Prev | 46 of 56 Episodes | Next

IMDb user comments for
"Masterpiece Theatre" The Ruby in the Smoke (2006)


Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 20 comments in total 

19 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
A bit disappointing, 27 December 2006
Author: indigoharmony from United Kingdom

I haven't read "The Ruby in the Smoke" which probably explains my reaction to this film. Anyway, for the other uninitiated amongst you, this is the basic plot - young Sally Lockhart (Billie Piper) is living with her aunt after her father's ship sank. It turns out there is more to this death than it seems, as Sally receives a cryptic note, eventually leading her to a man named Marchbanks who gives her a notebook and tells her she has an enemy called Mrs Holland (Julie Walters, at her villainous best). This leads Sally through a maze of clues and memories, finding out the fate of her father and the truth of her own origins, and the truth of the elusive eponymous ruby.

I feel this would have done very well as a television series, but as a film it merely felt rushed. The characters introduced promised to be interesting, but weren't really properly developed, and I had trouble keeping up with all the twists in the plot, which were rushed by in seconds. Sally seemed like a fascinating character, but her character development was left to a few scenes of her standing up to her aunt and demonstrating her ability for dealing with figures. This left the film feeling somewhat sterile - more of a puzzle than a story.

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Enjoyable, well acted tale, 7 January 2007
7/10
Author: hesketh27 from Southport Lancashire Uk

This Victorian melodrama proved to be very enjoyable, perfect for Christmas time viewing. It was sometimes hard to follow, but the superb period detail and larger than life characters more than made up for this. High production values were evident throughout and The Ruby in the Smoke stood head and shoulders above the BBC's absolutely dreadful adaptation of Dracula, which ran the following night. Good performances from the cast overall. It was nice to see the cute, very likable JJ Feild once again. I was struck with him following his performance in The Secret Life of Mrs. Beeton. His smile and personality light up the screen - we ought to see much more of him. I must admit that Julie Walters is not one of my favourite actresses. In the main, I feel that she overacts and hams it up too much. She did, however, in this production, turn in a superb performance as the malevolent Mrs. Holland. All credit to her. Billie Piper was OK in her usual Billie Piper way. All in all, an entertaining 90 minutes or so, perfect for a cold December evening.

Was the above comment useful to you?

14 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Rushed, 28 December 2006
4/10
Author: sssssstar from United Kingdom

I haven't read 'Ruby in the Smoke' but I have read some of the other Sally Lockheart books. I was hoping that this film would throw some light on a few things, but instead I found it very hard to follow. One minute we were here, the next somewhere else. I found it quite difficult to work out where all the characters fitted in, or why they acted the way they did. I don't think it was the acting, but the script was so rushed, they barely had time to fit in all the slitting of throats and killing everyone off. I'd thought this was a children's book, but I do rather regret letting my kids stay up to watch it. I hope future dramatisations of the books slow down a little for the sake of clarity. Surely, if you're going to do a drama like this with all the scenery, clothes and atmosphere, you should try to do it justice and not rush it?

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
A bit above average, 27 December 2006
6/10
Author: wardee13 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The book translated fairly well to TV, but there were elements that were changed too much to feel like as cohesive a story as the novel. For instance, Trembler was not in the film.

Piper was an alright Lockheart; Her acting was good for the most part, but she didn't portray the composure that Sally is given in the book.

Mr. Berry was by far my favourite actor, he really brought to life the sheer dumb muscle that he has in the book. The fights with him, while short, were very well and convincingly done - he came across brilliantly.

Generally speaking, the acting and casting was good, though I didn't like JJ Feild as Garland. His acting was fine, but he just didn't seem lively and... innocent, I suppose, enough to play him. I only disliked the acting of Mrs. Reeves. She wasn't callous enough, and her lines were delivered more as if she was trying to remember them properly than deliver them with any conviction.

As for the plot, it was good enough if you have acute knowledge of the text, but bits were skipped, and, in my opinion, not nearly enough significance or back-story was given to the Ruby, nor was Sally's character or relationship with her father. As I mentioned before, the lack of Trembler was disappointing, though to be fair he isn't an essential plot-driving character. The ending though seemed awfully rushed, such as the talk in which Sally learns everything about her past, was very brief, and Sally knew far more than she did in the book. The same goes for her talk with Ah Ling.

As a whole, it just felt far too rushed, and bits that were given fine and detailed description in the book were sometimes skipped altogether. Some scene continuity was inexplicably changed as well. The chief culprit of this is when Sally is talking to Frederick in the shop about whether he takes her seriously, and Rosa burst in. In the book, it is Tremlber who bursts in, and with news of Adelaide being kidnapped. This could have been done as Jim bursting in, which would have felt far more plot-driving and fluid than Rosa, as they could just as easily have kept talking after Rosa came and went.

Also, the atmosphere didn't make me think of the 1800s; it all seemed a bit too pristine and tidy. And there was the odd technical error in scenery: a gravel road with tyre-worn tracks clearly visible, because the centre was grassy while the edges had no plantlife. I considered that this could have been the doing of horse-drawn carriages, but then the road would certainly not have appeared so clean and fresh.

It's worth a watch if you enjoyed the novel, but it just didn't capture the novel for me. Too much was overlooked to make it really good for a fan of the book. Another thirty to ninety minutes would have greatly improved the potential as a film; far too much was skipped, and the rest was too rushed to make much sense if you don't know the book. Perhaps making short series would have been able to feel more cohesive.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
A bit frantic, 10 January 2007
7/10
Author: steve-3171 from United Kingdom

First thing: I've not read the book. Comments have been seen elsewhere that Billie Piper didn't fit the character described in the books, but of course I wouldn't know. All I can say is that I've watched this movie and mostly liked what I saw.

Costumes looked believable, the sets looked OK, but budget constraints meant that camera angles seemed to be carefully constrained to keep the Victorian exterior shots looking authentic. This was evidently easier in the docks scenes (filmed mostly in Liverpool I believe?) than in the city's nicer streets.

The character acting was a bit of a problem for me. Don't get me wrong, the actors did a fine job with what they had, they just seemed to be rather shallow. You meet them, they do their stuff, they go again. Maybe this is a feature of the story being based on a children's' book (I find the same problem in the Harry Potter movies).

To compensate for this, it seemed that the whole story was rather "rushed" as if to try and inject some action to try and cover the shallow characters. There were IMHO far too many named characters introduced at breakneck speed, sometimes only to do one or two small things and then go again. I spent most of my time trying to remember who everyone was. Maybe this was just me not paying attention, but I've heard similar complaints elsewhere.

I liked the atmosphere of the whole thing, and (contrary to some opinions) thought Billie Piper in the lead role was just fine. I look forward to the next one in the series hoping for slightly fewer confusing incidental characters!

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Upswing for Masterpiece Theatre, 4 February 2007
9/10
Author: Paul Creeden from Boston, MA, USA

Well, I have to say I approached this Victorian thriller with a great deal of pessimism, after being disappointed repeatedly by Masterpiece Theatre (PBS/WGBH) in recent years. Helen Mirren's final 'Prime Suspect', which aired recently, had returned my interest in the honorable, high-road TV series, which had been mired in humorlessly rendered Miss Marple, mediocre Sherlock Holmes, and another tiresome Jane Eyre. Julie Walters has saved the day in this wonderfully crisp and nicely produced Victorian thriller with a young female lead, several refreshing new faces and an excellent TV script. Miss Walters puts in a chilling performance, as notable as her work in 'Educating Rita' and 'Billy Elliot'. What a relief! I would have been quite sad if it had been otherwise. The pace of this production reminds me of the Jeremy Brett 'Sherlock Holmes' of twenty years ago. The strength of this piece is the chain of excellent female characters, major and minor. It has mood and visual production values which captivate, despite their simplicity. I am so pleased to be back as a fan.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Great story, well cast, but a bit constrained for time, 19 August 2007
6/10
Author: LouE15 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This show was a rare highlight in an atrocious 2006/7 Christmas TV schedule in the UK. Philip Pullman, author of the original story, captured my attention along with many millions of others with his extraordinary "Dark Materials" trilogy, so I was quite happy to give this film a try, not yet having read the book. I found an entertaining story, nicely but hurriedly told, enlightened casting (which I always award extra points for, seeing it's so rare) and a nice take on a period drama. Sally Lockhart (Billie Piper) is an orphan in Victorian London. Her unhappy life takes a new, and dangerous turn, when a message she receives from the past causes a death, and sets off a trail of events that will lead her down some very murky London streets, and bring her into contact with a large cast of characters, including the horrible Mrs Holland, and the charming photographer Fredercik Garland.

I found it constrained by the need to tell a complex story with a large cast of characters in a short space of time. Why is everyone so afraid the audience will be bored and turn off if it goes on for too long? Even hyperactive adults can concentrate when they're engrossed… I think also the suitable-for-all-ages requirement was something of a barrier to the story – perhaps a few more risks, with a guidance warning, would have compensated for the haste, but a short series would have been better still.

I really like Billie Piper; she's a luminous actress with a great screen presence. But the natural qualities and the vitality of her performance in the BBC's "Doctor Who" series seemed to have been literally squeezed out of her by her corsetry. The Victorians certainly knew how to keep a woman in her place: it's all she can do to stand and sit and walk correctly, in a ladylike manner, and these eclipse her acting. I also think what her character most needed was a foil, some goody-two shoes young model of excellence in the frame, to set off how Sally's unique upbringing had set her irretrievably apart, even to her own detriment, from her fellow-girls.

The excellent and charismatic JJ Field (very good in the recent ITV production of "Northanger Abbey"), and Hayley Atwell, were luckier in their Bohemian characters, whose breezy approach to life came across very well. Matt Smith's cockney narrator Jim Taylor, and David Harewood's dual parts as two brothers were both very well played. Julie Walters is terrific – and truly scary – as the very bad Mrs Holland. Not many actresses are altruistic enough to play a much older woman than they are, ugly and evil to boot.

I've subsequently read and enjoyed the book, and feel now that the BBC did the very best they could within a difficult time slot. The sets and general atmosphere were very well created, and I never had a sense of sacrifices having been made to budget, as with so many past BBC dramatisations. I look forward to seeing more of some of these young emerging actors, and I note that another Sally Lockhart story is in production - hopefully with the next one we get more of a chance to know Sally better.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Entertaining enough I suppose but not strong enough to really grip me or make me eager to learn more about the characters, 24 February 2007
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

Sally Lockhart is left orphaned when her seafaring father goes down with his ship. Left with only her father's journal to remember him by, Sally is sent to the home of a stiff Aunt. Here she receives a letter that brings her to the offices of her father's employers but the contents of the note are sufficient to kill the man she shows it to. The mystery of "the seven blessings" continues as Major Marchbanks warns Sally of a dangerous enemy called Mrs Holland. Sally flees on his warning and finds herself pursued by Mrs Holland as both seek the whereabouts of a ruby, hidden by her father and protected by riddles and clues.

I have never read the books by Phillip Pullman so I can't really comment on how this film compares with the character as written, however this may also be a good thing as I don't have to worry myself about making comparisons across media. This film was screened at New Years and represented a big part of the BBC's festive line-up and was pushed as a result. I wasn't sure what to expect from it but found it relatively enjoyable as a bit of a period mystery. It doesn't really hang together though as the mystery tends to have peaks and troughs even across the comparatively short running time. The central thread concerning Mrs Holland and the ruby is engaging but the rest is not so good and seems to ask the audience just to go along with it.

A part of this failing can be laid at the feet of the cast. Piper in particular seems very bland and uninteresting throughout. She had a bit of something about her in Dr Who but here she seems to be restraining it as part of her character – which is an approach that doesn't work. In the words of a far less kind commentator – she appears to spend more time focusing on keeping her upper lip pulled down over her big teeth! Walters is much better in her role and her parts of the film are easily the strongest and more enjoyable. Smith is a bit too cheeky-chappie for my liking, while Field, Anderson, Gilet, Maudsley and others are all solid enough in their roles. Atwell was a nice find though, but her good looks and easy performance only served to highlight the weaknesses in Piper's performance.

The direction is good though and the whole film looks good with strong sets and costumes, however none of these make up for the rather disjointed delivery and flow. Entertaining enough I suppose but not strong enough to really grip me or make me eager to learn more about the characters.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Complex and quite fascinating, 2 June 2008
10/10
Author: drharper from United Kingdom

OK, I admit it- I haven't read the book.... But that meant that my sudden and unexpected encounter with this little gem came as a complete surprise. OK (again), Billie Piper was Billie Piper- she is no Larry Olivier or Alec Guinness to submerge herself in the role, but she was perfectly fine as the central character. Julie Walters was genuinely brilliant (and quite terrifyingly malign) along with her supporting cast of interestingly flawed villains. But what made it for me was the total lack of "well, just let me explain..." and "as you already know...". The viewer was left to work things out! Oh JOY!!! Especially since I watched it directly after the explanation-studded car crash that was the Da Vinci Code (didn't live up to the book, apparently- wow, that must have taken some doing). The sheer entertainment value of not having everything laid out and the understanding of it idiot-proofed was immense. Period detail was excellent, lots of fascinating little details thrown in just for the love of it all. Truly excellent, utterly enjoyable. Watch the next one!

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Quick Comment, 11 January 2007
7/10
Author: Crusify_Me from Canada

I think really for you to understand the movie you have got to read the book first. Its a fairly short read and can clear some of the confusion people have with the movie. Like the guy before me, I think the scenes do jump around quite quickly so you have to pay constant attention. They actors I thought were pretty decent and I thought that Billie Piper was the perfect pick to act out Sally Lockhart. She has those eyes that just caught my attention and right at the start of the movie I could identify her as Sally.

Overall a pretty good movie but i thought it should've have been up around 2 hours long at least since they rushed the movie a little. However, I do hope that they will film the next movie soon because I'm a decent fan of this book series.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user comments Your vote history