Bridget Jones's Baby

English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

123movies search icon

muted

Bridget Jones's Baby - 123Movies

Bridget Jones's Baby

6.4

/10

90632 rated

2016•2 h 3 m•United Kingdom

Bridget Jones' focus on her single and professional life is interrupted when she discovers she is pregnant, but is unsure of the identity of the father.

Comedy

Drama

Romance

Recommended

Reviews

user9926591043830

29/05/2023 07:34

source: Bridget Jones's Baby

Art by Djess

23/05/2023 03:29

Movie makers do not admit it publicly, but there have always been 'women's films' and 'men's films'. Historically, the film industry catered more to the male viewpoint by favouring action drama but in the post-feminist era the female perspective is prominent. The Bridget Jones franchise is part of the shifting cinema landscape where along with other sisterhood films like Absolutely Fabulous (2016), Maggie's Plan (2016) and Embrace (2016), women's uniqueness is celebrated while men are sidelined. Seeing Bridget still fighting her demons as a loveless and childless 43 year-old is an unlikely sounding plot line, but Renee Zellweger pulls it off with intelligent hilarity and ruthless tugs on heart-strings. The story premise lies in the film title: Bridget Jones' Baby. Now a successful television producer, Bridget is a lonely celibate still longing for her Mr Darcy (Colin Firth) who married someone else. Her inner-circle girl-talk is liberally peppered with phallic references and Bridget is told she needs to get laid to get real. At a camp-in music festival, which includes a hilarious cameo by Ed Sheeran, she ends up in the bed of a stranger called Jack (Patrick Dempsey). It is not long before she also ends up in Mr Darcy's bed, so of course when the pregnancy kit shows positive she doesn't know who is the dad. Muddle-headed before pregnancy, her antics while eating for two are borderline zany but always endearing. Bridget is torn between fantasy options: the romantic machismo and good humour of Jack versus the imperiously handsome Mr Darcy with eyes that make words redundant. Through it all, Bridget is still the lovable awky girl we met long ago, still stumbling through life like in a montage of slapstick sketches where her cute squinty smile wins every time. There are not many laugh-out-loud romantic comedies that have story lines funny enough to hold your attention for two hours. This one works because it has the twin propulsion of being both personality-driven and plot-driven, liberally splashed with grown-up gags and plot twists. There is a strong cast of well-known actors and the filming across various London locations is sumptuous. The over-thinkers might wonder if we will ever move beyond Jane Austen's "truth universally acknowledged" that a woman's destiny is in the arms of a wealthy man. But this is not feminism; it is pure entertainment that is delivered in spades, and you can expect to leave the show cheering that Bridget got her man.

rockpujee

23/05/2023 03:29

Where to start, even the premise of this plot is offensive and off- putting. And much of the writing is equally crude and vulgar. Definitely not funny and often left me squirming in my seat; what were the writers and producers thinking. Oh wait, I know, money and profits, a paycheck for everyone; let's capitalize on Bridget Jones, a known money maker. Well, greed has finally killed the goose for me regarding future Bridget Jones films. They should all, including the actors and crew, be embarrassed about being part of this god awful mess. Glad to see that Hugh Grant had the good sense to opt out of this one. And I'm surprised to see Emma Thompson's name associated with this classless screenplay.

Patríįck_męk.242

23/05/2023 03:29

There is, indeed, something wrong with Zellweger's face job. The stretched eyes, the botoxed forehead, the puffed out lips - made a joke out of the Bridget Jones character. And the British accent - by now wouldn't it be MORE believable after the third outing instead of something from a high school drama class? Zellweger's scrunched up facial expressions have become identical - pain, thinking, happy all look the same. The premise of the movie - that a 43-year-old woman can't tell who fathered her child - is painfully stupid.

Abdallh

23/05/2023 03:29

This is a mediocre movie, that might have been better, primarily due to Renee Zellweger's mugging her way through the picture. Not sure what the reason was, perhaps to show that in spite of having a plastic face she still could purse her lips, frown, and twist her face around just as if it was a real one. Who knows? I know all it did was show the gal can't act but she sure can make faces. Big deal. Patrick Dempsey and Colin Firth were excellent playing total opposites and maybe dad's for Bridget's baby. Emma Thompson, as the doctor, was a hoot and well cast. The music of Ed Sheeran was a delight, too. Altogether, this was a rather cute idea made into something rather on the silly side by Zellweger and the plight of the writers who seem to be of the ilk that think writing a whole lot of f-words as dialogue is sufficient. It isn't. Much of the foul language could have been cut as there was no apparent reason for it other than, like I said, inept writing.

TheLazyMakoti

23/05/2023 03:29

First of all, this is not supposed to be a heavy, meaningful, deep film. People are judging it on what it is not supposed to be. It is light, funny, romantic and the name Darcy hints on what it is more about. It is about love and finally getting with the person you are meant to be with. It is a modern day Jane Austin story of love and tanglements. The actors are lovely and their characters are credible and sweet. My usual genre is crime so for me to enjoy something as light as this it has to be good. If you like these actors and feel like something romantic and light then you will enjoy this film. If you want to judge it by a criteria that it is not pretending to be then you will be disappointed. It entertains as a romance and comedy. Nothing heavy or earth shattering but it is a good movie.

MOHAMED 94

23/05/2023 03:29

The first Bridget Jones was a cultural event, one of the movies that defined the times it was released in. The second one was uneven, but had its moments. With this installment, I just didn't care about anything that happened. They lost my interest from the opening moments by having Bridget in the exact same situation we see her in the beginning of the first movie. I would have liked this story to cover some new ground, because I do like the character. Unfortunately, it's just another 90 minutes of keeping Mark Darcy just out of reach until they predictably end up together for the THIRD time.

بسام الراوي

23/05/2023 03:29

I am not sure what to make of Bridget Jones's Baby. On the one hand, it has undeniably funny moments. On the other hand, many of the gags fall flat. This didn't stop many others in the theater from laughing their heads of, but it did leave me wondering what I was missing that made it so funny. And considering that I'm almost in the right demographic for this film (almost, because I'm male), I found the characters very hard to relate to. I'd say both the characters and the portrayals are to blame. Zellweger does a good job, but that's easy. Colin Firth is the quintessential Mr.Darcy, but this is also the problem, because by now his Mark is boring to death. We know what Mark is like, and it would be great to see him do something, anything, besides being Mr.Darcy. But he never does. Patrick Dempsey's portrayal of Jack was simply lackluster. It was a role that someone like George Clooney would've probably nailed, but Dempsey was really struggling to look and act the part. At times he looked like he really really didn't want to be there. Sloppy script doesn't help either - at times I really struggled to understand why his character would be there at all. On the bright side, Emma Thompson is a standout - she manages the steal every scene she's in, and adds the wit and the sarcasm that BJB is so desperately lacking. Finally, the movie is too long. The gags are overdrawn, punchlines are spoon-fed, and the story just drags on and on. Time and time again I almost found myself screaming at the screen "fine, I get it, move on!" Anyway, 6/10 for the laughs. And please don't make another one.

Michelle Erkana

23/05/2023 03:29

Contains major spoilers. Don't read if you haven't yet seen the movie. Well... I can't say it was a bad movie, but I still felt a bit disappointed. First of all, Bridget no longer looks like Bridget. What happened to "I will always be a little bit fat"? Being chubby was the character's trademark. Now that she's skinny, she's a lot less likable (in my opinion at least). And what's with her face? Botox overload? A lot of the time I noticed that bits from other movies were used, particularly "Sex and the City". And, as another reviewer here mentioned, - the excessive product placement is kind of annoying at times. And, of course, I don't understand the need for constant use of the F-word. It is said in every other sentence throughout the movie. They even have a child say it. Uncalled for. In order to take the Jack story seriously, one will have to suspend disbelief entirely. Do you really think that a millionaire celebrity will have unprotected sex with a random not-particularly-attractive 40-something broad? And then chase her around begging to be her child's father (when he's not even sure it's his)? And to top it off, he sticks around after she marries Darcy and becomes best mates with him. Would something like this happen in real life? I think not. Plus, what was the point in all of this? We all knew right from the start that she was going to end up with Mark Darcy whatever the case might have been with the baby. Another thing that bothered me, was when Bridget asked her father if he thought she belonged on Jerry Springer. It's an American show that isn't broadcast on British television. The Brits have the Jeremy Kyle show, so I'm not sure where the Jerry Springer reference came from. Also, it's just not the same without Hugh Grant. With two male protagonists, it gets kind of boring. The lame ending was probably the most offensive thing about this movie. How banal. So, after all, Bridget concludes that the only way for a woman to find fulfilment in life, is to get hitched and punch out a rugrat. Yawn. The good thing is that we get to see a lot of familiar faces, and some of the jokes are actually chuckle-worthy. So, like I said, it's not a bad movie, but I expected... something different. There's nothing really wrong with it - the cast is good and so is the acting, the script is engaging, the dialogue is fine (except for the constant cursing, of course). I guess it just doesn't have the same "spunk" anymore. It just feels "tired" and... "over". Makes you wonder if they will make another movie after this. If so, what's it going to be? "Bridget Jones the desperate housewife" or "Bridget Jones's adventures in the retirement home"?

Toure papis Kader

23/05/2023 03:29

I literally think the writers and actors wanted to see how many times they could say the world f@*k in a film. OK, I'm sure you win the award for that one. You accomplished saying the word f@*k more times than any other film. That might be cutting edge if it were the sixties but it's 2016 and there is nothing funny, creative, or even remotely original about cursing. How about some funny poignant jokes? Man, this film and it's cast looked tired and done. Even the sound editing was horrible. The voice dubs were so obvious it was distracting. But worst of all was the writing. This film might have worked twenty/thirty years ago, but there is nothing unusual about all the things they think are pushing the societal norms.