Okay, I admit it. Renee Zellweger was very, very good. When I first went to darkhorizons.com to get the scoops on Bridget Jones' Diary and I read that Zellweger was doing the honors, I was completely offended. What was wrong with an actress who was actually British, for crying out loud, for a change. Kate Winslet? Minnie Driver? Somewhere, out there, had to be a real, live British actress who was interested. Of all people, some skinny blonde from Texas?

But she rocks. Truly. She brings something out of Bridget that is only an undercurrent in the novel on which the film is based. Good comedic performances never get the critical recognition they deserve, but this is one that demands attention, simply because nobody thought she could do it and her Bridget actually has more character depth than the Bridget of the novel.

Unfortunately, Bridget's character flaws and screw-ups are the only things from the book that are preserved for the film. The film has very little in common with the novel. From about the midpoint straight through the end, the plot in the book is thrown completely out the window and a new story written from scratch. I have no clue why; if it was such a good story to begin with, which it was, why mess with it? For example, the ridiculous and totally unnecessary fight scene toward the end of the film. There is nothing even remotely resembling a fistfight in the novel. There is no explanation or rationale for its presence; I guess someone just figured the movie needed a little violence.

Another casting decision that troubled me was Hugh Grant as walking libido Daniel Cleaver. Hugh Grant, for me, will always be a piece of wet toast; the blinking, stuttering, mild-mannered, self-effacing nice guy who left Henrietta at the altar for Andie MacDowell even after she married someone else. Daniel Cleaver is a cad; the worst possible news. Guess what? Grant is pretty good. Not great, but adequate. He doesn't blink or stutter at all. He's quite smooth; he's clearly comfortable in Cleaver's skin. He makes Cleaver somewhat of a sympathetic character; a basically okay guy who does stupid things. You really want to like Daniel, but the whole point is to not like him and to be relieved and happy for Bridget when she finally tells him to take a hike.

Colin Firth (whom we Americans know as the evil Wessex in Shakespeare in Love, although he's quite famous in Britain) plays Mark Darcy, which is kind of funny, because he played Darcy in the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice a few years ago. Mark Darcy, in my opinion, is a little younger and more easygoing, but he's believable and cute.

The pacing of the film is kind of strange. In the first half, Bridget goes from one funny situation to the next without any real background or explanation; we just see her going through the motions and understand that this is just another funny scene but we don't really know what's going on or why she's at this party or what compels her to go for a job on TV. It's like they wanted to take all the funny bits in the book and cram them into one 45-minute bit before they put it the rewritten back end.

Watching Bridget's life makes me (and hopefully everyone else who sees this film) that we're all just big dorks inside. Zellweger is brave enough to let out her inner dork. That's what makes this movie worth the money. Be forewarned, though; this is not a faithful adaptation of the novel.


Recommended:
Yes

Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older