I’ve been a whore with dolphin condoms. “Bridget Jones’s Baby” (2016)

directed by Sharon Maguire
© 2016 Universal Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

And then there was a baby. This part of Bridget Jones’s adventures is the most controversial, I think. Some people were excited about the continuation, some others were afraid. You know how it is with sequels… the first part is often the best one and then it’s a total roulette – it can be either fine or horrible. Second film wasn’t that fantastic and I guess you know why. If not, read my previous post so you can learn about my opinion. When it comes to the third part… What can I tell you? I think it’s more Bridget-ish than the second part. What’s interesting both, the 1st and the 3rd films were directed by the same director, only the 2nd part was directed by someone else. I can’t tell if that’s the reason why, but it’s worth noticing. Still, I give 7/10 to both the 2nd and 3rd. The 2nd was full of unnecessary elements in the script, but I liked Bridget for the way she fought for her rights, for who she was and where she was going to. In the 3rd part the script was better, everything made more or less sense, it was full of jokes that really made me laugh, but… Bridget! What happened? I know it took them around 12 years to get back to her story and all the actors got older, but why did she and Mark split up? And why she spent so many years alone? That’s not the Bridget we fell in love with. I mean… okay, she was a miserable single woman back then as well, but she was at least flirty and tried to catch some guy. And after many years we get a sad workaholic with no friends to spend time with. Yes, adulthood gets boring, people find partners, make babies, move to other places, but why in the film? Bridget was supposed to cheer us up and I don’t feel better watching her old and lonely. Anyway, I’m wondering what was the first script they had for the 3rd part. Because at first, all three main actors agreed to take part in the continuation: Renée, Colin and Hugh. However, at some point Hugh resigned because, apparently, he didn’t like the idea for the film. So they needed to rewrite the script and the responsible one for that was Emma Thompson, who also played Bridget’s doctor. And that’s why Daniel dies at the beginning. However, do you remember how the 3rd part ends? There’s a note in a newspaper saying Daniel has been found. Does that mean Hugh changed his mind when he saw how the 3rd part was going? Or maybe it’s an invitation for him to join them back? Will there be the 4th film? No idea. But I know I will keep getting back to this series. Love you, Bridget!

My rating: 7/10
S.

I will not f*** it up again, mother. “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” (2004)

directed by Beeban Kidron
© 2004 United International Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

It’s officially a weekend with Bridget. Today I’m reminding you about the second part of the story. A lot of critics disliked the sequel and I can tell why. I think the author of the book (because it’s all based on a series of books by Helen Fielding) wanted to do too much. Oh, if you haven’t seen this part, watch it and then read my post, because I assume you’ve seen it and I can now talk about the film. So first of all, drama with Mark. In the first part, Mark was awkward, but in this one, he’s just annoying. When Bridget feels embarrassed and lonely, he doesn’t care or even gets angry about that. Honey, you’ve chosen Bridget, so accept the fact, that she won’t behave like one of your I-am-a-very-serious-person-with-a-stick-in-my-ass colleagues. And when they break up, he doesn’t seem to bother. Generally, I started to hate Mark after this sequel, because he totally ignores Bridget. Like when they went skiing and she fell off the chairlift. What should he do? Help her maybe? Make sure she’s okay? No, he went to say hello to his friends. I mean… what? Is that the charming Mark the lawyer? Then the part with Bridget worrying about being pregnant. And do you really think that an Austrian pharmacist wouldn’t understand Bridget speaking English? The whole scene there was a very tiring joke. Okay, the trip to Thailand was quite fun and the way Bridget ended up in prison. I adore the part where, even though she’s about to be stuck in Thailand for 10 years, she gets annoyed because the women in her cell don’t sing Madonna’s song properly. I mean, that’s our Bridget, right? And the fight of Mark and Daniel in the fountain – pure pleasure. Do you know that they were asked to fight as if it was for real? No instructions, just kick each other’s asses. Still, why the hell they made Mark’s assistant lesbian and in love with Bridget? And that kiss? Girl, Bridget is/was Mark’s girlfriend, you don’t kiss her just like that. Quite strange… Still, I do like this film. Even though there are so many things I would change, I still love Bridget and I like getting back to it. Obviously, one of my beloved moments is when Bridget burns Daniel when he orders a prostitute to his room even though he was flirting with Bridget before. And then she says the most wonderful line that I wish all people who’ve been cheated on to say to their ex-partners: “Go f*** yourself. Or her. But definitely not me.” – and then play Aretha Franklin in the background. Boom!

My rating: 7/10
S.

I’d rather have a job wiping Saddam Hussein’s arse. “Bridget Jones’s Diary” (2001)

directed by Sharon Maguire
© 2001 United International Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

The day has come. You’re either in a relationship and you’ve already posted a cute picture with an inspirational quote about love and soon you’re about to have a totally unexpected sex, or you’re single and you’re watching romcoms drinking wine and eating tons of sweets. Or you’re either taken or single and you know that today is just a normal day and you focus on your life instead of buying heart-shaped chocolates. Although, they are tasty… Anyway, for those who won’t be busy tonight (remember, use protection, we have too many people born in October), I want to remind you about this wonderful production that I’ve seen many times and it always comforts me. And I’m not talking about love live only, but about everything. I burn something in the kitchen? I watch Bridget making blue soup. I do something embarrassing in public? I watch Bridget talking gibberish at the book launch. I’m done with some life drama? I was Bridget smoking cigarettes with her father. I get angry with someone because they treated me badly? I watch the scene where Bridget burns Daniel in the office (and “Respect” by Aretha Franklin sounds PERFECTLY in the background). Seriously, this film is for everything. And I guess I don’t need to tell you what it’s about, because… who doesn’t know Bridget? It’s an absolute icon of not very successful but adorable and stubborn women. She’s single, clumsy and awkward, but she has a group of great friends, supportive family (especially the uncle…) and funny adventures. Besides, the two men fighting for her heart are Mark (Colin Firth) and Daniel (Hugh Grant) and they are extremely charming. Besides, Renée Zellweger is lovely in this role. Can you imagine a different actress playing Bridget? No? So let me tell you who was considered for this role: Cate Blanchett (ha, better for Natasha), Emily Watson (that would be cute, okay), Rachel Weisz (not goofy enough), Toni Collette (too goofy), Helena Bonham Carter (but then Daniel should be played by Johnny Depp) and my favourite one: Cameron Diaz. CAMERON DIAZ?! Could anyone believe that a woman looking like Cameron Diaz has problems with finding a date? Girl… stop this nonsense. Besides, nobody could play Bridget better than Bridget. She’s no longer Renée, she’s our Bridget, that we love, just the way she is. And no matter if you’re single or taken – I wish you to be loved, just like Bridget, for who you really are. Cheers!

My rating: 8/10
S.

CATastrophe. “Cats” (2019)

directed by Tom Hooper
© 2019 Universal Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

Have you expected anything else today? I mean, everybody jokes about “Cats” these days, because it’s hard not to. But before I tell you what’s wrong with it, first I’d like to start with something different. Have you seen “The King’s Speech” (2010)? Or “Les Misérables” (2012)? Or “The Danish Girl” (2015)? If you haven’t, you’ve missed really good productions, so I recommend you to check them out. But if you have, you know their quality, right? Three very successful films, well done and well received by the audience. And can you imagine that those three films have something in common with “Cats”? And that something is actually someone – the director. I honestly couldn’t believe that the same man who made me cry on “Les Misérables” and totally love the other two productions, ended up directing such… thing. But I cannot judge who’s the responsible one for making this film a CATastrophe (I know it’s not funny to write CAT with capital letters but I cannot stop myself). Some say it’s because of the director, because he was not managing the team well. Some others say it’s because of the producers who were pushing everyone to finish the film faster. Yet the majority agrees that they simply didn’t have enough time. The whole film is about London cats living on the street. The cats were played by humans and later their bodies were animated so they look like cats. The original idea comes from the stage musical, which most of you must have heard about. And, honestly speaking, I think it wasn’t a bad idea that they wanted to make a film version, since we have such technology nowadays to make Judi Dench look like Garfield. Unfortunately, you can tell the animation in this one isn’t on top and I’m pretty sure it’s not because of lack of skills, but because of rush or lack of money. Or even both. There are several mistakes, including the human hand of Judi Dench’s character in some scene or faces of the actors detaching themselves from the cat bodies. So those aren’t mistakes that are difficult to notice and I’m sure the animators knew about them before finishing the project. But you can tell the actors put a lot of effort in learning the dance moves and songs. Unfortunately, the whole film seems to be script-less. It’s just a performance of cat-looking people. I see no point in it and I guess I’m not the only one. So yes, this film is horrible indeed, but I don’t want to be a hater. I sort of understand that it wasn’t supposed to be like that and if only they worked on it a bit longer, this would have been a very successful production. Especially since there are lots of well-known actors and actresses in it. The only parts I liked were with Rebel Wilson and James Corden – I think those two should think of cooperating again. Other than that, I’m not a fan of cats and those were extremely creepy creatures…

My rating: 2/10
S.

This film is real… sheet. “A Ghost Story” (2017)

directed by David Lowery
© 2017 A24. All Rights Reserved.

This film can be described very shortly: there’s a couple, the man dies, he walks in a sheet, nothing happens, nothing happens and nothing happens. And if we look at the film this way, yeah, it’s rather boring, because, as I said, NOTHING HAPPENS. And I’m not even joking right now. This film is extremely slow, the shots are super long and nobody talks there. Do you feel encouraged? And I haven’t made a mistake. I know it’s not 13th yet, so today I’m supposed to recommend you something good. So I am. I believe this film is extremely underrated and most of the negative comments about it have been written by people who expected it to be a) a horror full of jump scares, b) a sexy romance with ghosts included (oh well, no judgement), or c) an action film about two people fighting with a ghost. And it’s nothing like those. As I’ve mentioned, there’s a couple: M (Rooney Mara) and C (Casey Affleck). They live together in a house in Dallas. They are planning to move to another house, but before that C dies in a car accident. After that, he returns home as a ghost. However, M moves on and finally leaves their house. But the ghost doesn’t follow her… You can’t imagine how hard it is for me to introduce you to the story without saying too much or telling you what I believe in. I mean, this film has plenty of different explanations. I’ve read lots of ideas, comments and interpretations, but I believe there’s no right one. All of them seem to have something intriguing. I have my version, but I don’t want to share it with you, because it would ruin creating your own one. I recommend you to watch this production with a group of friends who like ambitious and difficult cinema and talk about it later. And if you don’t have such group of friends, feel free to message me with your idea, because I always like discussing such productions. I have to say I was quite overwhelmed by the story and I kept thinking of it before falling asleep that day. Apparently, you don’t need monsters or possessed people to get a bit freaked out. By the way, that’s definitely Casey Affleck’s best role (I’m sorry, I had to…).

My rating: 7/10
S.

This whole thing makes me nervous. “Panic Room” (2002)

directed by David Fincher
© 2002 Columbia Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

This is a film in which Nicole Kidman was supposed to play but she didn’t, so now we can enjoy the character of Meg played by Jodie Foster. And considering the fact that this is a thriller and Meg is a rather strong woman, I guess it’s for the best that Kidman had an injury back then. The producers even admitted that at first the character of Meg was supposed to be quite defenceless. However, choosing Foster made them change the concept. And that’s perfect, because this film wouldn’t be the same without her. Besides, her daughter is played by the young Mrs. Vampire, Kristen Stewart, and she’s a very promising actress in this one (and she was only 12 years old). Time for you to learn something about the plot. So the main characters are Meg and her daughter Sarah who move into a new house because of Meg’s divorce. During the first night, Meg notices on the video monitors in their panic room that there are three men downstairs. She runs for her daughter and together hide in the panic room. Such room is for their protection, so nobody can enter it if the ones inside don’t open. Sounds great – the men take what they want, leave the house, Meg and Sarah call for help, and the end. Unfortunately, the three burglars are not here to steal Meg and Sarah’s belongings or to hurt those two. The thing they are searching for is hidden in… the panic room. So they really need to get inside, but the girls don’t even think of going out. And the phone in the panic room doesn’t work. Honestly, I got so excited watching the film. I mean, the script is fantastic and the whole thrill is there… oh it is! Whenever I watch such productions, my brain is coming up with the ideas how the story might end. And I was kind of right, but there was a surprise waiting for me at the end, so I hope it will shock you as well. Some people say it’s an average thriller, but personally, I think it’s one of the best ideas I’ve seen. The acting is very good, Foster and Stewart are a great duo, and the three burglars are played by Forest Whitaker, Dwight Yoakam and Jared Leto (although the last one isn’t my favourite actor, but he’s acceptable in this one). Also the camerawork is something worth mentioning. Some say you may feel like watching one of Hitchcock’s films. Interesting. Perhaps that’s why I liked “Panic Room” this much.

My rating: 7/10
S.

Beautifully painted dementia. “Mémorable” (2019)

directed by Bruno Collet
© 2019 Vivement Lundi. All Rights Reserved.

Last night was full of surprises. At least for me. Obviously, the awards for the actors were rather predictable, but the rest was quite shocking. Congratulations for “Parasite” for winning the main award, although I think it wasn’t the right choice made by the Academy members. I liked the film very much, but it’s “1917” that will be remembered as an outstanding cinematographic production. So when it comes to the main award, I’m disappointed. However, when it comes to animations, I’m pissed off. Why? Because they keep on awarding films that are popular, not the ones that are somehow interesting when it comes to their animation. I believe “Missing Link” and “Klaus” were something new, and as much as I love “Toy Story”, I wish they started awarding less popular productions for their specific style. But the biggest heart break was when they didn’t give the Oscar to “Mémorable” – a short nomination from France. It’s not only beautifully made, but the story really hits you. It’s only 12 minutes long and it was enough to melt my heart. It tells the story of Louis, an elderly painter, who’s suffering from dementia. At first we see him having small issues with his memory, but as the story continues, he loses his mind more and more. Not only he has problems with remembering things, but also his surrounding changes. And everything looks like paintings made by a person in different stages of dementia. I didn’t expect to like it that much, because I rarely watch short productions. But this one is definitely worth your time. On one hand I wanted it to last longer, because I really loved what I saw, but on the other hand making it short was the right decision. It’s quick, straight to the point and emotionally draining. I can’t believe the Academy didn’t appreciate it. I think this is what I’m angry about the most this year. That is why today I’m dedicating my post to “Mémorable” – a marvellous and underrated production of 2019.

My rating: 9/10
S.