helen Fielding's story instead.