The Chaperone (2018) [NR] ***/****

 A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net on April 2, 2019.

Despite being blessed with well-designed period sets and top-tier acting, this collaboration between Downton Abbey writer Julian Fellowes and director Michael Engler fails to take flight. I’m not one who normally issues demerits for a slow pace or excessive dialogue – sometimes those qualities can be necessary to a viewer’s immersion – but The Chaperone is dramatically inert. It trudges along from predictable scene to predictable scene, relying on well-worn clichés to advance character arcs. If ever there was a production that embodies all the negative Masterpiece Theater qualities, this is it.

One might question how a biographical film about the early career of flapper icon/actress Louise Brooks (Haley Lu Richardson) could be dull. In truth, had the film concentrated more on Brooks and less on her middle-aged chaperone, Norma Carlisle (Elizabeth McGovern), the energy level would have been higher. While McGovern’s performance is fine, the character is generic and her journey of discovery is at best pedestrian. Meanwhile, Richardson brings vivacity and verve to Brooks; the scenes that focus on her are The Chaperone’s most enjoyable.

Louise is a fascinatingly flamboyant character; the same cannot be said of Norma. The film’s decision to focus on the latter results in a prepackaged drama whose every beat is predictable. Another problem is that the meat of Louise’s story ends up in an ellipsis that occurs between the end of the main narrative and the epilogue. The Chaperone’s concluding pep-talk is contrived and artificial; it’s out of character for the participants (at least insofar as we have gotten to know them by that point). The frustrating thing is that there’s such a rich tapestry to explore but it’s left beyond the film’s scope. (I’ll concede that the source material, Laura Moriarty’s book, is part of the problem but Fellowes is an experienced screenwriter who should have been able to overcome this hurdle.)

The year is 1922 and the place is Wichita, Kansas. 16-year old Louise Brooks has been invited to travel to New York City to attend the Denishawn School of Dancing and Related Arts, but her mother, Myra (Victoria Hill), won’t let her make the trip without a chaperone – someone hard to find at a time when most appropriate women are either raising their own children or uninterested in being the minder of a talented-but-willful girl on a big city adventure. There is one exception, however. With her sons grown, her sexless marriage going nowhere, and her life a series of monotonous, routine days, Norma Carlisle is all too happy to take on the challenge of being Louise’s guardian. She has a secondary reason for going to New York City, where she lived for a few years early in life as an orphan: she wants to locate her birth-mother.

The Chaperone’s vision of New York during the roaring twenties is too quaint for the era (and might have been more appropriate for a film set in the city a hundred years earlier). Although the production designers do a good job of turning back the clock – the movie seems old-fashioned in more ways than one – the sense of place isn’t as good as the sense of time. The few glimpses we have of Louise’s dancing classes offer a peek into her ability and burgeoning star power but the movie doesn’t do much with these. Likewise, the jealousy-tinged rivalry between Louise and her teacher, Ruth St. Denis (Miranda Otto), never gels. The main event of this conflict occurs off-screen during the ellipsis (and is only briefly mentioned). Making Norma the centerpiece of this drama results in some odd narrative decisions.

Despite the movie’s seemingly artistic impulses, The Chaperone appears to be commercially motivated with a narrow-but-loyal target demographic in mind. It’s as if the filmmakers, mindful of the popularity of Downton Abbey, proceeded with the mission statement of making something that would appeal to this segment of the audience. The production is strait-laced and risk-averse, taking its time to meander through a story whose primary draw emerges from the familiar chemistry between a buttoned-down older woman and her free-spirited charge. The Chaperone lacks the depth of character and highbrow melodrama that made Downton Abbey compulsively watchable. Masterpiece Theater’s first foray into theaters argues that the venerable program should continue to showcase long-form television rather than expanding into a format for which it is ill-suited. [Berardinelli’s rating: 2 stars out of 4 = 50%]

Labels: drama, period
IMDb 6.6/10
MetaScore (critics=49, viewers=66)
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=57, viewers=74)

 

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004) ***

 A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net.

Bridget Jones's Diary was an unexpected delight: a witty, enjoyable trifle that touched the heart while tickling the funny bone. Sadly, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason isn't anywhere close to being that good. This has the feel of a movie that exists exclusively because its predecessor was a financial success. On those rare occasions when The Edge of Reason isn't regurgitating material from Bridget Jones's Diary, it is taking ill-advised excursions into unfunny slapstick and sappy melodrama. Bridget Jones in a Thai prison? Who thought up that bit of absurdity?

Arguably, the real problem with The Edge of Reason is that Bridget Jones's Diary was designed as a stand-alone. It told the whole story, and ended with a happily-ever-after promise. Where can a story go from there? As it turns out, nowhere. In order to get viewers back into theaters for the second installment, the filmmakers are forced to replay large chunks of the first movie. The sense of déjà vu is incomplete, however. While the situations seem familiar, the characters (with one exception) are muted echoes of their previous incarnations. And the comedy is a couple of notches lower. I laughed a lot more during Bridget Jones's Diary than during The Edge of Reason.

Happily-ever-after lasts about two months, then Bridget (Renee Zellweger) and Mark (Colin Firth) have an unfortunate falling-out. Jealousy rears its ugly head, and Bridget is sure her perfect Mr. Darcy is messing around with his co-worker, Rebecca (Jacinda Barrett). Plus, when he says he has a very important question to ask her, it turns out not to be the question (something anyone who watches sit-coms will immediately realize). After Bridget dumps Mark, who should be waiting for her but Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant)? It turns out that he wants at least one more night with the girl in the big underpants. So, as in the first, Daniel provides the romantic complications that threaten Bridget and Mark's relationship. But, never fear, happily-ever-after returns to save the day. And, this time, Bridget even gets to kiss another woman - Rebecca, who turns out to have a crush on her.

Perhaps it's unfair to call Colin Firth's performance muted, since one could argue that the whole point of his character is to be dialed down. But the problem is, Firth's Darcy charisma is gone. He was delightful in both the Pride and Prejudice TV mini-series and Bridget Jones's Diary, but the intangible is missing. Meanwhile, aside from superficialities (like the weight issue), Zellweger's Bridget 2.0 doesn't bear much resemblance to the original. The Bridget of Bridget Jones's Diary seemed like a real person; this one is a caricature. The performance is lazy; this may be the least appealing work Zellweger has exhibited in a major role. And, although she gained back the pounds, she lost the knack of the accent. This time around, it would be charitable to call Zellweger's accent uneven.

The only time the movie gains a pulse is when Hugh Grant is on screen. Grant reprises the part of Daniel with the perfect mix of charm and oiliness. It's a delightful mix, and Grant plays the role to the hilt. Unfortunately, his screen time is no more than 25 minutes, and the running length of the movie is quadruple that. Character actors like Jim Broadbent and Gemma Jones (as Bridget's dad and mum) are short-changed - they have glorified cameos.

The film, helmed by Beeban Kidron (who previously directed the mediocre To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar and the bad Swept from the Sea), goes for obvious slapstick in place of the character-based humor favored by Bridget Jones's Diary director, Sharon Maguire. To be funny, pratfalls have to be perfectly timed. Nothing about The Edge of Reason is perfect, least of all the timing. In addition to a lot of failed physical jokes, the movie does some strange things - like sticking Bridget in a Thai prison for about 10 minutes. This leads to a bizarre rendition of Like a Virgin. (If the producers had really wanted to go over the top, why not use Broadbent for this? His interpretation of the song, as presented in Moulin Rouge, is, after all, definitive.)

Perhaps my expectations for The Edge of Reason were unreasonably high. Consider the source material, for a start. Bridget Jones's Diary was a loose, modern-day re-interpretation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The Edge of Reason has no such impressive pedigree. Whether the problem lies mainly with Helen Fielding's novel or with the translation to the screen (and, not having read The Edge of Reason, I don't have an opinion), the fact is that the second Bridget Jones movie is inferior. Die-hard fans are advised to wait for the video. Everyone else would be better off pretending that this movie doesn't exist. In the long run, you'll have a higher opinion of everyone involved. [Berardinelli’s rating: 2 stars out of 4 = 50%]

Labels: comedy, drama, romance
IMDb 60/100
MetaScore (critics=44, viewers=72)
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=47, viewers=70)
Blu-ray

Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) [R] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net.

Bridget Jones's Diary is, quite simply, the finest motion picture released by Miramax Films since 1999's The Cider House Rules. Based on the novel by Helen Fielding, the screenplay for Bridget Jones's Diary (written by Richard Curtis Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, Love Actually) successfully adapts the book into an easily-manageable 90 minute chunk while retaining much of the humor and remaining faithful to the tone. Bridget Jones's Diary is smart, sassy, and thoroughly enjoyable, and features one of the most endearing and believable characters to grace the screen this year.

The film tells the story of a year in the life of an average, single, thirty-something British woman, who, armed with only her wits and charm (and a diary), goes in search of the ever-elusive Mr. Right. Unlucky-in-love Bridget (Renee Zellweger) has two candidates: the fun and sexy Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant) and the dour Mark Darcy (Colin Firth), whom she overhears calling her a verbally incontinent spinster when they first meet at a party. Not surprisingly, she goes for Daniel, but he turns out to be a less-than-perfect catch. Then, just when her interest in Mark begins to emerge (following his statement that he likes her just as she is), he hooks up with man-eating lawyer Natasha (Embeth Davidtz), who is determined to marry him. Meanwhile, her parents' marriage is on the rocks and she embarks upon a career in television news. (The line that gets her the position: I got fired from my last job for shagging my boss.)

In England, the casting of American Renee Zellweger was initially greeted with much resistance by the press and the public. It was argued that not only was Zellweger an American, but she was too skinny to play the chubby Bridget. Well, sometime between casting and shooting, Zellweger put on a few pounds (she's pleasingly plump - not fat by any means, but certainly of Kate Winslet proportions) and worked hard to perfect a British accent (there are a few slips, but they're mercifully rare). These qualities, coupled with her natural charm and screen presence, make her a flawless choice for the lead. Not since her breakthrough roles in The Whole Wide World and Jerry Maguire has she given a performance of this all-around quality. Zellweger embodies Bridget, and is a huge reason why the movie works.

Those who have read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice will find some familiar characters and elements in Bridget Jones's Diary. It doesn't take much deduction to determine that Helen Fielding is an Austen admirer, and that all of the nods to Pride and Prejudice are intentional. While it would be unfair to call Bridget Jones's Diary a 20th-century re-interpretation of Pride and Prejudice, there are some parallels - at least one of which the filmmakers have decided to emphasize.

The casting of Colin Firth as Mark Darcy is inspired. Firth, who essayed Mr. Darcy in the hugely popular 1995 BBC/A&E television production of Pride and Prejudice, plays this part exactly as he played the earlier role, making it evident that the two Darcys are essentially the same. He's a repressed snob who gradually, unwillingly finds himself falling for the least suitable woman around him - Bridget (who, upon closer examination, bears a passing resemblance to Elizabeth Bennet). Hugh Grant brings all the charm he can muster to the oily role of Daniel - a man who enhances his chances with Bridget by telling a lie about Mark. Like Austen's Wickham, this guy is too good to believe, and proceeds to prove our suspicions correct. Grant, who, like Firth, has appeared in an Austen adaptation (Sense and Sensibility), is at home in the role. Strong supporting performances are given by Jim Broadbent and Gemma Jones as Bridget's parents.

Bridget Jones's Diary is filled with moments of truth and flashes of humor (sometimes the two are the same). The direction, by newcomer Sharon Maguire, shows the deftness of a veteran. The energy level is consistently high and the characters (especially Bridget) don't take long to endear themselves to the audience. The result is worthy of exultation, especially in the bleakness of the winter/spring cinematic landscape. I smiled at the biting one-liners, laughed at both the subtle and the overt comedic aspects, and nodded my head in sympathy with Bridget's all-too-familiar plight - and I'm a male. Imagine the female reaction. Congratulations to all involved. Bridget Jones's Diary is a triumph. [Berardinelli’s rating: 3.5 out of 4 stars]

Labels: comedy, drama, rom-drama-faves, romance
IMDb 6.7/10
MetaScore (critics=66, viewers=80)
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=69, viewers=80)
Blu-ray 

Bridget Jones’s Baby (2016) [R] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.com on Sept. 15, 2016.

It would be fair to characterize Bridget Jones’s Baby as a huge step up from the previous Bridget Jones outing, 2004’s Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, although it’s not quite in the same league as 2001’s Bridget Jones’s Diary. Why wait a dozen years to exhume the series? Financial and creative factors were in play. The second Bridget Jones movie was a box office disappointment and the screenplay for Bridget Jones’s Baby (an original story mapped out by creator Helen Fielding but not based on any of her books) has undergone considerable tinkering over time (with Emma Thompson giving a polish to the shooting script). Like My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, another long-gap sequel released earlier this year, this will test whether audiences retain sufficient interest in the long-dormant characters to follow their continuing misadventures.

The return of director Sharon Maguire, who helmed installment #1 but skipped #2, gives Bridget Jones’s Baby a solid pulse. It’s funny and engaging and the lead character, again played by Renee Zellweger, seems more like a real person than the caricature who wandered dazed through The Edge of Reason. If the plot of movie #3 cribs liberally from the previous chapters, that’s the romantic comedy rule at work. Yes, these Bridget Jones films keep retelling the same story about the improbable romance between Bridget and her Mr. Darcy (Colin Firth), but that’s what viewers expect. With Hugh Grant electing not to return, his role (wooing Bridget to interfere with her embracing true love) is being filled by Patrick Dempsey. There are some minor twists and turns along the way but nothing too surprising. The Jane Austen subtext, which added a clever aspect to Bridget Jones’s Diary, is minimized because emphasizing it would seem redundant.

Although middle-aged and still single, Zellweger’s Bridget is the same relatable, spunky firecracker she was in the first two films. No longer dependent on a man for satisfaction in life, she has achieved her ideal weight (a contrivance that allowed Zellweger to avoid packing on the pounds the way she did for the previous outings). Despite having caught Darcy at the end of The Edge of Reason, she lost him during the intervening years and now he’s married to someone else. She decides that the best way to celebrate her 43rd birthday is to attend a music festival, which leads to a one night stand with the dashing entrepreneur Jack Qwant (Dempsey). A week later, she and Darcy (who is now separated) briefly reconnect under the sheets. But, despite her having practiced safe sex (albeit with ancient, environmentally friendly condoms), Bridget learns that she has a bun in the oven. Who’s the father? She doesn’t know so, after stringing Jack and Darcy along for a while and letting each think that he was the lone sperm donor, she comes clean so the three can form an unlikely trio for a variety of prenatal activities. (The ending doesn’t leave us hanging - it answers the question about who the father is.)

Excepting Hugh Grant (whose absence is felt), pretty much everyone is back. In addition to Zellweger and Firth, Jim Broadbent and Gemma Jones return as Bridget’s parents and Sally Phillips and Shirley Henderson make appearances as Bridget’s friends. The movie has a deft explanation for why Grant’s Daniel Cleaver is no longer chasing Bridget: the film opens with his funeral, although there is no body. Franchise newcomers include Dempsey and Emma Thompson, whose humorless gynecologist is an update of the no-nonsense nurse she played in The Tall Guy.

There’s something brave about making a romantic comedy for middle-aged viewers. It’s not something we get very often in an era when movies obsess over pleasing the under-30 crowd. Neither Renee Zellweger (age 47) nor Colin Firth (age 56) is in the sweet spot of leads for this genre. Perhaps the only way to get a movie of this sort made for older audiences is to resurrect a once-familiar brand. The open question is whether the name of Bridget Jones is sufficient to attract viewers who might otherwise give this sort of movie a pass. (It’s not likely to score big with Millennials.) Bridget Jones’s Baby exceeds expectations and, as a result, makes us willing to forgive the delay in bringing the character back to theaters. [Berardinelli’s rating: 3 stars out of 4 = 75%]

Blogger’s comment: One of the fascinating things about a series of films like this is watching the ageing process. Renee was born in April, 1969 so she was 31 when the first film was shot in May-August, 2000, and 46 (and 30 pounds lighter) when the third film was shot in October-November 2015. The ageing and loss of weight made her, at times, look like a completely different actress.

Labels: comedy, drama, romance
IMDb 65/100
MetaScore (critics=59, viewers=66)
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=63, viewers=72)
Blu-ray