So much average

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Dickens unfinished novel is given a plausible outcome in this Universal version of The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Made in the same year as two MGM classics by Dickens, David Copperfield and Tale of Two Cities, it may lack their production values but it does have a hauntingly dark performance from Claude Rains as well as a cart full of Dickens characters splendidly played by some London stage vets.Edwin Drood and Rosa Bud were engaged before they could talk but are more brother and sister than intendeds. His uncle John Jaspers, the Church choirmaster and pillar of the community is obsessed with Rosa, conversely he makes her skin crawl. When Neville Landless, a hot tempered Ceylonese arrives on the scene he falls for Rosa and argues with Edwin over her. The opium addicted Jaspers growing more paranoid by the minute decides to take drastic measures in order to secure Rosa for himself by eliminating his rivals.In the early years of censorship Drood takes on a lot of controversial issues most pointedly opium addiction. Director Stuart Walker manages to ably convey its dilatory presence without mention or the appearance of the pipe by way of the dissipated personage of the raven eyed, mellifluously cold voice of Rains and the delicious harridan performance of opium den mother played by Zeffie Tillbury. Putting ample flesh on the rest of the cast EE Clive, Forester Harvey, Walter Kingsford and Ethel Griffes as Miss Twinkleton ("Crisis is a test of breeding ladies. Remember your Britains".) offer rich Dickens interpretations of comic manners providing Drood a lightness that balances Rains brooding madness. Lacking the pedigree and lushness of an MGM production The Mystery of Edwin Drood does just fine with less.

Universal in 1935 took on 'The Mystery Of Edwin Drood' a uncompleted Dickens novel. This is the first sound version, after two (2) silent adaptations and made in their 'Classic Horror' style. The film featured their current stock company, including David Manners and Valerie Hobson and the powerful presence of free lancer Claude Rains. These are all professionals and deliver what is expected of them.As in the other 'Classic Horror' adaptations of the time this film has a certain look. Every studio had a 'look' for their efforts. Grimy streets for Warner Brothers gangster films, pristine palaces and with C. B. DeMille, washrooms at Paramount. M.G.M. all gloss and polish in almost every production and R.K.O. art-deco grace. With Universal, decrepit buildings, cobwebs, drawing rooms with lots of stuff to knock over with crisp cinematography.For details of the plot either watch the film or read one of the other reviewers, they give a blow by blow description and plenty of detail, more is not needed here. What can be said it is too bad that for some reason Universal keeps these films buried in their vaults along with some 600 films from Paramounts classic period. Shown today on TCM (12/05/2011) this is the first time I can recall seeing it since the early 1960s! It does not disappoint, the print being in excellent condition. Hopefully more of these efforts will be released for viewing on TCM and possibly DVD.

This adaptation of Charles Dickens' famous unfinished novel is made in the style of Universal's horror films: in fact, it not only features many of their participants (from both sides of the camera) but actually shares several sets with BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) –making the film all that more enjoyable and fascinating a viewing! The stunning opening sequence, depicting an opium-induced hallucination, is followed by the shocking discovery of the addict involved (Claude Rains) to be the choirmaster of the local church! Jealously in love with a girl (Heather Angel) about to marry his nephew (David Manners in the title role), he schemes to get the boy out of the way – unaware that the couple had mutually given each other up when she falls for hot-tempered newcomer Douglass Montgomery; the latter's own shaky relationship with Drood leads to his being suspected of foul play when Manners goes missing – a situation Rains encourages for obvious reasons. Montgomery, however, does not rest on his laurels – indeed, he makes himself up as an old man in order to conduct his own private investigation! The exciting climax – set inside the crypt so memorably utilized in the James Whale masterpiece I mentioned earlier – sees the villain engaged in a scuffle with the hero, eventually getting his just desserts in melodramatic fashion. The film, then, serves as an interesting companion piece to contemporaneous Dickensian adaptations (a star-studded David COPPERFIELD emerged from MGM that same year) and should also pique the interest of horror buffs for the reasons I delineated at the start

Charles Dickens reputation did not need THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD to survive his death in 1870. He already had David COPPERFIELD, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, PICKWICK PAPERS, BLEAK HOUSE, OLIVER TWIST, A Christmas CAROL, A TALE OF TWO CITIES, and seven or eight other titles to remind the world of his talents. But he was a very jealous man. He edited a magazine, ALL THE YEAR ROUND, and had been lucky enough to get his friend, William Wilkie Collins, to write a novel for it to be serialized. It was THE MOONSTONE. It became the best selling series of issues for the magazine - outstripping issues that had contained Dickens' novel OUR MUTUAL FRIEND. Dickens did not care for that.He had been accused of writing sensational novels by his critics. OLIVER TWIST was certainly a crime centered tale of gangs of youths trained to be thieves in London. Murders played parts in MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT, BLEAK HOUSE, A TALE OF TWO CITIES, and OUR MUTUAL FRIEND. In his lesser fiction, he had used characters based on real life poisoners Thomas Griffith Wainewright and Dr. William Palmer. But in all of his books Dickens used crime and criminal as an element, not the central element, of the story. He was a social critic, and he had to notice crime as part of the social scene. Collins did this too, but he centered his plots on the crimes in the stories. Dickens, who could plot as well as Collins, could not quite see how differently the two approached novel writing. So Dickens decided he would write one novel where the center would be the commission of a crime: to wit, the disappearance (and probable murder) of the title character Edwin ("Ned") Drood. The novel's main figure would be Drood's young uncle (and rival) John Jasper. Both are in love with Rosa Bud, the ward of the lawyer Hiram Grewgious. Jasper, who is the choirmaster in "an old cathedral town" (based on Canterbury), is a secret opiun user. He loves his nephew, and yet cannot avoid hating him as a rival for the young woman. But they are not the only rivals here. Ned Landless, the brother of Helene Landless, is a headstrong young man who is courting Rosa (and it turns out he is actually the one she favors). There is a public scene between Landless and Drood, in which Landless threatens his rival, while a thoughtful Jasper looks on. Finally, Rosa and Edwin have a talk, and she firmly breaks off their engagement. Shortly afterwards, Edwin Drood vanishes.Has he left to bury his wounded heart abroad? Has he met with an accident in which he has lost his memory, or is injured and unable to get notice to his friends? Has he been killed in an accident? Has he committed suicide? Has he been murdered...and by whom? Jasper, of course, starts hinting broadly that his dear Ned has been murdered, and the murderer is Neville Landless. Landless insists that he and Drood have made up their quarrel (but there appears to be no witness to this). Jasper starts putting pressure on the local authorities (led by a beautiful example of Dickensian bureaucratic stupidity, Lord Mayor Thomas Sapsea) to arrest Neville, even though no body has been located. Neville flees.Jasper has the situation in his hand ... except that Neville's sister Helene does not trust him (and she makes a smitten ally in a young naval officer, Lieutenant Tartar). Grewgious also has his suspicions, when Jasper faints when he hears from the lawyer that Edwin and Rosa had broken their engagement. Reverend Crisparkle, the local clergyman, keeps Rosa comforted - but he is worried because Neville's fleeing is not good for his reputation of being innocent. Then to add to Jasper's woes, the old lady running the opium den he frequents (known as "the Princess Puffer") shows up, apparently looking into possible blackmail after she overhears something Jasper said about the missing Ned while under the drug. Similarly a stranger with a long white beard, Dick Datcherly, comes to town, and is making many inquiries. He meets the Princess Puffer, and he also meets "Durdles", the keeper of the local cathedral's burial grounds, who tells him about Jasper's interest in quicklime, and in the Sapsea memorial, which is supposed to be empty.After completing about two thirds of EDWIN DROOD, Dickens died suddenly. He left a literary puzzle that remains to perplex and bother his fans to this day. From my description it looks like he was aiming at Drood being murdered, and the murderer being John Jasper. Most of the details that survive suggest that Edwin was not going to reappear. But was Neville to reappear? Or was he Datcherly (or was Tartar or Grewgious Datcherly...or was Datcherly a new character in his own right - sent by Neville)? Who would uncover the truth: Datcherly, Grewgious, Neville, Helene, Rosa?In OLIVER TWIST the novel ended with a masterfully horror scene of Fagin in the death cell awaiting for his execution. Similar scenes were in BARNABY RUDGE, and (slightly changed) in A TALE OF TWO CITIES. It has beens suggested that DROOD would have ended with Jasper in the death cell, thinking about his crimes (he may actually have ended up killing at least two other characters before the end), and defending his conduct to his own satisfaction. If so, it would have been a true masterpiece of detective fiction. Instead it survives as a perplexing fragment which many people (including the actor, Sir Felix Aylmer) have tried to tear the secret out of.I saw the musical version of this in the 1980s, which (ironically enough) starred George Rose - who would die by a planned murder within two years of my seeing him on stage. The musical concentrated on a "who-dunnit" with audience participation. It was okay, but missed the point that a detective story by Dickens had to be more than a "who-dunnit", but a sensible piece of literary craftsmanship.This film is okay too. Douglas Montgomery, a forgotten actor, gave one of his best performances as Neville (and Datcherly in this version). Rains is masterful as the moody, and suspicious acting Jasper. One only wishes E.E.Clive were given more time to expand on the pompous Sapsea, but he touches on him well. But the melodrama is pushed here, not the treatment Dickens probably had in mind. As an entertainment, I'd recommend it. As a dose of Dickens...read the fragment he left, think about what I said, and weep for what we lost.