User reviews

This Victorian melodrama proved to be very enjoyable, perfect for Christmas time viewing. It was sometimes hard to follow, but the superb period detail and larger than life characters more than made up for this. High production values were evident throughout and The Ruby in the Smoke stood head and shoulders above the BBC's absolutely dreadful adaptation of Dracula, which ran the following night. Good performances from the cast overall. It was nice to see the cute, very likable JJ Feild once again. I was struck with him following his performance in The Secret Life of Mrs. Beeton. His smile and personality light up the screen - we ought to see much more of him. I must admit that Julie Walters is not one of my favourite actresses. In the main, I feel that she overacts and hams it up too much. She did, however, in this production, turn in a superb performance as the malevolent Mrs. Holland. All credit to her. Billie Piper was OK in her usual Billie Piper way. All in all, an entertaining 90 minutes or so, perfect for a cold December evening.

First thing: I've not read the book. Comments have been seen elsewhere that Billie Piper didn't fit the character described in the books, but of course I wouldn't know. All I can say is that I've watched this movie and mostly liked what I saw.

Costumes looked believable, the sets looked OK, but budget constraints meant that camera angles seemed to be carefully constrained to keep the Victorian exterior shots looking authentic. This was evidently easier in the docks scenes (filmed mostly in Liverpool I believe?) than in the city's nicer streets.

The character acting was a bit of a problem for me. Don't get me wrong, the actors did a fine job with what they had, they just seemed to be rather shallow. You meet them, they do their stuff, they go again. Maybe this is a feature of the story being based on a children's' book (I find the same problem in the Harry Potter movies).

To compensate for this, it seemed that the whole story was rather "rushed" as if to try and inject some action to try and cover the shallow characters. There were IMHO far too many named characters introduced at breakneck speed, sometimes only to do one or two small things and then go again. I spent most of my time trying to remember who everyone was. Maybe this was just me not paying attention, but I've heard similar complaints elsewhere.

I liked the atmosphere of the whole thing, and (contrary to some opinions) thought Billie Piper in the lead role was just fine. I look forward to the next one in the series hoping for slightly fewer confusing incidental characters!

I haven't read "The Ruby in the Smoke" which probably explains my reaction to this film. Anyway, for the other uninitiated amongst you, this is the basic plot - young Sally Lockhart (Billie Piper) is living with her aunt after her father's ship sank. It turns out there is more to this death than it seems, as Sally receives a cryptic note, eventually leading her to a man named Marchbanks who gives her a notebook and tells her she has an enemy called Mrs Holland (Julie Walters, at her villainous best). This leads Sally through a maze of clues and memories, finding out the fate of her father and the truth of her own origins, and the truth of the elusive eponymous ruby.

I feel this would have done very well as a television series, but as a film it merely felt rushed. The characters introduced promised to be interesting, but weren't really properly developed, and I had trouble keeping up with all the twists in the plot, which were rushed by in seconds. Sally seemed like a fascinating character, but her character development was left to a few scenes of her standing up to her aunt and demonstrating her ability for dealing with figures. This left the film feeling somewhat sterile - more of a puzzle than a story.

Overall, I did enjoy The Ruby in the Smoke. I confess I haven't read Phillip Pullman's book, so I can't judge how faithful or not it was. I enjoyed it, but I did feel that also it was too short and rushed and underdeveloped in places. It starts off promisingly, but then there are characters that appeared here and there and disappeared without explanation. In particular Trembler. As I said, the adaptation could have done with being at least half an hour longer, so that it was less rushed. The plot is on the whole complex, involving and fascinating, and the script was sharply observed in general as well. The music was lovely, and the adaptation was really nice to look at, with clean photography and lavish costumes. However, some of the sets didn't quite feel like the 1880s, it looked a bit too clean. Though I must say the scenery was breathtaking. The acting was impressive; while Billie Piper looked luminous and made the most of her protagonist, Sally Lockhart could have done with more character development. JJ Field, Tony Maudsley and Hayley Atwell give stellar performances and the brilliant Julie Walters is exceptional as Mrs Holland. All in all, a well done adaptation, if rather rushed, short and underdeveloped. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I think really for you to understand the movie you have got to read the book first. Its a fairly short read and can clear some of the confusion people have with the movie. Like the guy before me, I think the scenes do jump around quite quickly so you have to pay constant attention. They actors I thought were pretty decent and I thought that Billie Piper was the perfect pick to act out Sally Lockhart. She has those eyes that just caught my attention and right at the start of the movie I could identify her as Sally.

Overall a pretty good movie but i thought it should've have been up around 2 hours long at least since they rushed the movie a little. However, I do hope that they will film the next movie soon because I'm a decent fan of this book series.

The Sally Lockhardt mysteries proved to be a mild disappointment. They are not up to the usual BBC period drama standards - or rather they haven't gotten the period drama treatment. The story relies heavily on a Victorian atmosphere, but you rarely get this in the film adaptations. First of all, Miss Piper, lovely and talented as she is, has the least Victorian beauty imaginable. She is so much AD 2000 that every scene with her in it loses every kind of credibility. One can argue that women were born with different features in olden days - but they pretty much tried to rearrange their facial muscles to imitate the accepted standards of any given era. Where today's actresses try to make their lips appear lush and succulent, every Victorian girl would have subconsciously made every effort to make her mouth appear as a tiny rosebud. The same goes for eyes, hair, posture, gestures. Miss Piper walks straight out of 2007 and makes everything around her 2007.

Watching the adaptations, one also gets the impression that the Victorian society was very welcoming to different races and accepted them into the society with open arms. Almost in every single shot featuring the London society, there are Asian, Caribbean and Black people, the latter even boosting rasta hairstyle on one occasion. The golden truth however is that representatives of these races only got into contact with The Society as footmen and servants, and never ever mixed with them.

My overall impression was that these adaptations were meant for a young viewer who cares little for the authenticity of a traditional well mounted BBC period piece production. If you want some moderate tension and a fairly watchable entertainment with some good moments, don't hesitate to view these films. I don't regret sitting through them at one go, I only wish I would have been totally overwhelmed.

Well, I have to say I approached this Victorian thriller with a great deal of pessimism, after being disappointed repeatedly by Masterpiece Theatre (PBS/WGBH) in recent years. Helen Mirren's final 'Prime Suspect', which aired recently, had returned my interest in the honorable, high-road TV series, which had been mired in humorlessly rendered Miss Marple, mediocre Sherlock Holmes, and another tiresome Jane Eyre. Julie Walters has saved the day in this wonderfully crisp and nicely produced Victorian thriller with a young female lead, several refreshing new faces and an excellent TV script. Miss Walters puts in a chilling performance, as notable as her work in 'Educating Rita' and 'Billy Elliot'. What a relief! I would have been quite sad if it had been otherwise. The pace of this production reminds me of the Jeremy Brett 'Sherlock Holmes' of twenty years ago. The strength of this piece is the chain of excellent female characters, major and minor. It has mood and visual production values which captivate, despite their simplicity. I am so pleased to be back as a fan.

For a TV movie version of the book, it was not bad. However it did help quite a bit to have read the book several years ago, otherwise I probably would have been confused as well. As others have mentioned it was quite rushed and I would not be surprised if people did not even understand who everyone was by the end.

I was pleased with Billie Piper, I was not sure she could tone down enough to play the part, but she was fine. She did manage to project the strength and independence of Sally that makes the novels such a pleasure to read.

Not being a student of Victorian England, I did wonder if there really would have been Anglo-African priests at the time. Is that realistic for the time? It didn't seem odd to have a sea-hand/dock-worker but a priest for a neighborhood seemed a bit out of touch with what little knowledge I have of Victorian England. (I prefer seeing diversity in films, but not if it isn't historically accurate- it did make the character stand out).

I hope they make the rest of the series and take a little more time to flesh out the story and characters - because it is a really good series.

I haven't read 'Ruby in the Smoke' but I have read some of the other Sally Lockheart books. I was hoping that this film would throw some light on a few things, but instead I found it very hard to follow. One minute we were here, the next somewhere else. I found it quite difficult to work out where all the characters fitted in, or why they acted the way they did. I don't think it was the acting, but the script was so rushed, they barely had time to fit in all the slitting of throats and killing everyone off. I'd thought this was a children's book, but I do rather regret letting my kids stay up to watch it. I hope future dramatisations of the books slow down a little for the sake of clarity. Surely, if you're going to do a drama like this with all the scenery, clothes and atmosphere, you should try to do it justice and not rush it?

OK, I admit it- I haven't read the book.... But that meant that my sudden and unexpected encounter with this little gem came as a complete surprise. OK (again), Billie Piper was Billie Piper- she is no Larry Olivier or Alec Guinness to submerge herself in the role, but she was perfectly fine as the central character. Julie Walters was genuinely brilliant (and quite terrifyingly malign) along with her supporting cast of interestingly flawed villains. But what made it for me was the total lack of "well, just let me explain..." and "as you already know...". The viewer was left to work things out! Oh JOY!!! Especially since I watched it directly after the explanation-studded car crash that was the Da Vinci Code (didn't live up to the book, apparently- wow, that must have taken some doing). The sheer entertainment value of not having everything laid out and the understanding of it idiot-proofed was immense. Period detail was excellent, lots of fascinating little details thrown in just for the love of it all. Truly excellent, utterly enjoyable. Watch the next one!

Sally Lockhart is left orphaned when her seafaring father goes down with his ship. Left with only her father's journal to remember him by, Sally is sent to the home of a stiff Aunt. Here she receives a letter that brings her to the offices of her father's employers but the contents of the note are sufficient to kill the man she shows it to. The mystery of "the seven blessings" continues as Major Marchbanks warns Sally of a dangerous enemy called Mrs Holland. Sally flees on his warning and finds herself pursued by Mrs Holland as both seek the whereabouts of a ruby, hidden by her father and protected by riddles and clues.

I have never read the books by Phillip Pullman so I can't really comment on how this film compares with the character as written, however this may also be a good thing as I don't have to worry myself about making comparisons across media. This film was screened at New Years and represented a big part of the BBC's festive line-up and was pushed as a result. I wasn't sure what to expect from it but found it relatively enjoyable as a bit of a period mystery. It doesn't really hang together though as the mystery tends to have peaks and troughs even across the comparatively short running time. The central thread concerning Mrs Holland and the ruby is engaging but the rest is not so good and seems to ask the audience just to go along with it.

A part of this failing can be laid at the feet of the cast. Piper in particular seems very bland and uninteresting throughout. She had a bit of something about her in Dr Who but here she seems to be restraining it as part of her character – which is an approach that doesn't work. In the words of a far less kind commentator – she appears to spend more time focusing on keeping her upper lip pulled down over her big teeth! Walters is much better in her role and her parts of the film are easily the strongest and more enjoyable. Smith is a bit too cheeky-chappie for my liking, while Field, Anderson, Gilet, Maudsley and others are all solid enough in their roles. Atwell was a nice find though, but her good looks and easy performance only served to highlight the weaknesses in Piper's performance.

The direction is good though and the whole film looks good with strong sets and costumes, however none of these make up for the rather disjointed delivery and flow. Entertaining enough I suppose but not strong enough to really grip me or make me eager to learn more about the characters.

Look out for the actress Hayley Atwell who plays Rosa Garland. A bright gem in a supporting role. A lady to go far. Great production and acting from the rest of the cast too. Julie Walters as Mrs. Holland is a revelation. A real nasty piece of work. The film's atmosphere invokes the Victorian age perfectly, as much as I can imagine it was anyway. I do think though that Billy Piper's face is too associated with her role in Doctor Who to convince us otherwise. Although she carried it off convincingly, it was still Billy Piper. Production values were of a high standard and I thought the film remained true to the book. Congratulations too must be awarded to lighting.

There's almost no character development in this plot-driven mess as wooden, shallow characters race to fulfill meaningless twists and turns in a tedious and unfulfilling story. It's all simply plot for plot's sake, which often has to be explained in long expositional passages, poorly disguised in clumsy dialog, or with cheesy flashbacks. These serious handicaps aside, Julie Walters gives an outstanding performance with a character who is largely derivative as a female Fagan from Oliver Twist. Notwithstanding the ham-handed writing and clumsy direction, Miss Walters does a fantastic job -- in the hands of a lesser actress, the role would be a cardboard villain, but she brings it to live with focused wit and style. She made an unwatchable film watchable. Five stars for Miss Walters; one star for the film.

THE RUBY IN THE SMOKE and indeed the whole Sally Lockhart Quartet is one of my most favourite series of books for children- so my expectations of it were very high. However, the BBC pulled this off very well; the cast and acting was brilliant, very convincing indeed. It was beautifully filmed, and I was delighted to see that the excellent plot was hardly meddled with at all. In fact, the film completely reinforces the greatness of the book, and was in itself a thoroughly entertaining drama.

In Philip Pullman's THE RUBY IN THE SMOKE Sally Lockhart, a courageous 16 year old orphan finds herself embroiled in a mesmerising mystery, centring around an infamous ruby. As she unravels the mystery she is thrown into many exciting (and dangerous) situations, and meets several dear friends along the way who share her adventures with her. This little summary doesn't do either the book or the film credit- so read, and watch both! All in all, great family entertainment for Christmas, and I'm looking forward to seeing THE SHADOW IN THE NORTH, the second instalment in the Sally Lockhart Quartet, later on next year.

I wanted to like this - but couldn't. There were just too many plot holes and leaps of faith plus a massive dollop of political correctness that stuck in the throat rather. I wasn't surprised to learn this is the same author as the golden compass - that movie shares some of the same weaknesses.

There were some plusses. Julie Walters was excellent - and I see a fabulous 'Crippen' like role for her in the future. She made that little dark dress and hat look most sinister.

The weaknesses. Why take such pains to look historically accurate - costume, location etc - but then so blatantly manipulate the ethnic population of Victorian London to fit with modern sensibilities? Even accepting that there were concentrations of Slave descendants and Asians in and around the main Victorian ports - you might expect to see a dark skin one in every 1000 people. I just couldn't ignore it - and suspend my disbelief I'm afraid.

Indeed if I were black - I might take huge offense for such an inaccurate and patronizing portrayal. I suspect life was a terrible struggle for most ethnic londoners at this time - with massive poverty and overt, violent racism faced on the streets. Are we benefited by 'glossing' over such things? And conversely do you think we will ever see a remake of 'Zulu!' with a sprinkling of whites in the African tribes? I think not.

Of course a female as the main lead is just a different brand of the same politically correct nonsense. A female financial adviser who walks around with a pistol stuffed up her bustle?! Oh, come on people.

I look fwd to the day when we can see an honest, no holds barred, depiction of Victorian England, which was a fairly hideous mix of almost unimaginable poverty and outrageous hypo-critcal affluence and greed. Thank goodness for Dickens I say.

Nobody does period like the BBC and after the excellent Jane Eyre which recently aired on Masterpiece Theatre my wife and I were looking forward to the PBS presentation of Ruby in the Smoke. My wife enjoyed Phillip Pullman's "Dark Arts" books so maybe the blame for this mess lies with the adaptation. The cast did their best with the limited material they had to work with and the actors who played the photographer and his sister were truly engaging. The same cannot be said about Billy Piper. By the end of her second season on "Dr Who" she was showing some depth and dimension but here she was strangely wooden. And either they never got around to actually finishing the script or big chunks of this project never made it out of the edit suite. A sad waste of talent and my time.

I have not read the books (heresy!) so I watched this with an open mind. The narrative is rather confusing - or rather, it makes sudden jumps in logic and you have to jump with it and not question things, otherwise you might get a bit frustrated. There are a lot of false endings too - you keep thinking its all over when something else happens. In terms of casting - JJ Field has a lovely voice. He sometimes looks like Jude Law, in certain lights, but some might find him a little on the geeky side for their romantic hero. Mrs. Holland is very very sinister. Julie Walters is a fabulous grotesque. Wonderful sets - really atmospheric. Especially the opium den. Billie Piper made a pretty good heroine, though I don't think Victoriana is the right period for her looks. Her accent rings false from time to time, but overall a convincing bit of acting.