I only recently (like, this summer) got around to reading Helen Fielding’s Mad About the Boy, the third novel installment of the Bridget Jones saga. The book was released last year to mixed reactions. Fielding allowed Bridget to age in real time. As in, the book actually takes place 14 years after Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (which was published in 1999). I unapologetically love Bridget Jones’ Diary and I’m okay with The Edge of Reason. But Mad About the Boy was a bridge too far (spoiler: Bridget is a depressed cougar and HUGE SPOILER Mark Darcy is dead). I really, really disliked the book and I have no desire to see it made into a film. Maybe that’s why they’re having so many problems drawing interest to a third Bridget Jones film. And it just got even more difficult: Hugh Grant is out.
Hugh Grant is at the edge of reason. The British heartthrob, 54, has officially exited the highly anticipated third installment of the Bridget Jones’s Diary series. The third book, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy, was penned by author Helen Fielding and released in 2013.
Rumors of a third film with star Renee Zellweger reprising the title role have been in the works for years, but now Grant’s scandalous, playboy character Daniel Cleaver will not be a part of the project.
In Mad About the Boy, Bridget and Daniel don’t have a romantic relationship, but he does play a key part in her children’s lives.
“I decided not to do it,” Grant told Free Radio of the sequel. “But I think they’re going to go ahead and do it without Daniel. The book’s excellent, by the way, but the script is completely different — well, the script as I last saw it a few years ago.”
The potential film, which has yet to be picked up by a studio, seems less likely to happen these days. Back in 2012, Working Title and Universal were developing the film Bridget Jones’s Baby, based on a screenplay by Fielding, but not on her 2013 book. At the time the film was stalled, and star Colin Firth told the Chicago Sun-Times, “You might be seeing Bridget Jones’s granddaughter’s story being told by the time we get there.”
Daniel Cleaver is barely in the book and his character serves no real purpose to the story at all. It was almost like Helen Fielding included him just so Hugh Grant would come back when they made the movie. So… basically, I don’t care if Hugh is out. I think it’s probably a good decision. I also tend to think the movie will never get made. Hopefully. If Mark Darcy isn’t going to be around, then who cares about Cleaver?
Some photos of Hugh out and about in London last Friday…
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.
The man looks haggard.
He’s 54. Would you prefer he looked more like Teri Hatcher?
Ha, very good point. I think he looks pretty darn good for 54. Just as Brad Pitt looks good for his age. When people say these guys haven’t aged well I want to bring them to a high school football game in my town and show them what a typical 50-something guy tends to look like. Not like either of these guys, that’s for sure!
Amen!
I think we’re so used to seeing pulled tight, unrealistic famous faces (both male and female) that disguise what normal aging looks like.
I second the comment about comparing him to any average group of middle aged men. I’m a few years younger, and he looks better than 99 percent of my now mid-40s male classmates
Looking good for his age. Probably a wise move. What the Hell happened to zellwegger’s career?
This. He might not look that young compared to, I don’t know, Rob Lowe, but he looks great compared to most normal men his age. But what’s better is he looks like a person, not a poorly crafted wax figure come to life.
No!!!! He’s still gorgeous!!! He’s aged naturally so what do you expect???
Yes, if you compare Hugh to Lenny Kravitz or Rob Lowe, he’s not ageing well…But otherwise, he looks good, IMO. He doesn’t look younger than his age, but good for his age.
I find many English men begin looking oddly feminine after a certain age.
Good! I hope this movie is never made, l loved the first book. Absolutely hated the third. Why the hell kill Darcy? Such a waste of fielding’s talent.
Yes, I refuse to see it because she killed Darcy. Unforgivable! She should have left well enough alone.
ITA. Why kill Mark? Maybe if they had killed off Daniel (humorously), but Mark?! The original Bridget book and film were good enough for me.
The first movie felt authentic and endearing, but the second… ugh. The dynamics between the two guys were a big part of the appeal (love the fountain punch-up), so without the charm of Grant and Firth, it’ll be hard to scare up much interest in more of “Bridget’s a hapless loser” material.
Oh please… they couldn’t make something decent out of the third book even if they would really try to. And “the book’s excellent, by the way, but the script is completely different…”? He is lying, isn’t he? At least about the book. If the script is completely different compared to the book, it should be good, right? Because it can’t get worse.
He’s doing the proper British thing – being polite. Can’t really blame him since he probably knows the people involved on this project.
There is a reason Jane Austen did not write a series of follow-up sequels to Pride & Prejudice, and Helen Fielding would have done well to follow her literary inspiration’s lead. Bridget Jones, like Elizabeth Bennett, is not all that interesting in and of herself. What is interesting is the story – the dynamic between her and Mr. Darcy and how opposites attract. Helen Fielding achieved this wonderfully and comedically in Diary, but then started jumping the shark with Edge of Reason. We’ve read so many books and have seen so many movies where we desperately want to know what becomes of the beloved couple, but there’s a reason we’re left hanging. When Harry Met Sally was charming. When Harry Divorced Sally…..not so much. You’ve Got Mail…adorable. You’ve Got Junk Mail In Your Suburban Post Box…not so much. Some things can not be improved on. Fielding’s modern, comical twist on Pride & Prejudice worked. Her follow-ups, however, were simply self-indulgent.
Ah, but we did get Death Comes To Pemberley, which I really liked!
One could argue there’s another reason Jane Austen didn’t write a series of sequels to P&P. She died.
😉
@CM: haha, good point. 🙂
Please, someone tell me that I am not the only woman who found Renee Zellweger to be completely insufferable in BJD. I hated her character. (I didn’t read the book-is Bridget less annoying in the book?)
LAURIEH, I think you said it all. I couldn’t agree more. I loved BJD, and I loved the movie even more. EoR not so much (I disliked the movie more than the book). I didn’t bother reading the 3rd book, and have zero interest in a movie version. Yep…should’ve left it alone. It was perfect without desperately trying to build on it.
Right. Imagine Wuthering Heights Part Deux–best to leave original genius well enough alone, I think.
Apparently I’m the only one who liked Edge of Reason. In some respects I thought it was even funnier than BJD.
Did not like MATB. I understand her wanting to kill off Darcy. What was she going to do? Write about their 2 tweener children? I think she should’ve done one a few years after EOR with wedding/pregnancy. Pregnant Bridget would’ve been hilarious. But she missed the boat, so nothing to do but kill him off and continue with dating hijinks.
He had such style in the elevator scene (R.E.S.P.E.C.T.) in the first movie! I loved him in the movies, he became… well.. not so sexy. Does he still play in movies or tv shows? Haven’t seen him in a while.
Lol @laurieh so true. Sometimes there is just no need for a sequel. Leave the characters in peace in our imagination.
Well done man. I hated the last book, kind of ruined this saga for me.
I haven’t been able to bring myself to read this book. Fielding is a good writer but it sounds like it was time for her to retire Bridget and move on a while ago.
Yes, she should have let Bridget live happily ever after in our minds. No interest in this at all.
It’s so, so terrible. And that’s coming from someone who loved the first two books.
Don’t. It’s mostly depressing.
Well it’s about time he pulled out of something!
HAHA! I see what you did there.
Some people might not get that, but I think it was hysterical! Thanks for the first laugh of my day.
🙂
No Mark Darcy, No reason to see it.
Colin Firth was the only reason I saw the first two anyway.
Bridget’s ditziness isn’t as cute when she’s a 50-something year old widow. It just makes her look inept, clumsy and air-headed. The book wasn’t horrible, but the ending was definitely obvious (at least to me) 1/3 of the way into it. The movie could be halfway decent if they cast some good actors in the roles of Roxster (her “Toy Boy”) and her children’s school’s headmaster (who plays what I deem to be the most important part). Daniel Cleaver did not play a major part in the story, so I don’t see it as a huge loss if they replace Hugh with someone else or just eliminate his part entirely (after all, they have the Nanny position). They should also tone down the head lice and vomiting.
I agree! It’s no longer funny when a 50 year old woman can’t manage the basic tasks of day to day life, it’s just annoying.
I liked the third book. No high standing literature, but just easy breazy holiday/bath tub reading and funny as well (at least to me).
Mark D’Arcy is DEAD???!!!!! What’s the point of a P and P retread without Mark Darcy.
That alone crosses it off my list. Darcy was the main reason I liked the other two movies. Frankly, Bridget grated on my nerves at times.
Poor Hugh Grant is not aging well at all!
God, the book was dreadful. It was so blatantly obvious that she’d written it to try to squeeze out the last drop of profit from the Bridget character, even if a key character had to be sacrificed to make the plot work. Bridget came across as a nasty combination of smug and pitiful and it was obvious that the Daniel Cleaver character was only there in hope that Hugh would appear in the film. In the context of the characters’ lives, it made zero sense that they’d still be in touch.
A very wise move from Hugh.
I thought the first book was okay, but I LOVED the movie. I think because the first book was almost a blank slate, they could really run wild with the movie. I thought the second book was hysterical and HATED the movie. They took everything that was cute and charming about the book and stripped it to gimmicks. Bridget’s time in prison, in the book, was a bittersweet time of reflection.
I absolutely refuse to read the third book, in which she must have been high to kill off Mark. Seriously. Nobody will see the movie. it probably won’t get made now that Hugh is gone. Firth was the reason to watch. Once he’s gone, why bother?
I have to disagree with those that think he’s aging badly…I think he looks great! The silvery hair suits him and he looks naturally aged, a rarity with celebrity nowadays.