why, why, why? why did they have to ruin one of the greatest romantic comedies of our time? i could blame it on the second book, but it was actually quite good. however, the adaptation from novel to film just did not work this time around.

what worked well in bridget jones’s diary, the first movie, were certain changes to the original text in the screenplay. while keeping the essential elements of the main story, the writers were able to weave a funny, romantic narrative of their own that worked better on film than on paper. where everything went right for the first movie, that’s where the edge of reason went wrong. although helen fielding did have her hand in writing the second screenplay, there were too many exact scenes from the novel that did not function well on screen. i didn’t find the skiing or thai-prison parts funny at all, while they were hilarious to me in the novel. what people fail to understand are that books and movies are two different media; what works for one won’t necessarily work for the other.

mark darcy was just as perfect as ever, which i liked. i didn’t particularly enjoy daniel cleaver’s sudden insertion into the sequel, but i suppose it sparked up the same old triangle and caused the now exaggerated fight scene between the two male leads. renée zellweger did a great job as bridget for the second time, but it just didn’t feel as though she was giving it her all. her friends and parents, who were wonderful in the first movie, were peripheral characters this time around. the acting — on everyone’s parts — seemed half-assed.

even the jokes relied too much on the first film: the skirt, the big bottom, the unmanly fight… all relying on a film that already achieved a name for itself. where was the innovation in all of this? where was the creative humour that everyone has come to love about bridget? people seemed more focused on zellweger’s weight than the weight of the first film carried by the edge of reason, which seemed to collapse in cinematic exhaustion.