The Mystery of Edwin Drood

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.

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.

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.

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.