Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Bertie Wooster 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.

jc-osms 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.

flaming_nora I haven't read The Mystery of Edwin Drood yet and it has now moved up the list of Dickens books that I want to read. I'd love to see where he left off and where the screenwriter had to fill in the gaps. From that standpoint, I have nothing to say about how this production was adapted.This was a brilliant production, however. Matthew Rhys was astounding - at the beginning of the first part his character had some moments of charisma (well, one, perhaps when he was singing to the choir and demonstrating flat and sharp keys) but this didn't last when he spiralled downwards into his obsessions and became a truly awful character but very sympathetic at the same time. Truly rounded.On an aesthetic note, some costume dramas have distractingly bad hair (I loved Sandy's Welch's Jane Eyre but Toby Stephen's hair was not good for example) - 'Drood' has none of this - I completely believed everyone's appearance and was not distracted by poor hairpieces for once (minor point but I wanted to praise that aspect!).Another notable point about this production was the sound. It was more creative than any other costume drama I can remember - some of the audio had me guessing whether they were original sound recordings from the church or a post-production echo chamber - I really couldn't tell the difference. Then the audio-montages that accompanied the more drug- induced scenes were creatively mixed and really took me into the aural world of 'Drood'.I absolutely loved this. Thank you once again, BBC.

Leofwine_draca 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.