Paddington 2

(Warning: contains spoilers for Paddington 2)

I'll be honest, I didn't intend to go and see this.  A friend recommended it and I promised to go and see it before we next met up, so it was a sense of duty more than anything else that made me go.  I don't know why this was the case - Paddington (2014) was a great film and I really enjoyed it.  I guess I was excited to get on with the "Oscars films", and also keen not to be disappointed by a rubbish sequel trying to capitalise on the success of the first film.

Does marmalade count as one of your 5 a day?

Well, what a surprise.  Paddington 2 is that rare gem - a sequel that is better than the original.  Written by Paul King and Simon Farnaby (whose previous works include The Mighty Boosh and Bunny and the Bull) it doesn't seem like a natural progression for either to be working in the family friendly genre.  Paul King directed and co-wrote the first film so there is some link, but Simon Farnaby's only film-writing credit (as far as I can tell) is Mindhorn.  But here we are.

The film opens with the story of how Paddington came to be in the care of Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) and Uncle Pastuzo (Michael Gambon), and cuts to his life with the Browns in London.  Paddington is now an integral part of the community, and is trying to save up enough money to get a pop-up book of London for Aunt Lucy's 100th birthday.  When the book is stolen, Paddington is wrongfully convicted and jailed for the theft.  Mar-maladies ensue.

Hardened criminal gang

Where Paddington had provided an allegory for the benefits that immigrants can provide to their communities, Paddington 2 expounds on this a little but also just goes all out to emphasise how one little person doing lots of little kind things can change and shape a community for the better.  From helping a friend study for a test, to cleaning someone's windows to let the sunshine in, Paddington throws positivity in the world with no ulterior motives other than helping people be happy.  On a slightly different bent, however, it also has a surprising amount to say about prison reform.  Who knew?

Ben Wishaw returns to voice the eponymous bear, and is rejoined by the cast from the original film.  As well as Imelda Staunton and Michael Gambon, there is also a plethora of British actors lining up for bit parts - Richard Ayeoade, Meera Syal, Peter Capaldi, Ben Miller, Jessica Hynes (amongst others) all pop up momentarily, but their cameos are warmly and richly written and a lot is quickly derived from very brief scenes.  Brendan Gleeson is also in surprisingly family friendly territory as Knuckles McGinty, the hardened criminal in charge of the kitchens who becomes Paddington's boss.  However, the absolute scene stealer is Hugh Grant as Phoenix Buchanan - a faded "luvvy" actor who is now famous for dog food adverts.  Grant chews up all the scenery possible as he talks to the mannequins wearing his old costumes (I'm sure I didn't catch all the film references - that's one for the film buffs), devises dastardly schemes, and dons disguises to achieve his goals (He makes a surprisingly good nun).

You see?

The film looks beautiful.  It's set in modern-day London, but there is a timelessness to that London.  There are an absence of mobile phones and computers.  The pop-up book that the plot hangs off is a nice nod to the artwork from the 1989 Paddington TV series.

This book is beautiful

But for me, one of the reasons that the film works so well is because it is so tightly plotted.  Every joke is well seeded in advance.  From Mr Brown's newfound interest in yoga, to Mrs Bird's fury that Phoenix never remembers her name, each payoff lands brilliantly because of its set up.  None of the jokes feel forced or laboured.  I can't remember the film I last laughed as much at.  It also means that the emotional beats pack more of a punch, because the audience knows exactly what is at stake.  This film is pretty much pawfect (groan).  Watch it, and then watch it again.

And remember that kindness is what makes the world a little more bear-able (last one, I'm done, I promise).

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• I wasn't entirely convinced by Jonathan Brown's attempts to hide his love of steam trains in an attempt to be cool.  That seemed a little weak and too easily thrown away.
  
• Sadly, Michael Bond - creator of Paddington - died on the day that principal photography on the film finished.  Sharp eyes will have spotted him in the first Paddington film.  Paddington 2 is dedicated to him.
  
• Stay for the post-credit scenes.  It's worth it.

Blade Runner 2049

(Warning: contains spoilers about Blade Runner, and Blade Runner 2049)

Writing a film review is a strange and interesting process.  Some films lend themselves very easily to a review.  By the time I’ve travelled home from the cinema, the review is pretty much in my head, fully formed, just waiting to get written down.  I find this has been particularly true of bad films, where it’s like my brain needs the earliest opportunity to expel the poison from its system. 

I’ve previously likened films to food, where some are candyfloss – delicious, insubstantial and of no nutritional value whatsoever.  But still a good experience.  Others are steak – satisfying  and something to get your teeth properly into, though not necessarily something you want all of the time.  Blade Runner 2049 has been a properly meaty film.  It’s taken a while to write the review for a couple of reasons – 1. After steak you need a while to sit and digest.  2.  I’m still not entirely sure what I’ve seen.

Is this just what all film posters look like now?

Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel to the 1982 film Blade Runner.  Set 30 years after the original, there has been some kind of blackout which has wiped the details of all replicants and their locations.  K (Ryan Gosling) is a Blade Runner - the never really explained term used to describe those who hunt down replicants and kill them.  He himself is a newer model replicant, but is tasked with finding older replicant models and “retiring” them.  He discovers the remains of a replicant.  Closer inspection suggests that this replicant was once pregnant – it was previously believed that replicants could not reproduce (as an ongoing argument about how they as “artificial humans” should be considered as less than “real humans”).  K is given the task of investigating, and destroying any evidence about the child (plus the actual child if necessary).  Mission ensues.
Written by Hampton Fancher (who co-wrote the screenplay of the original Blade Runner) and Michael Green (who is racking up an impressive list of sci-fi credits including American Gods, Logan, Alien: Covenant), and directed by Denis Villeneuve (Arrival), the result is faithful to the noir, gloom, and neon artifice of the 1982 original, while also not alienating those who come to the sequel first.   

This film is fascinating, because it can be viewed and interpreted in a myriad of different ways.  There are compelling arguments to say that it’s a pro-feminist film, and equally compelling arguments to say that it’s very anti-feminist.  Discussions about what’s real and what’s artificial are rife.  Comments about who knows what, and when, and how.  Interpretations of what it is to be alive, and the permutations of what that means.  It is vast and intimate, unknowable and personal, specific and vague.  In the hours following my first viewing of the film, I was having very complicated discussions with friends about different interpretations of what we’d all seen, knowing that in 10 years time the same topic could come up, and I’d think 100 different things.  There is much to savour, and much to digest.

First of all, as previously mentioned, you don’t need to have a great understanding of the original to appreciate the sequel.  I saw this film with my husband, who has watched Blade Runner a great many times and insists on quoting bits of it, repeatedly, and out of context.  Conversely, I have seen it once, and rarely understand why he shouts “TOO BAD SHE WON’T LIVE” when I least expect it.  We both think Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best films of the year.  For those who have seen the original, the sequel is faithful to it but subverts it subtly and frequently throughout.  The origami unicorns are replaced by wooden horses.  The Voight-Kampff tests now actively discourage authentic human responses.

Secondly, for me the oddest subversion is that the things that had the most emotional resonance…weren’t real…   So, K has a girlfriend, Joi (Ana de Armas), who is an upgraded hologram who travels with him.  We see K upload her, and upgrade her.  We see her glitch, and get interrupted by other technology.  She is partially see-through, and frequently reminds K that she is not real.  But when her emitter is destroyed it is a character death, it is shocking, and it is the most upsetting moment of the film.  The relationship between K and Joi is real to them, and real to us.  But it’s also completely and utterly not real.

Deckard (Harrison Ford) comes face to face with Rachael (Sean Young), the replicant he fell in love with.  He is visibly moved to see her, more so because she’d died some years before.  He speaks of the romance of their first encounter – the film goes to great pains to point out that those memories aren’t real either.

Ana Stelline creates memories and dreams for people.  They are things of intricate joy and beauty, and they evoke profound emotional responses from all who see them.  They’re not real.

The characters that we know most about and respond most to – K, Joi, Deckard, Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) – are artificial.  The characters we believe to be “real humans”, such as Wallace (Jared Leto) are the ones who seem most inhuman.  That suggests that “humanity” can be artificially created, and I’m not sure I believe that, and yet…I find myself moved by a film, which in its very essence isn’t real.  WHAT DOES ANYTHING MEAN!?!

Thirdly, it would be remiss of me to ignore the feminism argument.  How does Blade Runner 2049 depict and treat women?  Good question.  The arguments that say it is anti-feminist are compelling – this is a film directed by a man, screenwritten by men, predominantly produced by men.  The female characters are mainly sex objects created for men and overtly so.  A woman is “born” and killed entirely because she’s not pregnant, and therefore worthless.  Joi is subject to the whims of K – she acts the way he wants her to act, dresses the way he wants her to dress.  He has bought her to be like that.  She has sex with him via another woman – Mariette (Mackenzie Davis), in a scene oddly reminiscent of Ghost – that woman is also bought and paid for.  There is a crumbling society where there is evidence of giant female sculptures, all naked, all fetishized, all submissive.  Replicants like Luv carry out the whims of people like Wallace because they literally cannot do anything else.  The film makes the point that Lt Joshi is also a sexual creature – propositioning K, and being turned down.  There is no suggestion that there is a male version of Joi for her.  So there’s a lot there that’s troubling.  However…

Blade Runner 2049 is a dystopian world, and it is evident that it is wrong and sick.  It is a place where no one is happy, content or satisfied.  It is not a world to aspire to.  Of the many people I know who have seen this film, not one is desperate to live there.  Therefore we can reason that, likewise, its treatment of women is not to be emulated.  If the argument is that the film is pro-men anti-women, who is the male character who is “winning”, and we should aspire to be?  Deckard – in seclusion, grieving, hunted?  K – who has no idea what’s real anymore, and his only raison d’ệtre is to kill his own kind?  Wallace – blind, deluded, isolated?  No thank you very much.

I don't really want to live here, thank you.

There are significantly more female characters than males.  Those female characters are notably more detailed, interesting and complex than the males.  Consider Mariette – on one hand, she is a prostitute who is paid to betray K.  She is also a significant figure in the resistance, not only betrays K but saves him, and is the only one not put off by his Blade Runner reputation. 

Consider Lt Joshi – she is a woman in a position of power, who isn’t afraid to ask for what she wants.  In a world which is male dominated, that really stands out.

The main argument for women as commodities for reproduction alone is voiced by Wallace, who is the villain of the film.  We aren’t supposed to agree with what he says.

Admittedly, a few small tweaks here and there would have improved some of the criticism.  It’s a very heteronormative film (although the dystopia argument could come into play here again, I suppose), and a few more women behind the camera wouldn’t go amiss.  There is an argument to say it’s anti-women, but there’s also one to say it’s anti-men. 

But that it manages to cram so much into 2 hours 44 minutes (admittedly long, but not bloated.  It’s a surprisingly lean film), while remaining faithful to the original, and introducing an old world to a new generation.  In a lot of ways, it’s nothing short of a miracle.

But then again,  

…you’ve never seen a miracle.     

Additional thoughts, questions, concerns:

1.  What was the point of Wallace and where did he go in the end?

2.  Who in the film is very definitely a human?

3.  If the film were to go on another 5 minutes, or 5 days, what would happen next?
 

The Lego Batman Movie

(Warning: contains spoilers about The Lego Batman Movie)

When a film has a break out star, a cry almost always goes up that they should have their own film/television programme/breakfast cereal.  This is risky because too much of a good thing can quickly become tiring.  In recent years, breakout stars have included Captain Jack Sparrow (the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise) and the Minions (the Despicable Me franchise).  Arguably, we are already seeing diminishing returns for both (to the extent that an audible groan could almost be heard when Johnny Depp announced his intention to star in the 5th Pirates film).

The Lego Movie came out 3 years ago (Really?  3 years already?) to near-unanimous critical and box-office acclaim, and Batman became one of the stand-out characters.  And, as the opening paragraph would suggest, now here we are with the spin off: The Lego Batman Movie.  

Coming your way to a cinema near you

The plot is fairly simple.  Commissioner Gordon is retiring and his daughter (Barbara) is taking over his role.  Rightly pointing out that despite his vigilantism, Gotham City remains the city with the highest levels of crime ever.  She suggests that the police stop working with Batman, and that the police should try the new tactics of being "accountable and extra legal".  Batman is displeased and strops off to be by himself in his BatCave eating microwaved lobster thermidore, playing electric guitar and watching Jerry Maguire.  And accidentally adopting a child, because he wasn't paying attention.  After hurting the Joker's feelings by suggesting that he isn't his number one nemesis (a kind of love/hate bromance where Batman refuses to commit), the Joker releases everyone from the Phantom Zone (a kind of Guantanamo Bay for villains including Voldemort, King Kong, Sauron, Agent Smith and the Wicked Witch of the West.  And British robots.  Which aren't Daleks.)  Chaos ensues.

Notably, there are no references to The Lego Movie.  If anything, this is a sequel to the Batman films, and arguably should stand in its canon.  Certainly, it is an antidote to the noir Batman movies of Christopher Nolan and Zach Snyder.  Maybe audiences have tired of brooding superheroes with their increasingly dark plotlines for now - the crowd pleasers seem to be the more irreverent and meta Avengers (and their component individual character movies) and Deadpool.  Or (and I'm just throwing this out there), maybe audiences are just responding positively to scripts and characters that aren't dreadful (*awkward cough* Suicide Squad, Batman Vs Superman *awkward cough*).

There are themes worth exploring - Batman/Bruce Wayne fears intimacy after the death of his parents and lacks purpose when his job (and with it, his identity) is taken from him.  His relationship with Alfred. ("I've seen you in this mood before in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2005, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1989 and that weird time in 1966").  The importance of family.  Loneliness.  And those themes are explored well, without hanging heavily. 

It's worth seeing this film at the cinema, and being slightly overwhelmed by the colour and noise of it all.  Films like this benefit from a big screen, and from multiple viewings.  Lego is a cross-generational toy, and it makes sense that the film should be a cross-generational movie.  So while the kids in the screening I saw laughed at Dick Grayson ripping off his pants ("RRRIIIIIPPP"), the reference to the films at Gotham Multiplex (Two Shades of Grey) might have passed them by.  And...it makes Bane better.

He was born in the darkness.  Apparently. 

It lacks a little bit of something (perhaps the innocence of The Lego Movie), but it is a heavy dollop of Batman and makes up for a lot of Batman Vs Superman.  A little less Everything is Awesome, but Everything is Cool if You're Part of a Team.  Pow!  Bang!

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• Excellent voice casting, particularly from Will Arnett as a gravel-voiced, Bale-type Batman.  Ralph Fiennes also excellent casting as Alfred, though an odd decision given that Lord Voldemort is also in this film (voiced by Eddie Izzard).  Maybe a licensing issue?
• Nice line from Barbara Gordon "you could be Batgirl!" "Please!  I would be Batwoman."
• Best (and surprisingly moving) use of One is the Loneliest Number since Magnolia.
• Do all animated films now start with a film short?
• This made me laugh:

T2: Trainspotting

(warning: contains spoilers for T2: Trainspotting and Trainspotting)

"So what have you been up to for the past 20 years?"

What have any of us been up to?  Surely Trainspotting wasn't 20 years ago?  Curse you, linear progression of time.  In 1996, John Major was the prime minister, it was the age of Britpop, Dolly the Sheep had just been cloned, the Spice Girls were starting out, and Trainspotting became the highest grossing British film of the year.

When I was younger...

The original followed a group of heroin addicts in a deprived area of present-day Edinburgh and ended with a major drug deal which landed main characters Renton (Ewan McGregor), Sick Boy (Johnny Lee Miller), Begbie (Robert Carlyle) and Spud (Ewan Bremmer) with £16,000.  Renton steals the money, leaves some for Spud, and flees.  T2 pretty much checks in with these characters 20 years later.

What results is that most unusual of things - a great sequel, aware of its roots, and keen to continue the story it started and add a bit.  Everything is the same but different, from the characters to the city itself.  You can see it's 1996 self, but it's not quite that anymore.  Renton, Sick Boy, Begbie and Spud are now Mark, Simon, Francis and Murphy.  They're pretty much where we expect them to be.  Mark is now clean, still running, but its a more sedate pace on a treadmill rather than the run-for-your-life of the original.  He moved to Amsterdam, and has been there since 1996, coming back only because life has demanded it.  Francis is in prison, denied parole, planning an escape by self injury and banking on the incompetence of G4S the service in charge of the fictitious HMP Edinburgh.  Simon is pimping out his girlfriend to high end clients, and then extorting money from them in exchange for secrecy about their sordid sex acts while snorting a lot of cocaine.  Spud is still a heroin addict, sad and alone because he doesn't quite understand a world without drugs ("but I gave you £4000" says Mark in disbelief, "Aye, but I'm a fucking heroin addict so what did you think I was going to spend it on" spits Murphy).  

So much younger than today...

Their lives are all clearly marked by the theft of the £16,000, but those marks appear differently.  Francis' explosive reaction at the end of Trainspotting brought him to prison, and his intention is to enact revenge upon Mark.  Simon is convinced that his life would have been so different if he hadn't been betrayed - to the extent that when Mark is able to give him £4000 he doesn't know what to do with it ("what am I supposed to do with that?  Buy a fucking time machine?").  Simon cannot give up his victim-hood, unwilling to admit that his life may have been exactly the same if Mark had not betrayed him ("or maybe you're angry because you'd have done exactly the same if you'd thought of it first").  Spud (for he is still Spud) clearly feels the loss of Mark's influence on his life, and if he perceives the betrayal he's not actively defined by it in the way Simon and Francis are.  For Mark's part, there is guilt and attempts at reparation - money for Simon, attention for Spud as he tries to help him channel his energies away from heroin ("you're an addict.  So be addicted.  Just be addicted to something else.")  Hijinks ensue, friendships are rekindled, and someone gets water boarded with Irn Bru.  The characters examine their memories of 1996 and try to reconcile then and now as honestly as they can (with nods to Tommy and baby Dawn, and their parts in their demises).  Memories are funny, are sad, are bitter, are sweet.

Like it or not, age has changed them all, and when they try to recapture the people they once were, it doesn't quite work.  They can't quite run as fast or for as long.  Their bodies are letting them down.  The next generation are unfathomable.  The city doesn't quite feel like the one they knew.  The worst toilet in Scotland is no longer acceptable to them (although there still "gross out moments" with explosive vomiting from the outset).

And from this, quietly, our allegiances change and we find ourselves rooting for Spud.  He changes the least but changes the most.  In being the ultimate loser, he becomes the ultimate winner.  He accepts himself, he accepts his life, and he finds peace in it where the others do not.  And he gets the ultimate Danny Boyle trope - the offer of all the money, which he rejects it because it means nothing to him.

I'll be honest, I don't love Trainspotting.  I can appreciate it, but it didn't quite hit at quite the right point in my life.  But I very much enjoyed T2.  It's an ode to friendship, age, reconciliation and nostalgia.  And there are a lot more trains than in the first film.

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• Francis has been in prison for 20 years, but has an 18 year old son.  Has he just not added up those numbers?  He seems too volatile not to have thrown the fact in his wife's face if she had an affair.

• The two instances of defiance to Francis are interesting to me.  He rejects his son's lifestyle, and actively taunts him to become violent, but turns to grudging respect when his son faces him down.  Likewise, Francis openly mocks the idea that Spud has turned to writing, but becomes actively involved - almost happy - when Spud offers to read his stories out to him. 

• The women in this film are secondary characters, but they very much shape and influence the protagonists, and the plot.  They support the characters where possible, but are careful not to get sucked into the chaos (such is the life of those affected by the habitual drug user).  Gail removes herself (and little Fergus) from Spud's life, but remains on hand at a distance to offer support, read his manuscripts and house his belongings.  Mark's mum is notable by her absence, an actual shadow which Mark and his father are acutely aware of and brought together by.  She has kept Mark's room as it once was, but didn't make contact over the years.  Diane is not where Mark left her, but she does offer her professional advice at a "very reasonable" hourly rate, asks after him cordially but nothing more.  Veronicka constantly shapes her own future, and nudges Simon to do likewise but recognises him (and Mark.  And Spud for that matter) for what they are and exits.  June knows better than to attempt to argue or reason with Francis, so waits for him to burn off all his angry energy and slope off.  They initially seem like the passive characters of the film, but it quickly becomes apparent that they are just not reacting to the chaos anymore, and as such keeps themselves (and those around them) sane and safe. 
  

• As always, Danny Boyle's films are instantly recognisable by their style and soundtrack.  And in keeping with the theme of the film, both are current with a heavy dose of nostalgia.  I particularly liked the slow, instrumental version of Perfect Day, Mark starting (and then stopping) Lust for Life, and Silk (Wolf Alice).

• Life mimics art:

Bridget Jones's Baby

Warning: contains spoilers for Bridget Jones’s Baby.

Every so often, I see a film at the cinema where the audience totally gets involved with whatever they’re watching.  More than just laughing along with the jokes, these are the films where there are audible gasps, cheers, applause and occasional heckles.  More often than not, the thing that seems to provoke this response is a particular character/set of characters, a familiarity and affinity with them.

Last night’s viewing – Bridget Jones’s Baby - was one of those films.

It’s been 15 years since the first Bridget Jones film, and 12 years since we saw her last in Bridget Jones: the Edge of Reason.  A lot hasn’t changed – she’s still in the same flat, still with the same friends, still with some of the same work colleagues (but with the welcome addition of Sarah Solemani and Joanna Scanlon), still has no clear concept of grocery shopping (her fridge contains one mouldy lemon and a packet of thyme), still under the same passive pressure from her mother to get married and have babies.

Learn to shop, woman!

But a lot has changed too, for better and worse.  She’s now 43, a successful television producer, and a lot more comfortable in her own skin.  She’s happier with her weight – in fact, short of one brief mention of it at the start of the film, I can’t recall any further discussion of it.  No enormous pants or fighting with Spanx in this film.  Her friends have also grown up – the nights of downing shots and experimental cooking have been replaced by a series of last minute text messages bailing on plans (“the sitter’s cancelled”, “the baby’s sick”) – but there is a conscious effort to maintain those friendships.  Shazzer, Magda, Jude and Tom are still in touch on a regular basis for updates and advice, but the main meeting places are the important life events – births, christenings, weddings and funerals. 

Who are these people who have cupcakes on a plate?

Significantly, for Bridget, she is single again.  The relationship with Mark ended due to work pressures, and too many nights alone.  That said, Bridget in her 40s is not sitting at home pining for a man and a relationship.  She’s taking active control of her life and trying new things with Miranda (Solemani).  This leads to one pregnant Bridget, and two potential fathers – Jack Qwant (Patrick Dempsey) or Mark Darcy (Colin Firth).  This becomes an interesting storyline – not the storyline of Bridget trying to hide the truth from both of them and hoping the other doesn’t find out, but Bridget laying all her cards on the table and dealing with the consequences, even if those consequences are that she brings the baby up herself.



Pretty much no other reference to giant pants in this film.

Well, that’s almost it.  For me, this is a weak spot, and a substantial one at that.  The film takes great pains to state that both men would love Bridget, and would be excellent fathers for the baby.  Both men proffer to raise the child (even if it transpires that the baby is not theirs).  Bridget cannot choose between them.  And in the end…she doesn’t.  And this is a shame because Bridget has been a stronger, more mature, decisive character in this film, but then allows the films conclusion to kind of passively happen to her.  There aren’t really many consequences as a result, and the film is poorer for it, especially as this character has such form for making active decisions – this is the same Bridget who actively rejects Daniel Cleaver because she knew she could do better, tracks Mark Darcy down to make public declarations of love, and tells her boss to stick his job.  Bridget has always spoken her mind (clumsily, unadvisedly, bluntly) – such impassiveness on her part seems sadly uncharacteristic.

A second bugbear is the storyline of Bridget’s mum running for parish council, but having to learn that that means she will have to accept gay couples, unwed mothers, immigrants and Italians.  This storyline was pointless, patronising and cack-handed.  But again, could have been something better.

However, all things considered, I still really enjoyed this film.  And so did the cinema audience I saw it with, who cheered, whooped and laughed in equal measures.  Rightly so – there’s a lot to like.  Emma Thompson shamelessly steals every scene she’s in, and as one of the co-writers steals a lot of the good lines (I feel that her character has a whole other back story going on – anyone else think that?).  Bridget’s friends and family are all back, and familiar versions of themselves.  There’s a lot of big laughs to be had – v. good.           

Welcome back Bridget.  I’ve missed you.

Additional bonus thought!

Two random thoughts that occurred:

1. It was refreshing to see characters who have aged.  Bridget and her contemporaries are now in their 40s and they look like they are.  There’s grey hair, wrinkles, age spots and paunches.  Bridget looks pretty authentically scruffy  when she’s slobbing about her flat in her PJs.  Even the younger cast (by which I mean Sarah Solemani again) acknowledge that in order to be the presentable face of youth, it comes with effort, primping, and having your upper lip waxed – the way people look on screen is not “real life”.
2. Has the rom-com died?  I wondered this last year when I watched Man Up, which felt like it belonged firmly in the 90s.  Bridget Jones’s Baby feels contemporary (probably because it’s drawing on the progress of pre-established characters), but there haven’t been many rom-coms on at cinemas lately.  Where did the rom-com go?