“Bridget Jones's Baby” is for fans of the 2001 original, but nobody else.
Bridget Jones (Renee Zellweger) is still living the madcap life of a single woman in the city, learning lessons about growing older and wiser. Once again, she deals with her on-again / off-again relationship with Mr. Darcy (Colin Firth), who is now married to another woman. Once again she has another suitor. Jack Qwant (Patrick Dempsey), an American billionaire, who replaces previous love interest and villain Daniel (Hugh Grant), whose character is killed off-screen at the start of the movie.
Unlike the previous two movies, “Baby” isn't about which man she will marry: it's about which man is the father of her baby. In classic Jones fashion, Bridget slept with each of them and has no idea who put the bun in her oven. What drama!
No, seriously, what drama? While "Bridget Jones's Baby" has the same comedy of the previous movies, it lacks dramatic weight. The first was a tribute to the classic novel “Pride & Prejudice,” largely via Bridget's romantic and familial relationships. Borrowing that story allowed for the movie to focus on humor, which made the first really enjoyable and afforded Bridget's character interesting situations to play off of while remaining goofy.
I didn't bother watching the second because honestly, I saw the original for the first time last Tuesday.
“Bridget Jones's Baby” has plenty of misadventures and drama caused by Bridget's lovable awkwardness, but it also has nothing for a story. Dempsey's Jack is Chris Traeger-lite (for those unfamiliar with “Parks and Recreation,” he's an always-positive new age guru who only ever tries to do the right thing). He contrasts with Mr. Darcy, who, after 10 years, has finally moved on from his tumultuous relationship with Jones. When she reveals to both of them at a group dinner that she isn't sure which of them is the father (after leading them both to believe that they, individually, are), the two men are put into conflict to prove who would be the best candidate.
You know from the start that she'll end up with Mr. Darcy again, and that Jack will stay in their lives as an uncle of some sort. You know it because there is never any question; Jack immediately says he'll help take care of the baby whether or not it is his, as does Mr. Darcy. There is no actual conflict between them.
In a romantic comedy, a poor or standard story is sustainable if the jokes are consistent and witty. But after initial shots are fired between the men, the movie starts to repeat itself. And repeat itself. And repeat itself.
And repeat itself.
Bridget has a career subplot, too. Gone is the somewhat daffy woman from the first movie; she generally knows her shit and leads a major news network's staff. That is, until a group of hip millennial hipsters are hired to "shake things up" around the network and force them to broadcast gossip and cat videos. Bridget's conflict with them becomes about honesty and integrity, which does not jive thematically with the fact that her other story is entirely because she refuses a simple paternity test to determine which of the handsome, loving millionaires is the father of her child, all while lying to each of them until circumstance causes her to tell them that she's been leading both of them on.
The two stories could combine well, having her learn from one situation a lesson that informs the other. But they don't.
Emma Thompson plays Bridget's doctor, Dr. Rawlings. She's great. All of her material is great. In fact, the most heartfelt and genuine moments of the movie come from the humor between her and Bridget. Dr. Rawling is the only one who talks frankly about motherhood, what Bridget is going through and how silly her situation is. I mean, I thought it felt genuine, but then again I have never been a mother or been through anything like it. It definitely felt more sincere than the third or fourth time Jack shows up out of nowhere to watch Bridget choose between him and Mr. Darcy, even after they have a heartfelt conversation where she straight-up tells him that's her choice. What a loser.
Thompson also rewrote the script, but she didn't seem to fix it.
I saw “Bridget Jones's Baby” at a Friday-morning show, with several older women who laughed at most of the parts I laughed at and didn't seem to respond to the ones I didn't. I'm the first to admit I am not likely the primary audience for this movie. In any case, “Bridget Jones's Baby” loses steam about halfway through and struggles to regain any momentum. I genuinely enjoyed the first half, but its pleasures are in the smaller comedic setpieces and not the character drama or story. Those bits dry up as it becomes more and more narratively convoluted.
If you're into “Bridget” as a franchise, you'll get the ending you want – the same ending to the first two movies, if you think about it – but I'm not sure it brings a unique set of charms and experiences to the table.