User reviews

You know Vinnie Jones from playing tough and silent characters that suddenly speak wisdom. While I applaud the attempt to act outside that label, I don't think he did very well in this film. Him and lovely Julie Cox had no chemistry at all. Or maybe I'm just jealous :) Anyway, the script is interesting enough, with a journalist trying to uncover a mystery regarding the death of one of his friends, while in parallel we get a short story/confession written by Dickens himself. Vinnie works so hard not to show up as tough that he gets beaten a few times, forgets dates, gets dumped, is hopelessly goofy and even makes a deal with the obnoxious character.

I will give the start of the movie a decent 7, the rest of the film falling slowly, but surely towards a 6, while the ending was completely bonkers: 5. Result: under 6.5 = 6. And I feel bad about it, because this is not a stupid movie. It just tried to be more than the team could do. Sorry.

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 Both story lines are connected through the discovery of an unpublished manuscript.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.

What more can I add? This is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen. Terrible acting, a daft script, tediously slow pace - even visible microphones dangling from the top of the screen. I could go on, but I really can't be bothered. I watched this for 90 minutes before the sense of losing the will to live became too great for me.

I can only assume that the first set of comments and votes were from people associated with the promotion of this insult to British film-making.

And worst still, I had to buy the Mail on Sunday to get it :-) The only reason the DVD hasn't now been redeployed as a coaster is that it now takes pride of place in my Top 10 Worst Films Ever collection.

Definitely one to be avoided.

Ever notice how so many really bad films attract so many 10/10 votes? Not much of a Riddle how that happens, but this is not much of a film. There are two ways of looking at it being given away in the Mail On Sunday.

1. It's free, so you can't complain about it to much. 2. It's free, so it can't be much good.

My vote is number 2. The free DVD in the Sunday papers things is a recent trend and some great old movies have been given away. They're ones that have been out for ages and have made most of the money they'll ever make, so it's a case of anything else is a bonus. It's the last stop for old films, not the first for new ones, so you can guess how bad this must be to skip TV and DVD rental.

The plus points are that Vinnie Jones does try hard and Derek Jacobi is good as Dickens. The minus points are a longer list. Trying isn't the same as succeeding for poor Vinnie and Jacobi's other tramp character is talkative ham that's gone off. The story is very weak. The Dickens story does not have anything to do with the film's murders and feels like another movie slapped onto the script to make people think it's a British Dan Brown without the religion. The supporting cast are either there for the money (Vanessa Redgrave must be really hard up) or because they are friends or girlfriends of the filmmakers. It is also very, very long for what it is.

Vinnie taking his priceless Dickens story with him in his jacket pocket everywhere is good for a couple of laughs, but that's it. Not funny and very not good even for free.

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.

Somewhat confusing story about a Londoner (Vinnie Jones) who gets involved in a web of intrigue centering on newly discovered Charles Dickens manuals. I spent much of the movie wondering how much of the stuff about Dickens himself was true; I would like to know more about Charles Dickens as a person.

Other than that, the acting kept the movie afloat. Aside from Jones, Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave and Jason Flemyng turn in very good performances. It's just that I felt that the movie didn't tell as much about Charles Dickens as I would have wanted to hear. Pretty good otherwise.

Words fail me for this appalling waste of two hours of anyone's life. The story is contrived to the point of complete incredibility.

The acting is leaden and so much of this is laughably dreadful. Vinnie Jones - so wonderful in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is unbearably awful and unbelievable as Mike Sullivan, journalist.

I honestly can't ever remember seeing a worse film. It's only worth watching for the appalling continuity lapses. After Jones is handed a huge beating he emerges without a scratch on him. His girlfriend upends a drink over him and he chases her, emerging from the pub bone dry. It's quite dreadful, made all the worse by the talented actors who appear in it.

As a big fan of Sir Derek Jacobi from I Claudius onward, and also a fan of Charles Dickens, I really enjoyed The Riddle.

Vinnie Jones is very different from his usual hard man. Here he plays a typical noir 50s B-movie hero, being buffeted about by the action like a latter-day Jake in Chinatown.

The supporting cast do well, though sometimes it feels a little too like a TV thriller. Mel Smith stands out and Vanessa Redgrave sparks as an evil newspaper proprietor but is only in for an extended cameo.

But by far the best part of the film, in terms of both story and performance is Jacobi in two roles, one as an oddball vagrant and one as Derek Jacobi. The Victorian scenes have a great melodramatic feel and Jacobi is at his hypnotic best.

Fans of quirky noir, of Dickens and of Sir Derek Jacobi will enjoy this. People wanting to see Vinnie Jones bash people up may be disappointed. Interesting casting throughout.

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.

The Riddle is an enjoyable, tongue-in-cheek thriller that seems to take its inspiration from old radio detectives and noir novels.

It has two separate but intertwined stories, one about a sports writer try to solve the death of a friend and the other about a rediscovered book by Charles Dickens. Jacobi has different roles in both stories.

I was slightly baffled by some of the vitriolic comments until I read one lady who complained that there was 'some old guy' spouting gobbdygook. That would be Sir Derek Jacobi, giving the 'so much blood' speech by Charles Dickens after the death of Nancy.

Speaking personally, one of the world's greatest living actors reading words by the greatest writer of the 19th Century will do me.

One other thought. While I've never been a huge fan of Vinnie Jones, I was impressed by his range in this and his determination to move outside his usual roles. He deserves credit.

One for people who enjoy something quirky and intelligent.

Let me admit up front: I know the guy who wrote and directed this movie. I like to think I can be objective about it nonetheless, but in an effort to counteract any bias I might feel, I'll try to base this review (and my rating above) on two fairly objective factors.

First, take a look at the cast list: Vanessa Redgrave, Derek Jacobi, and Vinnie Jones. Think about how many movie offers each of them must have at any given moment. You don't get one actor like that (let alone three!) in a low-budget film made by an unknown unless they think there is something special in both the script and the director. Look, there's no reason you should care what I think about this movie--I'm just some anonymous guy on the Internet--but if Vanessa Redgrave, Derek Jacobi, and Vinnie Jones think this film is worth their while, then you should probably pay attention to them.

Second, at a time when the British film industry was in something of a slump, the filmmakers behind "The Riddle" not only made their movie (with an amazing cast), they got it into the hands of 4.5 MILLION PEOPLE. This would be an impressive accomplishment for any film, but for a quirky, ambitious indie movie, it's unprecedented. And as an aspiring independent filmmaker, I find that inspirational.

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.

Its No wonder this was free with the Mail on Sunday, slow going, poor acting, and filming (camera flare, near start of movie, is not even artistic) = Straight to video, but not in this case, why not recoup some of your (Film production costs) by releasing it free with a UK Sunday newspaper, at least this way you get a captive audience, and recover some costs.

I have not given this film a 1 out of 10, due to the effort to pull some old actors out their shell, it was nice to see some old faces (Vanessa Redgrave,this an't no Blow –Up), but Vinnie Jones as a lead, and I think he was better in Gone in 60 seconds when he did not speak.

This Film is dropping in Ratings every day,i think this will find its true mark at the 3-4 out of 10,in the very near Future

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. :(

Everyone on this board acts as if they were just assaulted with meat cleavers.

Okay it's not Citizen Kane. I'd rather sit through this than some mindless film with car chases and explosions every five minutes.

I think, right off, that this film was made for the wrong audience. It reminded me, in an odd way, of a time travel film called "From Time to Time" that starred Maggie Smith. It was an action and adventure film geared toward children - almost like a Hallmark film - but that adults would also enjoy. I think if this film had been made with that type of audience in mind, for television, it might have been better received.

In this film, a woman, Sadie (Vera Day) who runs a London pub is murdered after she finds an unpublished book by Charles Dickens. One of her friends, Mike (Vinnie Jones), a former sports reporter, investigates. He wants to establish himself as an investigative reporter. A police press officer, Kate (Julie Cox), helps him. Also, he is aided by a homeless man.

Following a riddle of Sadie's they find the manuscript. We then go between the time of Dickens and today. The book itself describes a murder, and Mike is interested in that, as he tries to solve what happened to Sadie.

Mike has another project, looking into the death of a construction worker.

This is a tad hard to follow, and the murder of Sadie is easily figured out.

I still think the film had some good ideas and people in it, including Vanessa Redgrave, looking incredibly glamorous as Mike's old boss, and Derek Jacobi. Vera Day, who played Sadie, was a knockout, as you can probably tell, in the '50s, kind of a cross between Kim Novak and Janet Leigh.

I found the beginning more enjoyable, and it moved a little faster. I didn't care for the ending.

The acting was okay, and Vinnie Jones isn't the first sports figure to have a film career, if memory serves.

"The Riddle" is a murder mystery with a historical twist. You get to unravel the riddle just as the actors do-- which is lots of fun! If you like solving puzzles and riddles, you'll love this movie. The intricate plot line is challenging and intriguing. It's witty, original, and intelligent. Derek Jacobi is incredibly compelling and mesmerising in dual roles; Vinnie Jones has a great screen presence and a strong leading-man charisma and physicality; Julie Cox is clever and appealing, and teams very well with Vinnie Jones. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, London itself is one of the stars of this movie. "The Riddle" cleverly showcases London's ongoing struggle to be two entirely different things at once-- a traditional/charming/historical little town and a contemporary/modern/cutting edge city.

As I'm listening to my parents watch this (after I gave up 10 minutes into the film), they have absolutely no idea what is going on. When "Charles Dickens" stared into the camera, I half expected him to turn into a demon (yes, he looked like one). Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

This movie had various reasons I did not finish it: one, it was unbearably slow. I mean, seriously, it was SLOWW. You can only understand 10% of what is said, and the characters were poorly introduced.

If you have an English accent and you like a LOTTT of talking, no action, terrible acting, cheesy laughs, and the same music/sound effects played over and over and over, then this is THE movie for you...

1/10 - completely horrible.

Avoid at all costs.