User Reviews

"Our Mutual Friend," is another well done BBC adaptation of a classic Charles Dickens story, set in the complex London of 1860, beset with the poor, overseen by the unseemly rich with a class structure at it's most delineated.

All of these stories deserve the mini-treatment, to allow us into the sprawl of the period and soak up its language and atmosphere and this is right up there with the best of them. The waterfront sets are magnificent as are the sets for the refuse dump where a lot of the action takes place. The cast is enormous and includes many recognised British names, from Timothy Spall, one of my personal favourites, to Margaret Tyzack, another favourite from the original "Forsyte Saga" series.

Each character is well drawn and complex in all its humanity and struggle for survival. Keely Hawes shines as a woman ill suited to a life on the river, retrieving drowned corpses for their clothes and possessions, and as her counterpart, Anna Friel is sparkling with wit and beauty as a poverty stricken woman striving to acquire a rich husband.

The script is authentic to Dickens and the era, underlaid with a haunting musical score and overlaid with a cinematography that sweeps from the multi-layered greys of the slums and river life to the lush English gardens of the well-to-do and their sumptuous parties.

Much like the mini "Pride and Prejudice", all the plot lines sweep to a happy, clean and simple denouement in the end, but the ride is sure-footed with many interesting characters to bewitch and fascinate along the way and a suspenseful drama to hold interest.

9 out of 10 and not to be missed.

Fine adaptation of a powerful Dickens novel, full of the frustrating spectrum of strengths and weakness inherent in every Dickens story; from the powerful rage he expresses in documenting social injustice, to his goody-two-shoes pedestal-bound heroines. It's about class, love, the river, London, and it's full of great scenes and haunting visuals: witness a tormented Bradley Headstone stalking Eugene Wrayburn through the streets of the City at night. The length of the series does the work justice; the casting is outstanding – expect no less from any good BBC adaptation. The always excellent, underrated Stephen Mackintosh brings complexity and delicacy to his John Rokesmith; Paul McGann gets the best lines; and the entire cast brings the writing to life in a good-looking production - who cares if perhaps it all looks just a tad better than it should. A staple in my DVD collection, highly recommended.

Our Mutual Friend is mostly about stalkers (there are seven). And not only dudes obsessed with beautiful women, but greedy rogues tracking down any embarrassing secrets in the lives of rich public figures, or jealous rivals shadowing their opponents.

Dickens was already fascinated by the idea that we cannot really know what goes on inside the hearts of our fellow men, and Our Mutual Friend further complicates this theme by incorporating the devious facades of high society and its occupants. From a pair of sycophantic social climbers to a one-legged man of letters, no one is what they seem.

As an adaptation, this six-hour TV film is near-perfect, cutting only the most superfluous subplots (Fascination Fledgeby, for instance). The minor characters almost steal the show, providing a coterie of wonderfully mad Dickensian eccentrics (it's hard to pick, but I think my favorite is Timothy Spall's lovelorn Mr. Venus, closely followed by David Bradley's hawkish Rogue Riderhood.)

But the main characters win the day. Our Mutual Friend contains several of the most beautiful relationships I've seen in period drama, thanks chiefly to the talent and charm of the principle actors. The sublimely beautiful Bella Wilfer is a splendid mix of pettiness and elfin charm. Lizzie Hexam is a bit too idealized and posh, but I'm sure old man Dickens would approve. Rokesmith combines mystery and ambiguity with an appealingly quiet dignity. Eugene Wrayburn, on the other hand, is wildly self- destructive and irresponsible, barely pardoned by his waggish charm. Perhaps the best performance of all is Mr. Headstone's, the passionate schoolmaster crippled by insecurity and pride.

The complexities of the plot are also fascinating to negotiate...romance, drama, and obsession thread their way through a ridiculously tangled web of inheritance, blackmail, and murder.

Also, Bella Wilfer's dresses are about the most gorgeous thing ever. If you're a period drama fan, this, my favorite Dickens adaptation of all time, isn't to be missed.

Longer review here: http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2014/07/our-mutual- friend-review.html

"Our Mutual Friend," a sumptuous six-hour adaption of Charles Dickens' last novel, easily establishes itself among the very best of the long-form British adaptions. Visually stunning, with an opulent budget, no other series more accurately captures the feeling of Dickens' England, from the waterfront sets to the huge ensemble cast of oddballs, scum, slime, and heroes.

From the Pre-Raphaelite beauty of Keeley Hawes to the impressively evil and immensely filthy Kenneth Cranham, or the peculiar Timothy Spall, the entire production finds its success in superb casting, with every character fascinating, complex, and human. Anna Friel's heroine is attractively modern without being "inauthentic," which could be applied to the entire cast -- managing to be convincingly Victorian without being inaccessible or unnatural.

The cinematography and score are all topnotch, and the occasional montage scene employing handheld cameras in the vein of "A Hard Day's Night" works, surprisingly. The writer and director juggle the multitude of plotlines with ease, and the narrative is always brisk and sure.

Even when the denouement grows a little silly, with all turning out blissfully right in the end, "Our Mutual Friend" never loses the complete captivation of its audience, thanks to almost too many superb performances directed under a very sure hand and a very smart screenwriter.

With a wealth of characters to fall in love with, "Our Mutual Friend" surely ranks alongside "Martin Chuzzlewit", "Pride and Prejudice", and "Middlemarch" as one of the finest classic mini-series produced.

I've been recently seeing so many good adaptations of classical novels into mini-series, that I am becoming convinced they should never be made into feature length at all. I saw this on video all at once, which was almost six hours long. But, I could not stop watching. The character and plot developed so well, it was like reading a novel in one go. I don't often have the endurance to read a novel in one go. I must be honest I have not read 'Our Mutual Friend'. Often, when I see an adaptation of a novel, I want to read the novel. But this adaptation was so satisfying that I didn't really feel that need.

The performances were slightly varied in style, which seemed to suggest that it was the actors who had the control, not the director. David Morrissey's Bradley Headstone was very realistic, portraying him as a kind of ready to burst, angry and passionate man, as his face often changed color with anger, despair, passion and fear. So Keeley Hawes as Lizzie Hexam, being intimidated by and scared of Headstone was believable. I'd seen Keeley Hawes in the 'Begger Bride' before this, and I was fairly impressed by her portrayal of a completely virtuous character. She easily portrayed the mild, beautiful, and so very modest girl.

This adaptation also had the biggest TV role for Anna Friel at the time. And she was surprisingly good, and I always will expect her to play the feisty role, which is not a bad thing.

So, nice one.

This is the best Charles Dickens' screen adaptation i've ever seen. As soon as i saw it i went out and bought it. I spend entire days watching. the characters are so involving you just have to put in the next tape even if you know what happens. The acting is amazing and the screen play is well written. My sister and I are in love with John. Part of the appeal of this movie is that it is uplifting. Something that i find unusual in Dickens'. the music is great as well and really adds to the emotions of the piece. Be warned it is six hours long, but well worth it.All in all a great movie and anyone who loves a good romance, treachery, or murder mystery should see it because it blends all three. If you haven't seen it see it! If you have seen it, see it again.

Our Mutual Friend is my favourite on-screen adaptation to date, and there are obviously some weighty contenders.

I appreciate that some people think there are too many characters, but most Dickens books are full of many and varied, wonderful characters and I think that Sandy Welch mastered the quantity in adaptation, without cutting out important characters and then sewing the plot closed around them (I still mourn the loss of Orlick from Lean's 'Great Expectations').

The casting and acting in Our Mutual Friend is superb and I feel slightly guilty to pick out certain actors above the rest so I will choose only one to shower with praise, David Morrissey, who performed with such convincing emotional rawness that I hoped for some kind of redemption for Bradley Headstone.

The opening scene gave me goosebumps when it first came on the BBC in 1998 and it sometimes has had that effect since, despite repeat viewings. The atmosphere captures the murk and mystery of the Thames and illustrates the ghoulish occupation of the boatmen.

This murk is matched with some scenes of great beauty, lavish outdoor scenes which celebrate the English countryside, great houses, colourful costumes and the chocolate box cottage. This serves to contrast against the stench of the dust heaps and the grime of Mr Venus's home.

Dear BBC, can you have Sandy or Andrew adapt Dombey and Son sometime soon?!

This is a great adaptation. It is well cast and all the performances are excellent. I particularly liked the performances of David Morrissey as Bradley Hellstone and Stephen Mackintosh as John Rokesmith.

The script remains fairly faithful to the book, and the costumes and scenery give a very convincing Victorian look.

Our Mutual Friend (1998) is a BBC TV mini-series directed by Julian Farino.

Our Mutual Friend was the last novel completed by Charles Dickens. It deals with issues about which Dickens was always concerned--social inequality, the hard lives of the poor, friendship, and love.

This is one of Dickens' most complicated novels--Wikipedia lists 36 characters. The author gives each one of these characters--even the minor ones--a life and personality of her or his own.

The plots is not only complicated, but somewhat forced and unrealistic. This is a movie to be enjoyed for the acting. In fact, the acting is superb. In my opinion, the best acting came from the supporting players. David Bradley portrays Roger (Rogue) Riderhood. He is a character in the novel who starts out fully evil, and ends up still fully evil. One look at Bradley and you think to yourself that here is an actor who was born to play the role.

Kenneth Cranham portrays Silas Wegg, another character with no redeeming virtues. Katy Murphy is excellent as Jenny Wren, a doll's dressmaker. Although Jenny is small, apparently has scoliosis, and is "lame," she has a warm and kind heart. Martin Hancock portrays Sloppy, a young man who is also warm and kind. He too has disabilities, which he strives to overcome.

The two female leads are both lovely, but in a very different way. Keeley Hawes portrays Lizzie Hexam, who is beautiful in an ethereal, Pre-Raphaelite way. She is one of the only characters who is truly good from the beginning until the end of the novel.

The other female lead, Bella Wilfer, starts out the movie obsessed with obtaining money. In Victorian times, this meant marrying a wealthy man. In the beginning of the novel, a marriage of this type appears fully open to her. However, matters don't go smoothly. Bella is a character who matures and changes as the novel progresses. Anna Friel plays Bella. Director Farino chose a actress with perfect beauty, who can portray a woman with almost no warmth or concern for others.

All the actors in this movie are highly talented. However, I give acting honors to Timothy Spall as Mr. Venus. Venus is a taxidermist and "articulator of bones." There is a calculation in everything he does. You can see it in his eyes and in his mannerisms. The man oozes calculation, desire, and venality. It would be worth seeing the movie just to watch Spall act.

Because this film was made for TV, it works well on the small screen. Because it was produced by the BBC, it has high production values. I was pleased to learn that "Our Mutual Friend" has an IMDb rating of 8.3, which is extraordinarily high. If you love Dickens--or even if you don't--this is a movie you'll want to see. Don't miss it!

Both this adaptation and the one from 1976 do justice to Dickens' final novel, and are truly excellent on their own. Talking about preferences though, that is a very hard one as both are so good, for now from this viewer they're about equal in quality with this one getting the slight edge. The book is a mammoth one, very complex with lots of story lines, emotions and characters, a really great piece of literature if like a lot of Charles Dickens difficult to adapt. Excellent is not enough to describe this adaptation as it is one of the best Dickens adaptations I've seen and almost certainly ever been too. Not just that, but also one of the best period dramas of the past 25-30 years or so.

It is a very opulent production, beautifully shot and from the grim streets to the rich aristocracy and waterfront the period detail is rich and stunning to watch. It is not quite as atmospheric as the earlier adaptation(though the scene with Bradley Headstone's stalking of Eugene through the city at night is a very atmospheric, suspenseful and quite haunting scene), but the contrast of the poor and rich is more convincingly done here(just look at the teeth of the poor for example). The haunting music score is noteworthy as well, and the dialogue is sophisticated, funny, whimsical, thoughtful and foreboding and mostly Dickenesian flavour. A couple of parts sound a little too simplified though, and the Weal and Hammer Pie scene was agreed better done in the earlier adaptation, that though is nowhere near enough to hinder anything and to be warranted as a flaw.

Our Mutual Friend(1998) does a terrific job adapting such a complex and layered story, again like most Dickens dramatisations it's long at six hours but always engrossing and never dull. The pacing is beautifully measured, and perhaps more accessible than the 1976 version, which was much more deliberate, effectively so from personal perspective. Though a lot of 1970s-80s Dickens-adapted serials have been criticised for being tedious, a criticism that I myself don't share. The telling of it is very suspenseful with hope at the end, some nice comic moments, whimsy and heart-breaking tragedy complete with an evocative atmosphere and one of the most harrowing suicide scenes you'll ever see. Even with omissions it's also fairly faithful and maintains the spirit of Dickens' writing.

The acting is exceptional all round, and helped by the smart direction and the rich, detailed way the characters are handled. Particularly good are Steven Mackintosh and David Morissey, Mackintosh's performance is restrained, nuanced and assertive- much more convincing age-wise than the Rokesmith in the earlier adaptation- while Morrissey isn't just chilling and tormented but brings tremendous depth to the besotted schoolteacher who descends into obsessive madness. Paul McGann has some great lines, a few among the best of the entire adaptation, and manages to be amusing and dashing. Keeley Hawes is positively luminous and plays Lizzie with great charm and dignity, Lesley Dunlop's interpretation is a little more mature but Hawes is hardly fresh-out-of-finishing-school-type as described in a positive Amazon review of the 1976 adaptation.

Anna Friel is very beautiful as well as witty and charming, Bella is not the most pleasant of characters but Friel brings that across while also making her attractive too. Timothy Spall is humble and appealingly oddball and Peter Vaughan(a sinister Mr Tulkinghorn in the superb 1985 adaptation of Bleak House) and Pam Ferris play the Boffins with great character and gusto. Kenneth Cranham plays Silas Wegg with real ferocity with touches of humour, while David Bradley's Riderhood is cool and calculating and Margaret Tyzack is a formidable presence. Overall, outstanding and among the best Dickens adaptations and period dramas there's been in the past 25-30 years. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This show is slow to start. I found the first half of the first episode not terribly interesting and was tempted to turn it off. Hiwever I stuck with it though and was well rewarded as it got much more interesting. As it went on, I found myself better drawn into the both the plot and characters. The plot is improbable (as Dickens often is) but the acting is superb. I enjoyed all the performances. However for me, David Morrissey's portrayal of the school headmaster - Bradley Headstone was the standout performance. (He is not introduced until episode 2.) He conveys such a wide range of emotions playing the obsessed school master and I find myself simultaneously both despising and pitying his character.

This could have been a fine production but suffesr from two egegrious errors that were common at the time, still are to quite an extent.

1. Overpowering background music. Mood music behind the dialogue and between scenes is pointless and does nothing to enhance the mystery or mood. Granted, it was fashionable but it's annoying none the less.

2. Authentic accents that are hard to understand. This is an ongoing probem in this type of drama. Mumbling in an supposed Victorian accent is clever but makes for a bad drama, especially when overpowered further by music or background sound effects. Clear, distinct dialogue aids understanding and enjoyment even if it is not how characters might be assumed to speak.

This adaptation of Our Mutual Friend is on a par with the BBC 's Bleak House, which was very impressive indeed. As with all of Dickens novels, a ninety minute movie can do them little justice. It was therefore wonderful to see how the director used the six hours to great affect in 'Our Mutual Friend'. The adaptation has no weak or flat spots, and the actors are without question perfect for every character, my own favourites being Mr Boffin, the loch keeper and the 'one legged man. Without detracting from the acting or plot line,the director gives us a sumptuous visual feast, without becoming too 'Dickensian'. I am biased by believing there is no greater creator of story lines and characters than Charles Dickens, and had he been alive today he would have undoubtedly been very heartened at this attempt to bring his genius to the screen.

I love this movie!!! The depth of love and devotion John Harmon has and also the courage Eugene Braburn uses in defying society for love has makes me wonder what happened to the theory of romance. The theme of society verses love is an old one but always fascinating because it is a true choice. I like the many twists and turns of the story. Also every character has a part in this movie, whether it be for example purposes (the wedding of deception) or to tie in some further plot to the story. I am not usually a romantic movie watcher but I loved this one and I will always love this movie...I admire Dickens more than I thought I ever would....I would recommend those who love a good romantic story to watch this movie...

This is a mini-series divided into four segments of about 1 1/2 hours each which tells the story of two couples who find each other despite the class system on 19th century Britain and against the background of terrible poverty. One is a lawyer who falls hopelessly in love with a young girl whose father made his living fishing dead bodies out of the Thames River, removing anything of value on them, and turning them in to the police. His family and friends are shocked and full of scorn and another man who also is smitten tries to kill him. The other is a man whose father leaves him a fortune providing he marries the girl of his father's choice whom he has never met and who is nearly murdered as he comes to meet her, another man who dies is mistaken for him, allowing him to assume a new identity and observe her from a distance. She is money-mad but he falls hopelessly in love with her and, later on, she with him. The story has its share of villains and many surprises. It is well done, well acted, and a delight!

Although I enjoyed the first few installments, slowly but surely a slight feeling of discomfort came over me. With such sentimental authors like Dickens it is difficult to know when you are criticising the director and when the author, and I find it almost impossible to keep them apart in my evaluation of this mini. This comes out best at the very end when all the loose threads are finally resolved. What a bummer! Eventhough I enjoyed the previous installments I felt completely cheated in the last. This is partly Dickens' fault, but some blame is due to the director as well. Throughout the mini he has displayed a marked tendency to concentrate on what would look good rather than on what would work well dramatically. Now I am al for pretty pictures, but as I was approaching the end it just all became a bit too much: the predictable switches between high and low society, the over-the-top staged settings (Bella Wilfer in front of her cottage in the last installment), the stilted switches between scenes. The acting on the other hand was good.

All in all, a bare 8- out 10 (for what is possible in the genre see the first rate mini _Wives and Daughters_ (1999) directed by Nicholas Renton. Then again, Elizabeth Gaskell agrees with me more than Dickens does).

The cast (except for Paul Bailey) was excellent, especially Steven Mackintosh, who did a wonderful job portraying John Harmon. I have never been disappointed by this top-rate actor. Anna Friel, David Morrissey, Timothy Spall, Dominic Mafham, and David Bradley also were wonderful.

The adaptation was also excellent. There were whole chunks of dialogue taken from the novel, and the story followed very closely to the novel as well. All in all an excellent film.

I am giving this a ten out of ten for the acting and the adaptation for film. Not the plot. I was disappointed with the ending of the plot of the book, and naturally, the film follows that plot. The ending is very lame, and I am sure Dickens could have thought up a much better closure. Still, a very high quality film all around. To any one who reads this, see the film in question! Especially to see Steven Mackintosh act...

I haven't read the novel, this being my first exposure to the story. I chose to watch this version because it is 6 hours long and from experience I understand that to be a minimum length of time in which to explore a long move of depth.

The main praise it that one senses that it strives to be thorough and to omit as little of the original characters and plot strands (there are many) as possible. This is commendable in my opinion, as I am someone who watches literary adaptations wishing to gain as a good of an understanding of the source text as possible. However, it is a high risk approach as there is the very real possibility of the show losing focus and trying to spread itself too thinly. This adaptation tows that line carefully, however, does threaten at a number of points to lose itself (though never quite does). I was just about able to follow the story and the context of the scenes and the link between the characters and the plots without it jarring or having to resort to Wikipedia for background research into the characters. Though I cannot critique Dickens as I have not read the novel, I sense that the novel is one of his more spread out in terms of plot and character strands hence the show's challenge in managing this. The show therefore would have benefited from some more exposition scenes in introducing certain characters so that we had a better understanding of them as they were introduced. This would have taken more time but would have been time well spent for such an epic novel.

The acting was first rate all round, except the guy who plays Lizzie Hexham's brother who appeared amateurish. David Morrissey as Headstone was a joy to watch and significantly emotionally affecting. You felt all of his turmoil and whenever he was on screen you never knew what he was going to do next which made for great tension and engagement! His interactions with David Bradley's Rogue Riderhood were also wonderful to watch and Bradley played this part wonderfully.

The production values are what you would expect for 90s television. Not a huge budget and very little visual effects, but the camerawork and editing is often dynamic (as opposed to the static shots you get when you watch older television adaptations) meaning that it is very watchable and remains engaging for a modern audience.

A really good adaption of Dicken's last completed novel. The romances are done quite well and probably appeal better to a modern audience who expect some heartache and pain before a final happy ending might be possible. So as you might expect our two romantic leads don't hit it off when they first encounter each other. There's lots of themes of water and drowning in this story just as we had in Great Expectations and The Old Curiosity Shop. We have some likeable and interesting characters, unrequited loves, social class barriers, great art and costume design. The cast is also fantastic, there's lots of subtext about inheritance and education. The series nicely subverts your expectations and it doesn't follow the conventions we think it might. We might expect the shy inarticulate headmaster to become the romantic hero for instance. Feelings and relationships are just very complicated in this story and the love feels hard earned. There's also some nice use of shadow and lighting too, especially in the London at night parts. There's probably one too many twists, the lead actor comes off a bit bland, but those are my only complaints really. All in all an excellent story that holds up very well to a modern viewer.

This recent BBC filmed version of Dickens' "Our Mutual Friend" was a big budget project that fell far short of lofty ambitions. The film clearly wanted to be a grand sweeping epic of the Victorian Era, but ultimately this story did not have much to say.

Conceived as a massive 6-hour work to be presented in four ninety-minute segments, the plotting is so heavy-handed and obvious, even tedious, that lopping a full quarter out of the whole could only have improved the story and pacing. As it was, the primary plot elements were so unoriginal and timeworn that – even though previously unfamiliar with either this Dickens original book or other filmed adaptations of it – I found no suspense whatsoever to one of the two main plot lines to the story. What Happened was clearly implicit to me from the get-go. The timing of When this What later Happened thus presented comparatively little incentive for my interest..

The fatal script shortcomings of "Our Mutual Friend" appeared to me even more striking by contrast against another recent BBC release – "Under The Greenwood Tree" (2005) – which I had just viewed for the first time a short while previously. Where "Our Mutual Friend" squandered so much time and talent telling an ostentatiously complex story that proved superficial and obvious, "Under The Greenwood Tree" succeeded brilliantly in conveying ... (despite only ninety minutes, and a much smaller budget) ... a deceptively simple story that nonetheless captured layer upon layer of universal relevance and deep meaning.

By no means, however, should the failings of "Our Mutual Friend" be attributed to its performers, who were uniformly excellent from top to bottom.

In form "Our Mutual Friend" presents two separate but occasionally intersecting plot lines. Through the strength of their performances, Steven Mackintosh and Anna Friel brought to the Painfully Obvious half of the story more interest than the weakness of that storyline could otherwise have generated. Paul McGann and Keeley Hawes, however, were even better – though it must be confessed the beautifully modulated tones of Ms. Hawes seemed a long way from the docklands dialect her role suggested. Supporting performances by such veteran character actors as Peter Vaughan and Pam Ferris (as the inimitable Boffins) brought richness and depth to material that otherwise would have been completely forgettable, though if I had to pick one actor who triumphed far and above the limitations inherent in his role it would be David Bradley (best known as Argus Filch from the "Harry Potter" canon) creating a memorably rascally Roger Riderhood.

Sit through "Our Mutual Friend" – once – to enjoy exceptional performances from a great cast of exceptional British actors. Rent – once – but not buy.

3 out of 10.