Search
Search results
South American Handbook
Book
South America will uplift your senses with the tropical sun rising over a palm-fringed beach, or a...
Junk Jack Retro
Games and Education
App
*If you don't have Junk Jack we suggest you to first purchase it and then consider Junk Jack Retro...
LC
Le Corbusier
Graham Livesey and Antony Moulis
Book
Le Corbusier (1887-1965), born Charles-Edouard Jeanneret-Gris in La Chaux-de-Fonds (Switzerland), is...
You Can't Spell America Without Me: The Really Tremendous Inside Story of My Fantastic First Year as President
Kurt Andersen and Alec Baldwin
Book
Political satire as deeper truth: Donald Trump’s presidential memoir, as recorded by two...
politics comedy
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The People at Number 9 in Books
Mar 15, 2018
From this synopsis of this book, you imagine this is going to be a bit dark and a bit twisty, but its not. Its simply a domestic thriller about people with a lot of money and connections in high up places flirting, changing life paths and having resentments. I understand that this was a novel about middle-class suburban life, which can be dull, but why did nothing happen? <i>But those changes will come at a price."</i> Im sorry, but I must have missed something
What changes? What price?
I didnt like the way this was set out, and maybe thats because it was an ARC copy, but this was really choppy and changey, with no indication that a longish time period (a few hours to a whole afternoon) had passed. The writing was fine, I have no faults with that, but it wasnt anything special.
There are four main characters in this book. Sara and Neil and Lou and Gavin. While each of the characters were well developed and in depth, it didnt stop them from being lacklustre and 2D. I couldnt connect with any of them on a personal level. Even though I would get annoyed at certain things Lou said or did, I wasnt getting annoyed on Saras behalf, because I thought Sara was whiny and she got on my nerves too.
One of my issues with this book, other than it being boring as heck, was the pretentious conversations going on, all the time. I know this book was a satire piece on the middle class, I get it, but dont bore us to death with long conversations that are eye rollingly posh and uninteresting. You can create a satire piece without making your readers fall asleep. There is very little description in this book, youll find that 80% of all the writing is speech, so it really did my head in after a while.
Now, this point is completely down to personal preference, but another reason I couldnt get on with this book was because of all the out-of-marriage flirting. It makes me really uncomfortable and squirmy reading that kind of stuff, so, since it was heavily featured in this, I disliked the book even more.
This is going to be a controversial book in terms of opinions, most definitely, and it would probably be a great book to read for a discussion, because youd have lots of differing opinions on the characters, but, heres my two-cents:
Ultimately, this novel is a story about over indulged middle class suburban families doing things a little bit risky like sex in a tent or smoking weed, and worrying about things only unrealistic well-off people could worry about, like home-schooling and arts and crafts. Not worth the time it takes to read.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and HQ for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
I didnt like the way this was set out, and maybe thats because it was an ARC copy, but this was really choppy and changey, with no indication that a longish time period (a few hours to a whole afternoon) had passed. The writing was fine, I have no faults with that, but it wasnt anything special.
There are four main characters in this book. Sara and Neil and Lou and Gavin. While each of the characters were well developed and in depth, it didnt stop them from being lacklustre and 2D. I couldnt connect with any of them on a personal level. Even though I would get annoyed at certain things Lou said or did, I wasnt getting annoyed on Saras behalf, because I thought Sara was whiny and she got on my nerves too.
One of my issues with this book, other than it being boring as heck, was the pretentious conversations going on, all the time. I know this book was a satire piece on the middle class, I get it, but dont bore us to death with long conversations that are eye rollingly posh and uninteresting. You can create a satire piece without making your readers fall asleep. There is very little description in this book, youll find that 80% of all the writing is speech, so it really did my head in after a while.
Now, this point is completely down to personal preference, but another reason I couldnt get on with this book was because of all the out-of-marriage flirting. It makes me really uncomfortable and squirmy reading that kind of stuff, so, since it was heavily featured in this, I disliked the book even more.
This is going to be a controversial book in terms of opinions, most definitely, and it would probably be a great book to read for a discussion, because youd have lots of differing opinions on the characters, but, heres my two-cents:
Ultimately, this novel is a story about over indulged middle class suburban families doing things a little bit risky like sex in a tent or smoking weed, and worrying about things only unrealistic well-off people could worry about, like home-schooling and arts and crafts. Not worth the time it takes to read.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and HQ for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Meet the Robinsons (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The magicians at Disney have done it again in crafting one of the most enjoyable family films in recent memory. In Meet the Robinsons, audiences are introduced to Lewis, a young orphan who spends his time between adoption interviews tinkering away with all manner of strange inventions.
Lewis is approaching his 13th Birthday, and has given up hope of being adopted, after 150+ adoption interviews have failed to find him a family. In a desire to learn why his mother put him up for adoption, Lewis crafts a new invention that he hopes will not only answer this question, but also win him a prize at the school science fair.
As Lewis is preparing his memory scanner for the show, he is approached by a boy named Wilbur Robinson who tells him to watch out for a man in a bowler hat, as he has designs on the memory scanner.
Lewis and Wilbur are unaware that the Man in the Bowler Hat has indeed already arrived, and has sabotaged the memory scanner causing Lewis to be humiliated when his experiment goes horribly wrong.
Unknown to Lewis, a dastardly plan is underway and while Lewis attempts to make sense of his misfortune and lack of a family, Wilbur whisks Lewis into the future via a time machine in an effort to thwart the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the future for the worse.
During the arrival in the future, the time machine is damaged, and since it is one of only two known to exist, Lewis is forced to make repairs to the ship in order to return to his own time.
It is learned that Wilbur’s father has invented the time machines, and when the Man in the Bowler Hat stole one of the machines, Wilbur took the other one in an attempt to set things right, and is not able to ask for help from his father, less he suffer punishment.
With the very future he knows in danger, Wilbur agrees to help Lewis see his real mother if he is able to fix the time machine, but they both have to deal with The Man in the Bowler Hat and Wilbur’s quirky family if they are to save the day.
The film is a real joy, and the amazing animation was made even better by seeing the film in Direct 3D. I highly suggest seeing the film in this format if there is a theater near you showing the film in 3D.
Many family films strive to offer something that viewers of all ages can enjoy, but few have done as well as “Robinsons“ as the laughs were easily enjoyed by all ages, without being cutesy or forced.
My wife and I really enjoyed the T-Rex character, and hope that should there be future installments of this series, that he gets a larger part in the future.
The film was well paced and never seemed to drag or have a lull in rich visuals to feast your eyes upon while you enjoy a well rounded story and interesting characters.
My advice, put the Robinsons in your future.
Lewis is approaching his 13th Birthday, and has given up hope of being adopted, after 150+ adoption interviews have failed to find him a family. In a desire to learn why his mother put him up for adoption, Lewis crafts a new invention that he hopes will not only answer this question, but also win him a prize at the school science fair.
As Lewis is preparing his memory scanner for the show, he is approached by a boy named Wilbur Robinson who tells him to watch out for a man in a bowler hat, as he has designs on the memory scanner.
Lewis and Wilbur are unaware that the Man in the Bowler Hat has indeed already arrived, and has sabotaged the memory scanner causing Lewis to be humiliated when his experiment goes horribly wrong.
Unknown to Lewis, a dastardly plan is underway and while Lewis attempts to make sense of his misfortune and lack of a family, Wilbur whisks Lewis into the future via a time machine in an effort to thwart the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the future for the worse.
During the arrival in the future, the time machine is damaged, and since it is one of only two known to exist, Lewis is forced to make repairs to the ship in order to return to his own time.
It is learned that Wilbur’s father has invented the time machines, and when the Man in the Bowler Hat stole one of the machines, Wilbur took the other one in an attempt to set things right, and is not able to ask for help from his father, less he suffer punishment.
With the very future he knows in danger, Wilbur agrees to help Lewis see his real mother if he is able to fix the time machine, but they both have to deal with The Man in the Bowler Hat and Wilbur’s quirky family if they are to save the day.
The film is a real joy, and the amazing animation was made even better by seeing the film in Direct 3D. I highly suggest seeing the film in this format if there is a theater near you showing the film in 3D.
Many family films strive to offer something that viewers of all ages can enjoy, but few have done as well as “Robinsons“ as the laughs were easily enjoyed by all ages, without being cutesy or forced.
My wife and I really enjoyed the T-Rex character, and hope that should there be future installments of this series, that he gets a larger part in the future.
The film was well paced and never seemed to drag or have a lull in rich visuals to feast your eyes upon while you enjoy a well rounded story and interesting characters.
My advice, put the Robinsons in your future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robert’s father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robert’s request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
No Big Bloomers?
Bridget Jones’s Diary is a classic example of the perfect British rom-com. Upon its release in 2001, yes 15 years ago, it catapulted Renée Zellweger into the public eye and made household names of its other stars.
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/