'Bridget Jones's Baby' is lively and charming

'Bridget' features the return of Renee Zellweger and Colin Firth to the film series, with Patrick Dempsey starring in the new installment as well. The film deviates from the bestselling book series by Helen Fielding.

Giles Keyte/Universal Pictures/AP
'Bridget Jones's Baby' stars Renee Zellweger (l.), Patrick Dempsey (center), and Colin Firth (r.).

Renee Zellweger is charming as ever in "Bridget Jones's Baby ," a lively return to form for the unlikely trilogy about an ordinary woman and her professional and romantic woes. It turns out a little break is just what this series needed to find its footing after the manic missteps of "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason," which fell into some of the all-too-common traps of sequels looking to up the stakes (hello, Thailand prison sequence).

That's likely due to the fact that Sharon Maguire, who directed the practically perfect "Bridget Jones's Diary," is back (Beeban Kidron directed the second), working from a script from author Helen Fielding, Emma Thompson (very funny as an unamused doctor), and Dan Mazer.

Let's get over the silly fact that this movie essentially had to press reboot on the happy ending of the second, when Bridget said at the end how even at 33 she was able to find love and happiness with one Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). Cut to 12 years later (between movies), Bridget is in her 40s and Mark Darcy has gone off and married someone else.

But this is an evolved Bridget.

Sure, she might be eating dessert alone in that same old London flat on that same old couch listening to the same old Celine Dion song, but it's not tragic. It just is. Her friends all flaked on her and so she has a night by herself. The sense is "whatever," not "woe is me."

Indeed, her life looks pretty good. She's now a high-profile TV news producer who seems happy at work – gone are the fireman's pole humiliations of on-camera life. She's also fitter (and quite happy about it) and has gotten a fancier wardrobe befitting of her success.

When her younger friend and co-worker Miranda (a terrific Sarah Solemani) invites her to a weekend getaway, Bridget arrives at the airport looking like a Nancy Meyers leading lady in cream and white. Of course, she doesn't realize they're going to an outdoor music festival. So, she falls in some mud, but she also gets the attention of Jack (Patrick Dempsey). He's a single, not sleazy relationship guru who is immediately smitten with Bridget.

She has a good time with Jack and goes on her way. A few weeks later, she finds herself having an unexpectedly romantic night with a now-separated Darcy. She walks away from that, too, and continues on with life until she gets the news that she's pregnant. It could be either Darcy's or Jack's.

Both men hop to the challenge, trying to out-partner one another at every turn. Is this a fantasy, or is this just men being kind to the woman who is possibly carrying their child? Does it really matter?

Much of the original cast is back and wonderful (Jim Broadbent, Gemma Jones, Sally Phillips, and Shirley Henderson), save for a sorely missed Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant). You'll find out what happened to him.

There is still a madcap, slapstick jitteriness to dear Bridget, but calmness has emerged, too – that of a woman who has finally grown into her own skin. She is messy in that way that women in other rom-coms "say" they are but never actually are. And she is certainly not the other single gal of her time, Carrie Bradshaw, who seemed to become less and less relatable as the years went by.

Though the premise of "Bridget Jones's Baby" makes it all seem like it's all about the guy again, it's never felt so much like Bridget's story. The man is just gravy. This movie, for all its comedic ridiculousness and wild circumstance of the paternity crisis, is a jubilant celebration of women.

If we're lucky, we'll get to check in with her again in another few years.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.