Theme Layout

[wide]

Boxed or Wide or Framed

[wide]

Theme Translation

Display Featured Slider

No

Featured Slider Styles

No

Display Grid Slider

Yes

Grid Slider Styles

[style1][caption3]

Display Trending Posts

Display Author Bio

Display Instagram Footer

The Mystery of Edwin Drood (2011)


Good morning, readers! Did you see the post prior to this? If not, check it out and let me know what you think about a possible giveaway here – one in which you could win this on DVD, among other stuff. *wink* Today, I bring a movie review on the latest Charles Dickens adaptation.
Unfinished works might excite a flurry of promise in fans of a popular author but does that mean that screenwriters should attempt to better it by putting finishing touches on it? That theory is tested in this, the unfinished manuscript by Charles Dickens.

The relationship John Jasper (Matthew Rhys) has with his orphaned nephew is a curious one. Long holding the position of choir director at their village cathedral, he may appear one way to parishioners, those he has known for years but in reality he is hiding behind an addiction – or two. His one secret habit lies in his frequent trips to opium dens; his second is craving the attentions of a young schoolgirl named Rosa Bud (Tamzin Merchant). He has long harbored feelings for the pretty-faced Rosa, but much to his chagrin, the girl has been intended for his young nephew Edwin (Freddie Fox) by the two young people’s fathers long before the men died. Edwin is a young man with grand ambitions, determined to see the world. His betrothal to Rosa leaves Jasper enraged – and plotting revenge. Despite the hindrance that Edwin is set up to inherit a large fortune upon his marriage, Jasper is not about to give up on wanting Rosa. Into this already sordid triangle walks a set of twin siblings.

Newly arrived on British soil from India, the siblings are brought here to be educated in proper British social graces while the orphaned pair must overcome prejudice at their arrival. Helena (Amber Rose Revah) gets on famously with Rosa, who soon confides in her new schoolmate about being terrified of Jasper. Meanwhile Helena’s brother, Neville (Sacha Dhawan) and Edwin often clash – Neville despises how Edwin treats Rosa, and  then Edwin disappears. Unable to see her friend caught between a man she has been asked to take as husband since childhood and a man who mistreats her, Helena takes her concerns to the pastor that Jasper has more than appropriate feelings towards Rosa setting into motion a chain reaction that will forever change the lives of these people.

Long before I knew when I’d be able to see this (I watch all British productions on DVD – usually some good six months after its premiere), I had read and heard that it was undoubtedly Dickens darkest yet. Respectfully, I disagree. The two-part film is sometimes… disturbing but I think those who frequently watch Dickens will not find this any more so than the others to come from this author’s brilliant imagination. I’d even argue that some of the prior BBC adaptations are much, much more sinister. Like most stories Mr. Dickens penned, each have their share of “dark” shadows hanging over its characters and in that, also us but what I appreciate about his unique style beyond any philosophical meanings is his ability to write a happy ending. This ending feels a bit overrated or hurried or not set up well but then that, ultimately isn’t something that is going to earn this otherwise decent film a demerit from me.

To say the least, this film is interesting. There is something consuming about the story but to be honest, it is a twisted one. Taking place a great deal of the runtime in the outdoors makes the filming and film-work is “lighter” than usual balancing out the darker potential. As the villainous character, Jasper is one of the “best.” He is intensely unlikable and we love to detest him because Rhys makes it so easy to do so. His lurking in the shadows and possessive or obsessive nature is deplorable; whether he is under the influence of an opium daze or in control of his faculties, he is still… creepy! Then there is Edwin. For once, we don’t even hold a genuine desire to cheer for Dickens young hero. Once his ending rolls around we do get a better impression of him – almost as if the rejection he is given has made him see things differently and he has grown up in the best sense. The entire cast brings something to the movie, and it was fun to see Tamzin in something again as well as the supporting cast consisting of Alun Armstrong and Julia McKenzie.

Despite audiences’ skepticism, I think the writer did a bang up job of completing this story. It felt true to the character of Dickens and seemed an appropriate tribute to him. Most of the screen time is either full of crazy antics and its characters or strange behavior but there are rare moments when laughter is the only appropriate response. It feels like a cliché because other reviewers felt the same way but I cannot help that but agree: I think part one had much more vigor and a lot more plot going for it. Part two is equally entertaining and retains the characters but I think there were too many flaws in the how certain subplots were wrapped – additionally, I found it interesting to see the end to Rosa’s story considering she questioned what “true love” would feel like more than once. That felt like one string that wasn’t neatly tied up – but then, I can “accept” it. Despite the few flaws that I would have liked to see furthered or challenged, the writing is easily commendable and weaves a tight, fabulous mystery – one that might even leave you with your mouth agape. If you like Dickens, then this is a wonderful addition to your library – it may not be exactly how Dickens planned on completing the novel but if it is one thing, it is approached as typical Dickens. Bravo to the filmmakers on a job well done. 

(Parental review: Content equates to a soft PG13-rating. There are a dozen flashes of a man being strangled [non-graphic] and there is a suicide in which we see the person lying in their own pool of blood; a man is punched. There are some minor implications as regards Jasper’s thoughts of Rosa; he once tears her dress as he grips her arm possessively. One or two scenes take place in an opium den.) 
QuickEdit
Rissi
16 Comments
Share :

16 comments:

  1. The ending is a bit rushed, but other than that I thought this adaptation was marvelous. Loved it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome review, Rissi. I haven't seen this movie, but I love Dickens. Another for my movie list. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charity - it felt like a cliche to say because I saw other reviews that said much the same but yes, the 2nd half (or conclusion) just felt as if it didn't reach its full potential. Still... it is a solid production, and I am happy to have it in my "Dickens collection." =)

    Gwendolyn - this movie is quite interesting. It is dark but then what Dickens story isn't? If you like intrigue, this one has that down pat.

    Thanks - I hope this was informative and not confusing! Sometimes I think my writing is the latter. lol! ;D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the review!! Now I'm interested... the characters sound interesting and the costumes look like just the sort to thrill me with their old-timey-ness! ;D

    ReplyDelete
  5. My sister and I watched this recently, and honestly we didn't like it too much. Mainly because of the ending... I don't know, it felt too rushed in a sense and too happy for us. (Or maybe we just like our Dickens really warpped... who knows.) Just in general, it's not my favorite. Now you should see if you can get your hands on Acorn Media's version of Nicholas Nickleby. It's my favorite =)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rachel - sure! =) This movie has a knack for that - it weaves twists and turns and is really quite brilliant. If you like Dickens style (which is distinct) then you will enjoy this one.

    The costumes are lovely but unfortunately the ladies have few clothing changes unlike some other costume films. Still, everything is really pretty to look at.

    Natalie - oh, really? That is ironic because his leaning to write "happy endings" is what I love about Dickens. After going through all the trials and heartbreaks of the characters, I appreciate his being able to transition into a beautiful ending that can leave us smiling not frowning or wondering why he wrote such a depressing tale. The endings are usually what "tops" off the story. =)

    The second half of this one does feel "rushed" or a bit incomplete but honestly so does Martin Chuzzlewit (man, I wish someone would re-make that!). Dickens work is usually much more... precise or thought-provoking but given the circumstances, I thought this version was great.

    I've just seen the big-screen adaptation of Nicholas Nickleby and while it is considerably "happier" than most, I still love it. One version of that story I've heard nothing but horrible things of but I cannot recall if it was Acorn's take or another. I'll definitely have to do an Amazon search - I am ALWAYS up for a new costume drama. =)

    Thanks, Natalie - I am sorry you didn't like this one. =/

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Acorn version of Nicholas Nickleby is the one with James D'arcy in it. I didn't like it much -- too much lecherous/sexual material for my taste. It is closer to the book, though, than the McGrath masterpiece.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for that, Charity. I thought that was "the" version but I wasn't sure. =)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I really liked this one! Surprisingly I've never read this book so I can't really say how close it is to what Dickens actually completed but this was definitely a good movie. I really liked that it brought opium addiction into the story because it was such a big problem during that time period. Like a lot of the commentors I feel like they could have drawn the ending out a little more but I still enjoyed it. Masterpiece doesn't often feature a movie I don't like LOL!

    xoxo~ Renee

    ReplyDelete
  10. As did I, Renee. As you say, the ending could have been better but overall, it was one Dickens would have approved... I think. =D

    There is another film set in this time period that uses the opium trade to further its plot but I can't think what it is... it was probably a Masterpiece production (which are yes, usually unforgettable!) so you probably saw it too. How sad that it was something people "relied" on to get by.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Glad to see your review of this and glad to see you enjoyed it! I'm going to be very boring and say I totally agree with everything you wrote in the review.

    To jump in on the Nicholas Nickleby talk going on in this comments, I for one do like the James D'Arcy small screen version better than the large screen version. It has some objectionable content (talking about dark Dickens adaptations), but the acting is much better I think. I mean, Anne Hathaway as a Dickens heroine in totally period innapropriate costumes....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks - I did enjoy this one a lot. It seemed "different" and yet so true to the style we have become accustomed to from Dickens. Great film - one I think I will watch more than just once.

    Oh, really? I'd always heard that version was so content-prone it was hard to "get" the story. I wouldn't mind seeing another version of Nicholas Nickleby, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Anne does an admirable job for the 2 hours but yes, were it a mini-series, I may have taken issue with her casting. =)

    So glad you dropped by, Birdienl.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I only watched that version of Nicholas Nickleby very recently as well. I'm doing a 'watch-all-modern-Dickens-adaptations-I've-not-yet-watched' for the bicentennial ;-) Reading all the books I've not yet read would a) hardly be able within a year and b) not leave me any time for other books!

    I personally didn't think there was that much more content in it than in some other Dickens adaptations (including this Edwin Drood), but you should judge for yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am definitely all for watching another version of N.N. I guess it just is something I've "forgotten" over the years. Now that you brought it up again, I'll have to look into one. =D

    Me and Dickens (or Austen. Or any classic author) don't get along when it comes to reading the books. I love the adaptations but the books... It never happens.

    Thanks, Birdienl! =)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not even Austen? Oh dear, she reads quite easily in my opinion. Maybe you should give her a try again ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I know, right!?

    I think I am just so used to contemporary fiction that reading classic works is a struggle for me. The only novel I did get through of Austen's is "S&S" and I have been plotting through "Abbey" for simply FORever! By now, I'd probably need to go back to the beginning. Ah, well! Maybe someday I'll get through more of her novels.

    ReplyDelete

Have a thought? Don't be shy, go ahead and leave one... or two... or three! I reply to every comment. If you're new to the blog, please don't hesitate to introduce yourself and your blog - we love chatting around here!

Feedback and every comment is appreciated and read - I always leave a response; your opinions are respected and I ask that you show mine the same courtesy.

(If you post under “anonymous,” please leave a name. If you don't have a Google account, you can type your name into the Name/URL and if you have no site, just leave "URL" blank.)

If you are still reading my ramblings, thank you for following this little blog and for being one of its supporters. I’ve enjoyed getting to know each of you, friends!

Follow @Instagram