User reviews

This production is so underrated. It made me want to re-visit the novel, which had originally been a very frustrating read.

Hughes does a wonderful job developing and finishing the plot. Using Dickens' Bleak House and Our Mutual Friend as a guide, its likely that the Drood story was left less than half finished. I found the film ending satisfying and quite Dickensian in its use of coincidence and secret family ties.

Among a wonderful cast, Matthew Rhys makes me want to re-watch the film. His John Jasper is wonderfully horrible, a great anti-hero. Bravo!

The Mystery of Edwin Drood is both captivating and frustrating, captivating in its tension and suspense as well as the titular character and frustrating in its incompleteness. This adaptation is not perfect but does nobly with its source material. It does suffer from incompleteness(the book doesn't help) and its contrived and abrupt ending. But it is very handsomely filmed and remarkably authentic to the period it's set in, while the score is unobtrusive and hauntingly beautiful. The dialogue is carefully and intelligently adapted, making an effort to sound Dickenesian and not too contemporary, also nobly developing the characters in rich detail. The story is tense and suspenseful, with some good twists and turns and very compelling storytelling, more so in the first half admittedly. It is a very well-performed adaptation too, Matthew Rhys steals the show, intense and heartfelt it is a brilliant performance. Freddie Fox shows command of the Dickenesian language, Tamzin Merchant is appealingly pert and Rory Kinnear, Ian McNeise, Julia MacKenzie and Alun Armstrong turn in strongly dependable performances too. In conclusion, solid and very well-done especially for the performances. 8/10 Bethany Cox

"The Mystery of Edwin Drood" was Dickens's last novel, famous for being left unfinished at his death, so producing a film adaptation is always going to be a speculative undertaking, as nobody is quite sure how Dickens intended it to end, although there are a number of theories.

The title character is a young man from the cathedral city of Cloisterham, a thinly-disguised version of Rochester. (The film was shot on location in that city). The plot revolves around the strange triangular relationship which develops between Edwin, his fiancée Rosa Bud, and his uncle John Jasper. Edwin has been engaged to Rosa since they were both children, as a result of provisions in their father's wills, but neither seems to have much passion for the other. Jasper, the opium-addicted choirmaster of Cloisterham Cathedral, is secretly in love with Rosa, although she does not return his love. A further development comes with the arrival in Cloisterham of the twins Neville and Helena Landless from Ceylon. In this adaptation they are of mixed race, although their racial origins are not indicated in the original book. Neville finds himself attracted to Rosa, and he and Edwin fall out with one another. Another important character is the clergyman Septimus Crisparkle.

The "mystery" to which Dickens alludes in his title is the sudden disappearance of Edwin. It is presumed that he has been murdered, although no body is ever found. The novel in its unfinished state offers no definitive solution to the mystery, so the writers of this version have had to come up with their own. (I won't say what it is).

The film was made for BBC television, and falls within the long British tradition of visually attractive costume drama, a tradition which is even longer on television than it is in the cinema. (Feature films of this type were rare before the late sixties and relatively uncommon before the eighties). It is a good example of ensemble acting so I won't single out any individual performances. Like a number of recent adaptations of the classics it is used to put over a modern perspective on history; the Landless siblings are used to raise some points about colonialism and racism in Victorian society. (Edwin's initial dislike of Neville is partly based on race prejudice).

It is, of course, anyone's guess whether the new ending is the one Dickens intended; literary buffs may suspect that it is not. The film-makers have, however, at least come up with something that makes sense on its own terms and comes across as a seamless whole; it would be difficult for anyone not acquainted with the novel to guess which parts of the story are Dickens's own and which the invention of the scriptwriter. The film is required viewing for any Dickens enthusiast and an entertaining period drama for anyone else. 7/10

I have to say that if you like the novel, you need to see a Russian version year (1981) of four part TV series of " The Mystery of Edwin Drood". The movie is great and explores in depth Dickens' characters. The cast of actor cannot be better! The music composed by the Russian Composer, Eduard Artemiev is absolutely enchanting. To watch the sample episode and listen to Mr. Artemiev music , please go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG5N7J9kJbw

I am sorry the movie is on Russian language. However, you will be very surprised how well it is made.

If you would like to see a full version of four parts of the movie, please click here, for the part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLW_3ESsZIg

As for this BBC production, I find it somewhat hard to watch. The entire story seems to be very compressed for the time allotted. The cast of actors are mediocre, except for Matthew Rhys. Perhaps, I am coming from a standpoint of someone who has a comparison of the two different productions.

Although Edwin Drood was unfinished at the time of Dickens' death, it was only the very ending that was left unfinished, and it seems clear from other sources how Dickens had intended the story to conclude. I feel this version took too much liberty with the source material and its supposed incomplete nature. It made it too convoluted and mysterious I think in an aim to boost its TV appeal. But for fans like me who prefer adaptations to be faithful this was disappointing. And on top of this, it wasn't all that entertaining, I think the artificial complexity only served to distract the audience and distract from how enjoyable it might have been. The 1935 version, though a very old film, is much clearer and enjoyable and truer to the Dickensian spirit.

THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD is the second of two Dickens adaptations that the BBC showed over the New Year 2011/2012. The good news is that it's a damn sight better than GREAT EXPECTATIONS, being noticeably more 'Dickensian' in feel, with plenty of amusingly monkeyed supporting characters. The hilarious scenes involving churchyard urchin Deputy are alone better than anything in that other awful production.

My viewing of this one benefited from not having read the famously incomplete story that Dickens died during writing. It's split into two instalments, and the first does admirably well in setting up the chessboard of characters: Matthew Rhys (BROTHERS AND SISTERS) is great as the sweaty and sinister Jack Jasper. Kudos too for the familiar character actors fleshing out more minor roles: Julia McKenzie, Ian McNeice and Alun Armstrong all acquit themselves well, and Rory Kinnear (FIRST MEN IN THE MOON) seems to be going from strength to strength.

What a shame, then, that the second part just doesn't hold up. It's clear that this segment wasn't written by Dickens, instead completed by the scriptwriter. The ending is particularly bad, hinging around one massive plot hole/contrivance (a character appearing from nowhere at just the right time) that it's impossible to ignore. Way too many twists are attempted in this latter part so that it feels muddled and ludicrous, nothing like Dickens at all.

This recent BBC adaptation of Dickens' unfinished final work for me takes too many liberties with the tale. Not for the first time of late in a TV Dickens adaptation, one suspects the hand of political correctness rather than imaginative casting in having the Landless siblings played by black actors. It only serves to make the nascent love scene between Reverend Crisparkle and Miss Landless seem the more awkward especially in the context of the time in which it is set.

While there is melodrama in the plot, a Gothic over-dramatisation is applied, especially when John Jasper "has one of his heads", a cue for unusual camera placements, distorted shots and mad-scene background music. It also disobeys the golden rule, which even Hitchcock acknowledged, of never using a flashback that lies. The invented ending, which plays on the title of the piece, made me wonder if the writer hadn't had a hookah or two of opium before putting pen to paper.

As for the acting, I found some solace from the scenery-chewing of the leads in the supporting parts of Durdles, Brossard and young Deputy. No offence to the actress playing Rosa but one can hardly imagine her freckled, girlish demeanour inspiring the passions it does here.

In short, I found this production overdone and undercooked at the same time and rather think the BBC for once failed the great writer in this particular version of this tale.

Being something of a Dickens purist, I very rarely watch new adaptations of his novels, television or otherwise, and after being badly disappointed by the BBC's 2011 soap-opera-like adaptation of "Great Expectations", I didn't exactly have high hopes for this film; in fact, I didn't even catch it when it first aired on PBS. After reading the novel (or half of one, anyway), I really wanted to see this and find out just what kind of ending the filmmakers came up with. I was astonished at just how excellent it was, and would rank it as one of the best productions of Dickens I've seen since "David Copperfield".

"The Mystery of Edwin Drood" was Charles Dickens' last novel; he was only able to complete half of it before he died in 1870. He intended his story to be a thriller, requesting that his publisher accept the book in twelve parts instead of the usual twenty. That being said, the film reflects that ideal in spades, clipping along at a nice pace that rivals even the best modern-day mystery novel and incorporating a healthy dose of psychological drama for extra suspense. The dramatic tension is there from the very first scene and doesn't let up until the end credits roll. Highly atmospheric and oftentimes chilling, it would be hard to imagine a more ideal production.

The second half falters a little bit, owing to the the lack of true Dickensian dialogue and plotting, but the numerous twists and turns and surprising character development never really feel as though he couldn't have written them himself. Some people might dislike the ending, but I found it unexpected and very appropriate. Dickens wasn't above resorting to using the "deus ex machina" device himself, so who's to say it doesn't belong here? While he probably had a different though equally surprising finale in mind, the one devised by screenwriter Gwyneth Hughes isn't exactly shabby.

The only real reservation I had about this film was that it would feel too "modern". To my delight, the historical side of the film is never once questioned: there's never a single moment over the course of all two hours where you don't feel that you're truly in 19th century England. The fact that it was actually filmed in Rochester, Kent, the place where Dickens based the fictional town of Cloisterham upon, gives it a whole new layer of authenticity.

I was also quite impressed with the cast. Not only do they look their parts, but they also perform them flawlessly, giving real yet Dickenesque portrayals. Freddie Fox is entirely wonderful as Edwin Drood, literally embodying the phrase "laissez-faire". Tamzin Merchant is a steady yet perhaps a little too pert Rosa Bud, but that would be my only complaint. The true star of the show is Welsh actor Matthew Rhys, who just lives and breathes the dark, brooding, obsessive opium-smoker John Jasper. He brings out the character's passive-agressiveness to perfection, and his intense, emotional performance will keep you on the edge of your seat.

In short, I absolutely loved BBC/Masterpiece's 2012 adaptation of "The Mystery of Edwin Drood", and would recommend it to anyone as one film not to be missed.

Some people seem bothered because two of the major characters are non-white. Their problem.

I found the characters all very convincing.

I was also impressed by the way they gave an entertaining and surprising ending to the various mysteries.

Quite possibly the ending Dickens had in mind

Yes, "Mystery" does vary in tone from other works by Dickens but not nearly to this extent. The whole movie plays like a sweaty dream induced by a night of heavy eating and drinking. It utterly lacks the feeling of concrete reality that Dickens somehow evokes even as he spins ludicrous tales.

Not a single character feels like a real person with a real life beyond what appears on screen and a full range of emotions. There's never a hint that the choirmaster runs a choir, or that the lawyer has ever handled a case or that the schoolgirl has any studies.

The very talented Matthew Rhys is wasted on a role with only two notes, hatred and self pity. But it's still the deepest role in the show. None of the other characters has more than one characteristic and many of them have none at all. Oddly, despite this lack of personality (or perhaps because of it) all of the characters are unlikable. There's no one to root for in the story.

To make up for the lack of character, there is mood, lots of mood, hitting you in the face again and again with dream sequences and funny camera angles and music that is supposed to make us fearful in moments that are not scary to anyone older than 5.

The production isn't even technically competent in a way you'd expect of the BBC. Rhys, who is great with accents and can surely do an English one, frequently reverts to his native Welsh. In one scene, they say the Lord's prayer as "Our Father, Who art..." rather than "Which art," which would have been used in Victorian England. It's a miracle a car did not drive through the background in one of the scenes.

The worst adaptation of Dickens I have ever seen.