Not a patch on the book

Rating: Null/10 (18 April 2001)

I can't believe most of the comments here, which generally seem to suggest that this film is a decent attempt at filming a brilliant book. It is a travesty. It is a typical Richard Curtis affair, filming by numbers (all that was missing was the disabled character). All his films are like overly sweet chocolate - delicious at the first bite, then afterwards you feel really nauseaous. So what is wrong with it? Bridget the book is great satire. Here, the satire loses all bite. Bridget the girl is not a sad, lonely muppet. The whole point of the book is that she has a fab life, and still feels inadequate (see an interview with Fielding in a copy of 20 ans magazine if you don't believe me). Bridget is supported by wonderful friends, who are entirely neglected in this film, with not one 'emergency summit' at cafe rouge convened. They also did all those stupid , pointless, irritating things films of books always do: Mark Darcy's Mum's name is changed from Elaine to Geraldine. Why? Daniel's other woman's name is changed from Sukie to Lara. Why? Magda goes from being a supportive friend even tho she has defected to the world of smug marrieds to another of their number. Why? Because Richard Curtis is so in love with his own writing he doesn't know when to leave well alone? I really went with an open mind to this film - and usually I adore Renee Zellweger. Here, all I got was a load of tosh. yes, Colin Firth mumbled quite admirably and looked embarrassed at the right moments. Hugh Grant has at last got rid of his floppy fringe and posh bloke stutter. But what a shambles (and it's cinematically bad too, with embarrassingly obvious slow mos whenever Maguire wants you to feel sad). Save your money and buy another bottle of Chardonnay instead. It's what the 'real' Bridget would have wanted.