Had you told me prior to watching "The Riddle" Vinnie "Juggernaut" Jones was starring in a movie with Vanessa Redgrave and Derek Jacobi, I would have laughed. Seriously, "I´m the Juggernaut, bitch" with British-and acting-royalty? Those names don´t compute for me. After watching the feature, it turns out to be the least bewildering aspect of the production.
Mike Sullivan (Jones) is a sports reporter itching to cover something over than dog races. His abrasive attitude doesn´t ingratiate him to a local detective (P. H. Moriarty), though a police press liaison takes a liking to him. When a friend-and pub owner-dies, Sullivan begins to follow the story, but where it ends up taking him spans centuries.
The acting is the least of the problems in "The Riddle." Really, it happens to be the strong suite, with a remarkably adept Jones in the lead and a solid roster of actors backing him up. Redgrave, in only two scenes, brings to the screen a villainous cold newspaper publisher in the mold of Glenn Close or Meryl Streep. She is by far the scariest character in the entire piece, more than the actual villain, even. And then there´s Derek Jacobi, one of many actors pulling double roles. As a homeless man and Charles Dickens, Jacobi presents a mirror image of the same person (hint hint). While Dickens is calm and logical through his part of the story, the tramp is a nearly unhinged person, a loose cannon, if you will. With the simple addition of a rain slicker and colored hair, Jacobi presents a man in the pre- and post- phases of loss.
Writer/director/producer Brendan Foley´s script lets down the actors. Foley tries to combine too many disparate elements into a cohesive story without bothering to answer the questions posed. The dueling subplots of the pub keeper´s death and an unpublished Dickens manuscript don´t gel at any point in the two hour film; instead, they compete for time, pushing one another out of the way with no good reason, accompanied by awkward transitions. (Jacobi as flashback Dickens suddenly appears on the screen, narrating the final story.) The story of the current day murder or the one we´re told of in the final manuscript would have worked on its own. Together, though, they butt heads, forcing the audience to try to piece together their relationship.
Turns out, shock of shocks, the similarities are strikingly sparse, tied together in the last scene by a plot contortion with no basis in any realistic fact. I won´t spoil it here, mind you. Just be prepared. I´m also being purposely vague as to plot specifics because of the genre "The Riddle" plays in. To mention one aspect of the plot may serve to unravel the entire thing.
I´m sure you´re asking where the dickens Dickens comes into the picture, right? Pub keep Sadie (Vera Day) finds the last story-"The Riddle," clever right?-and winds up dead shortly afterward. Mike solves a riddle to find it…but why? It doesn´t add anything to the murder investigation, nor is there an insight Mike hasn´t thought of. Without any concrete tie to the main plot, each and every flashback to Dickens means nothing in the grand scheme of things. (The final twist I´ve alluded to ties in, but it´s so convoluted I still don´t believe Foley didn´t rethink it.)
And therein lays my biggest gripe with "The Riddle": instead of being a straight up murder mystery/romance, it wastes too much time with Dickens. Not enough is spent on the actual investigation or Mike piecing the clues together. People and evidence seems to fall into his lap at random intervals to keep the story advancing forward. Secondary characters, all of whom play a part in the finale, are dropped for prolonged periods of time in the narrative to make room for Dickens. Either is a viable idea for a movie. But throwing them together? It´s a haphazard mesh of plot elements.
In its defense, Foley´s script keeps the action flowing in both time periods, not stopping long enough to dwell on any one event or to take the time to document burgeoning relationships in any real detail. Take Kate (Julie Cox) and Mike. Their romantic relationship is glimpsed in small spurts, almost like snapshots instead of being shown in every painstaking detail. Even if the screenplay messes up the story it is trying to tell, it doesn´t become boring. It´s something at least.
VIDEO:
Though the original 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen aspect ratio is respected, I can´t help but feel the video presentation of "The Riddle" could have been better. Roughly half the film looks okay, despite the presence of grain and soft details. It´s the other half-the half taking place in the dark or low light areas-which presents the problem. To be succinct, the grain is magnified when the lights go down to the point of distracting attention from the action. It´s an almost muddy affair, perhaps on purpose and perhaps not. I paused a random "flashback" moment with Charles Dickens. The result was something straight off a well-used VHS tape: white flecks all over the screen, like snow. Artifacts also pop up early on, most noticeably of the black variety, though they taper off after the first fifteen minutes.
AUDIO:
Both the 5.1 and 2.0 English tracks are serviceable mixes without any counterpart problems of the things seen in the transfer. In a rare change, the 5.1 variety sounds a bit louder coming from the front speakers than the other one does. Ambient sounds, like water crashing on the banks of the Thames, are rendered adequately, if unremarkably. A minor gripe: the dialogue mix is either too low in portions of the film or the score is ratcheted too high. I had a very hard time understanding the dialogue. (Some of the issue could be the British slang and accent.) English and Spanish subtitles are included.
EXTRAS:
A bevy of trailers for Image Entertainment product: "My Brother is an Only Child" (1:55), "The Secret" (2:06), "Walker Payne" (1:22) and "The Riddle" (1:34).
PARTING THOUGHTS:
"The Riddle" is a film too complex for its own good. Gaps in logic (the end, hint hint) are never adequately addressed while the finale showdown borders on the ludicrous. The acting talent is above reproach and the location shooting in the United Kingdom adds to the mystique. I venture to think this would have worked better without the Dickens nonsense.