The Riddle

I could not believe the original rating I found when i looked up this film, 9.5? Unfortunately it looks like I am not alone.

The film, is slow and boring really, one of the sad things is that if the film had been given a realistic rating of around 5 or 6 then the expectation would not have been so high.

Unfortunately, this was not the case, so when watching the film, and seeing the poor story and acting, I am left giving it a 3/10 score.

Vinnie Jones is superb in Lock stock, and also Snatch, and he plays a great hard man, however, he should stick to this role. Its a bit like when Stallone and Schwarzenegger have done comedy films, they just don't work.

Neither can he play lead actor, he plays better as supporting or otherwise. When he plays lead, his acting talents are too 'in view' and shown up as not really very good. Mean Machine is another good example of this.

A pretty awful film, I'm amazed the likes of Derek Jacobi & Vanessa Redgrave agreed to be in it, it's like an overlong episode from a poor TV detective series.

The biggest flaw has to be Vinnie Jones, he simply can't act, whoever had the bright idea of casting him as a leading man wants their head examining unless he put his own money into the project? He should stick to playing thugs, looking menacing & NOT speaking!

Also was central heating around in Dickens times as there were three big radiators behind his desk??

No wonder they gave this away free with a newspaper as no one would pay to see it.

Well, I got and saw this movie based on the rather high score here (7.1 now), and some of the good reviews. Usually IMDb is a good guide when it comes to score, though in this case I was very much deceived.

The movie is a present-day detective story, with Vinnie Jones as the investigator journalist, who investigates the death of a construction worker. Mixed with this is a made up Dickens' novel (called The Riddle, set in the 18th or 19th century), which also deals with a murder story. Both story lines are connected through the discovery of an unpublished manuscript.

Sounds interesting? It could have been, however this movie horribly fails in a number of areas : 1) Acting. Mediocre at best, but it is watchable. No worse than your average UK sitcom, though for a movie one expects a little better. Especially with a score of over 7. 2) Music. The music used is simply horrible, it distracts and it is annoying. Especially the pub music, and the music which plays in the journalist's apartment. 3) Storyline. This is a big joke. There are gaping plot holes everywhere and even the obligatory love story is so unrealistic that it's almost funny. Furthermore, without going into any detail, I can safely say that the ending is absurd, and one of the worst pieces of acting and storyline of the year. 4) Camera-work. At times camera positions and views are distracting, and serve absolutely no purpose to the "story".

I'm a bit of a movie fanatic, and watch on average 1 to 2 movies a day, but this is easily the worst movie I've seen in months. Don't waste your money or your time on this rubbish.

This is a small London thriller with a good cast including Vinnie Jones and Julie Cox about a journalist turning detective and a missing Charles Dickens novel.

While I agree with the comments that say some of the plot is confusing, I actually really liked seeing Vinnie Jones in something different. Julie Cox is very good opposite him in quite an understated role, usually getting to the clues one step ahead of Jones.

I wasn't wild on the Victorian scenes, which were a bit stagey, but they might appeal to a Masterpiece Theater crowd more than me.

But Vinnie plays just enough of his usual self to keep it real while moving away from his usual hardman role though I loved him in Lock Stock. I liked that he did not change back to his hardman role at the end, but tries to talk his way out of a tough spot. I would like to see Vinnie Jones given a chance in a really good romantic comedy.

I watched the first 0:8:33 of the film and then had to stop it and press pause. I couldn't believe my eyes at such a terrible historical mistake!!

At 8 min 33 seconds, there is a close-up of "A View of Rochester with a Section of the Aqueduct." As the narrator was describing Rochester in Kent, England, we are shown this image--an 1830 wood engraving of Rochester, NY on the Erie Canal! I recognized it right away since I grew up on the Erie Canal and that picture is well-known in the museums all along the canal. This is shockingly bad work on the part of the director and screenwriter--and if that team had had any historians on the crew, they wouldn't have made such an egregious error.

The appeal of this film was its cast-- actors like Derek Jacobi and Vanessa Redgrave --but that wasn't enough to make me continue watching it after that bungling error insulted my intelligence. Certainly a Brit from Rochester would also have noticed that there was never an aqueduct in Kent over the River Medway: at least not one that looked the same as the one in Rochester, NY. I'm sure the film editors were all thinking, "Eh, no one will even notice." Well, guess what...? Someone did. :(