Ruth Rendell Mysteries (1987–2000) User Reviews

It's a very watchable series.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 30 September 2020]

I love this series, if you're after heavy drama, action, blazing guns, forget it, this wouldn't be for you, but if you're a fan of clever, engaging, character driven mysteries, this series could well be for you.

It's a real shame that the vast majority of this series has never been made commercially available, but I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll get to see them. I believe there are contractual issues, some are available from Germany though.

Of course Wexford is the main focus, he appears in some truly wonderful episodes, among my favourites are A Sleeping Life and Achilles heel, both are excellent, unique mysteries. Sometimes they can be a little drawn out, but such is the style of the mystery. I'm not such a lover of the much later episodes.

Baker and Ravenscroft to a fine job, watch out for Peter Capaldi and Annette Crosbie.

I have always thought this series would be a great one to revive, they could add a real touch of magic to it.

Why no cast list

[Sulla-2 · 11 August 2005]

Why no cast list for this very popular TV programme of the 90's. It should really have been called ' Wexford ' The star, Detective Chief Inspector Reg Wexford is played by George Baker a very experienced and accomplished UK actor. The programme is set in rural England, probably Hampshire. Wexford is a good old fashioned reliable solid British Policeman. We are not talking here about gruesome murders or car chases. We are talking about traditional detection methods and a Policemen who has integrity and the trust of the public. In truth Baker looks that he is old enough to retire for the whole of the series. He is assisted by a younger Inspector Burden ( Christopher Ravenscroft)and his attractive wife played by Diane Keen.

They made 48 episodes???

[r_cantrell-56717 · 1/10 · 22 September 2018]

We read the reviews and thought it would be a great series. The first story was carried over 4 episodes. Could have been done in an hour and still not with it! After the first episode, we were stunned and underwhelmed. However, we continued to watch (and FF where possible) to get to the merciful conclusion of the storyline. The worst "police" we've seen in any series. No focus. No passion except when they overacted. We read that Ruth Rendell based Wexford on herself. Passionless (except when overacting), no real ability to reason or solve crimes - so how was she able to write if she's like her character??? We will not waste our time on the remaining 44 episodes.

Rediculous

[pmemrich · 3/10 · 3 February 2020]

I saw "Master of the Moor and it was very poorly done many respects except for the acting and I wasted my time viewing it. Fortunately it was the only bad experience I have had with Netflix. I just thought Ruth Rendell was a better writer.

A Septic Oyster

[tedg · 29 December 2007]

Nearly all of my viewing is set up by recommendations from viewers, or separate, established agendas.

But sometimes I watch something completely random, or nearly so. There are many failures, of course, which makes the successful surprises so much sweeter. This is billed as a Ruth Rendell mystery. It must be based on a story by her, but it is hardly a mystery. In fact it is sort of a parody of the genre, and not at all unsubtle.

It is in fact rather bizarre. I usually do not mention the story in comments, but I see this is not well populated in IMDb. It is not good enough for me to ask you to seek it out.

An elderly couple come back to the town they left 35 years previously. The wife is bonkers, both characters drawn very cleverly and unusually. They meet an eccentric old man, the wife's former lover. For reasons that are not easily synopsized, the wife and the former lover decide to reinvestigate an old murder. They do this over the objections of the husband.

Its quite clever how it is set up initially, with many of the trappings of a classic British mystery with our capering Tommy and Tuppance like couple snooping around. But the thing slowly devolves into something close to Lynch. The husband tries to poison his wife to stop her. The old boyfriend takes over. There's a bench-burning. It really is odd, but very well done. Very well, in the way it creeps into throwing back at you what you expected.

The story revolves around images: visions, art and misinterpretation.

And the actors! The wife was the screwee in "Draughtsmans' Contract" and again in "Singing Detective," both remarkable characters. The husband was the long time Dr. Watson. The screwy old man played a similar role in a 1967 (!) movie with Anthony Quinn. The "woman from the past" was the sexual object in "Tom Jones." Someone was thinking here.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Terribly slow, no action.

[tbbwtf · 1/10 · 25 July 2021]

Terribly slow. No action. Boring. Very few supporting actors. Waste of time.

It's like watching paint dry

[martin-intercultural · 1/10 · 30 September 2022]

I love a good British mystery, especially of the pre-2000 variety. Hence I was excited when YouTube suggested I watch a few episodes of Ruth Rendell.

But boy, what a disappointment. What could be a reasonably entertaining (and even then, hardly more than that) 30-minute story gets shamelessly dragged out into four (4) episodes of 50 minutes each. Someone's getting married? Great; let's show the church; the guests arriving; the brides sashaying down the isle; the ceremony; the 'Just Married'; the couple driving off on their honeymoon. Etc. Etc. Never mind that it serves no purpose in the story whatsoever.

I can see how a lonely old person in the 1980s, with a total of two programs on their black-and-white telly, might give it a go. But for today's viewer, this show is the definition of boring.