Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just turned it on, and I’m struggling to suspend disbelief…with a 55 year old Renee playing a mum of young kids.
Yes, Hugh Grant looks old…but he’s so adept at playing this role that it doesn’t matter. His sex appeal is intertwined with his arrogant confidence.
? It is what it is. You can't really get new actors for these roles.
Nobody suggested getting new actors.
Perhaps use older kids?
Perhaps don’t use a baby-faced actor for the “boy” unless you doll Renee up a bit?
Zero chance a twenty-something would go after a 55 year old woman in mom jeans and unbrushed graying hair. Completely unrealistic.
To me she passes as mid to late 40s and I’ve met women that age with little kids so it doesn’t shock me at all. She got married in her late 30s didn’t she? And Bridget has something charming about her which is why men like Cleaver and Darcy, plus Darcy’s gorgeous friend (Lucinda?) all fell for her. It was never about her looks.
In the movie they say Roxster's about 28 and she's 27 years older than him
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just turned it on, and I’m struggling to suspend disbelief…with a 55 year old Renee playing a mum of young kids.
Yes, Hugh Grant looks old…but he’s so adept at playing this role that it doesn’t matter. His sex appeal is intertwined with his arrogant confidence.
? It is what it is. You can't really get new actors for these roles.
Nobody suggested getting new actors.
Perhaps use older kids?
Perhaps don’t use a baby-faced actor for the “boy” unless you doll Renee up a bit?
Zero chance a twenty-something would go after a 55 year old woman in mom jeans and unbrushed graying hair. Completely unrealistic.
To me she passes as mid to late 40s and I’ve met women that age with little kids so it doesn’t shock me at all. She got married in her late 30s didn’t she? And Bridget has something charming about her which is why men like Cleaver and Darcy, plus Darcy’s gorgeous friend (Lucinda?) all fell for her. It was never about her looks.
Anonymous wrote:I'm about fifteen minutes into it. Why is RZ whispering? She doesn't sound like Bridget.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just turned it on, and I’m struggling to suspend disbelief…with a 55 year old Renee playing a mum of young kids.
Yes, Hugh Grant looks old…but he’s so adept at playing this role that it doesn’t matter. His sex appeal is intertwined with his arrogant confidence.
? It is what it is. You can't really get new actors for these roles.
Nobody suggested getting new actors.
Perhaps use older kids?
Perhaps don’t use a baby-faced actor for the “boy” unless you doll Renee up a bit?
Zero chance a twenty-something would go after a 55 year old woman in mom jeans and unbrushed graying hair. Completely unrealistic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just turned it on, and I’m struggling to suspend disbelief…with a 55 year old Renee playing a mum of young kids.
Yes, Hugh Grant looks old…but he’s so adept at playing this role that it doesn’t matter. His sex appeal is intertwined with his arrogant confidence.
? It is what it is. You can't really get new actors for these roles.
Anonymous wrote:Just turned it on, and I’m struggling to suspend disbelief…with a 55 year old Renee playing a mum of young kids.
Yes, Hugh Grant looks old…but he’s so adept at playing this role that it doesn’t matter. His sex appeal is intertwined with his arrogant confidence.
Anonymous wrote:It’s not funny.
The only funny parts involve Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson—because they are talented actors who do comedy well.
Leo Woodall has a weird face. He got lucky with One Day but he’s just not hot enough for this role.
The actor she ends up with is Darcyesque but doesn’t exude any sex appeal or chemistry with Zellwegger.
Why can’t she get her hooded eyes fixed? At this point I’m convinced she’s actually squinting on purpose.
Anyway, they should have ended the movie with her getting back with Grant. There’s chemistry there—even if it’s mostly Grant carrying the scenes.
It they could have made Zellwegger look more pulled together—perhaps after a fun makeover scene—when she met the “boy.” And perhaps cast a young guy who was a bit like Darcy or Daniel. If the latter, it would have been a good storyline to have Daniel point out the boy is just like he was in his younger days and then have him pursue her. Daniel could ultimately be the “boy.”
Hollywood stinks these days.
Anonymous wrote:It’s not funny.
The only funny parts involve Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson—because they are talented actors who do comedy well.
Leo Woodall has a weird face. He got lucky with One Day but he’s just not hot enough for this role.
The actor she ends up with is Darcyesque but doesn’t exude any sex appeal or chemistry with Zellwegger.
Why can’t she get her hooded eyes fixed? At this point I’m convinced she’s actually squinting on purpose.
Anyway, they should have ended the movie with her getting back with Grant. There’s chemistry there—even if it’s mostly Grant carrying the scenes.
It they could have made Zellwegger look more pulled together—perhaps after a fun makeover scene—when she met the “boy.” And perhaps cast a young guy who was a bit like Darcy or Daniel. If the latter, it would have been a good storyline to have Daniel point out the boy is just like he was in his younger days and then have him pursue her. Daniel could ultimately be the “boy.”
Hollywood stinks these days.
Anonymous wrote:I loved it and cried a lot, thought it was fantastic, but only if you are attached to the story which I am! Not as funny as the other ones but so touching, which makes sense as the character matured and went through what she did.