Anonymous wrote:I think I am one of the few people who don't like the first one. Renee is so unwatchable to me and was totally miscast. This, however, takes my dislike to a whole new level.

I liked the movie but hated RZ in it. Would have been better with a different actress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The third book was unreadable. I finished it out of loyalty to the old Bridget. The movie can't be any worse but I doubt that the movie will follow the book's plot line.

I'm

I felt this way about the book as well. I'm surprised Helen Fielding's publisher/agent allowed that monstrosity to be released at all.

I started it and never finished. It is extremely rare for me not to finish a book, but I just couldn't stand it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know where you found that link, but Hugh Grant isn't in the movie.
Is Dempsey taking over the role?

Yes, Patrick Dempsey is taking over the role, and in the movie she gets pregnant with Daniel's baby.

That is unacceptable. No Hugh Grant, no movie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The third book was unreadable. I finished it out of loyalty to the old Bridget. The movie can't be any worse but I doubt that the movie will follow the book's plot line.

I felt this way about the book as well. I'm surprised Helen Fielding's publisher/agent allowed that monstrosity to be released at all.

$$$

The first book was "cute" with next to zero literary value and the movie was "cute" and entertaining with a modicum of cinematic value.

Jane Austen must be rolling in her grave b/c the only reason anyone heard of BJD was the heavy lifting from an established and beloved literary work.

Shame, shame Helen Fielding, your book publishers, and the people who make bad movies.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know where you found that link, but Hugh Grant isn't in the movie.
Is Dempsey taking over the role?

Yes, Patrick Dempsey is taking over the role, and in the movie she gets pregnant with Daniel's baby.