This is a remarkable little movie that has never reached classic status for some reason. Aside from an incredible cast, all of whom suit the dignified proceedings admirably, there are two other stars who lift this film above the level of an excellent thriller. One is the production design. The old Hollywood style of foggy streets and dark alleys, with sinister cabs skulking along, is the stuff nightmares are made of. The East End is horrible, a hell on earth. The other unsung hero is the music. A beautiful soundtrack which ranges from chilling strings and harps to the charming end music. Christopher Plummer is fabulous as Holmes, heroic and ingenious but with a strong sympathy which no other actor in the role apart from Jeremy Brett has captured. His scenes with Mason are a joy; the pair really work together, complete with catchphrases and a mutual respect. Donald Sutherland is also captivating as Robert Lees...his eyes are those of a man living in helpless terror. The film's finest moment is the scene between Holmes and Annie Crook. Genevieve Bujould is heartbreaking in the role,a perfect piece of casting despite her accent, and Holmes' reaction to her plight is deeply moving. Make no mistake, the theory of the Ripper murders is barmy, but wonderful entertainment. It does slander Sir Charles Warren and Lord Salisbury unbelievably; Anthony Quayle puts in a gloriously over the top turn in repulsive corruption. There is an interesting subtext to the film as well, namely the fight between decency and corruption. Annie's innocence and goodness is uncorrupted even by her plight, and the decency of Mary Kelly is a ghost that hangs over the last half an hour. The end credits are beautiful, with gorgeous theatrical and old-fashioned cast and credits, such as "Frank Finlay was Inspector Lestrade." There is decency in the most unlikely of places, and Holmes and Watson are the solid rocks while around them people sink and swim in the chaos. A moving, brilliantly realised and frightening film.
118 Reviews
Original and nice Sherlock Holmes movie
ma-cortes1 July 2004
This isn't an adaptation based on Arthur Conan Doyle novels , the plot line is a fictional story . The fable mingles Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Jack the Ripper. In the film appears Doctor Watson (James Mason) and Constable Lestrade (Frank Finlay) but not Doctor Moriarty though there is doubt if he's the murderous ; will be the killer? . The plot has a twisted ending and contains outstanding surprises .
The movie displays a first-rate set design and is very atmospheric . The shady and spooky slums are pretty well designed . Some shots create creepy and horror moments . The film blends thriller , suspense , detective action , terror and a little gore and is quite interesting . Acting by Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes is excellent , likeness to Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett as TV Sherlock ; furthermore James Mason as Watson is sublime . Other secondary actors are David Hemmings , Susan Clark , Frank Finlay , Genevieve Bujold , all of them are splendid . In 2002 the Hughes Brothers made a special version with Johnny Depp titled "From Hell" . Rating: 7 , above average . Well worth seeing .
The movie displays a first-rate set design and is very atmospheric . The shady and spooky slums are pretty well designed . Some shots create creepy and horror moments . The film blends thriller , suspense , detective action , terror and a little gore and is quite interesting . Acting by Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes is excellent , likeness to Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett as TV Sherlock ; furthermore James Mason as Watson is sublime . Other secondary actors are David Hemmings , Susan Clark , Frank Finlay , Genevieve Bujold , all of them are splendid . In 2002 the Hughes Brothers made a special version with Johnny Depp titled "From Hell" . Rating: 7 , above average . Well worth seeing .
Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper
preppy-324 December 2006
In 1888 London, Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. Watson (James Mason) are asked by a citizen's group to find and stop Jack the Ripper. For some reason the police don't want Holmes to investigate. However he does and as the bodies pile up Holmes and Watson slowly uncover a trail that might lead to the highest reach of British government.
This was released and died VERY quickly in 1979. I'm probably one of the few people who saw it in a theatre. The critics almost unanimously praised it, it had a huge cast of good actors...but it just died. That's too bad because this is a very good Sherlock Holmes film.
It's atmospheric (LOTS of foggy streets), has exquisite production design and is beautifully directed by Bob Clark (I love the way the first murder is done--very effective). Also the acting is great. Plummer gives a very good, different interpretation of Holmes--he makes him more emotional than other actors have...but it works. Mason nicely underplays the role of Watson--he does not make him a bumbling fool like Nigel Bruce did back in the 1940s. In small roles Susan Clark, John Gielgud and especially Genevieve Bujold are excellent. Donald Sutherland, Anthony Quayle and David Hemmings unfortunately are not that good.
There are some problems with this movie though. It's too long (a long sequence involving Watson and some prostitutes could have been completely cut) and is needlessly convoluted. Also they throw politics in the plot which seems out of place. And, strangely, Holmes' deductive reasoning is almost never used. He comes across more as a protector of the people than a detective. Plummer's performance though carries it through. It's quite bloody too--not enough for an R rating but pretty strong for the PG it got back then (PG-13 wasn't a rating yet).
Reservations aside though, I think this is one of the best Holmes' film ever made. Recommended.
This was released and died VERY quickly in 1979. I'm probably one of the few people who saw it in a theatre. The critics almost unanimously praised it, it had a huge cast of good actors...but it just died. That's too bad because this is a very good Sherlock Holmes film.
It's atmospheric (LOTS of foggy streets), has exquisite production design and is beautifully directed by Bob Clark (I love the way the first murder is done--very effective). Also the acting is great. Plummer gives a very good, different interpretation of Holmes--he makes him more emotional than other actors have...but it works. Mason nicely underplays the role of Watson--he does not make him a bumbling fool like Nigel Bruce did back in the 1940s. In small roles Susan Clark, John Gielgud and especially Genevieve Bujold are excellent. Donald Sutherland, Anthony Quayle and David Hemmings unfortunately are not that good.
There are some problems with this movie though. It's too long (a long sequence involving Watson and some prostitutes could have been completely cut) and is needlessly convoluted. Also they throw politics in the plot which seems out of place. And, strangely, Holmes' deductive reasoning is almost never used. He comes across more as a protector of the people than a detective. Plummer's performance though carries it through. It's quite bloody too--not enough for an R rating but pretty strong for the PG it got back then (PG-13 wasn't a rating yet).
Reservations aside though, I think this is one of the best Holmes' film ever made. Recommended.
very nice
movieman_kev17 August 2004
Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. John Watson (James Mason) with a little help from a phsychic (Donald Sutherland) become embroiled in the Jack-the-ripper case. This intermingling of real and fictional charecters is for the most part intriging and for my money, much more enjoyable than the more recent "From Hell" (But then again, if ANYone can make a valid adaption of anything by Alan Moore, please tell me). However, not the best Serlock Holmes movie I've seen and Plummer, while a fairly good Holmes, is still second to Jeremy Brett. All in all another strong accomplishment by the great Bob Clark (Porky's, A Christmas Story and Black Christmas are classics all) this time working with a John Hopskins script. By the way, I have yet to see "A Study in Terror" and thus can't make any comparisions or any thesis on which is better.
My Grade: B+
DVD Extras: Commentary by Bob Clark; poster and stills gallery; Behind-the-scenes still gallery; Talent bios; and theatrical trailer
DVD-ROM: Screenplay
My Grade: B+
DVD Extras: Commentary by Bob Clark; poster and stills gallery; Behind-the-scenes still gallery; Talent bios; and theatrical trailer
DVD-ROM: Screenplay
Stick with this one through the confusing portions...it all works out great by the end.
planktonrules11 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I am a Sherlock Holmes purist, so I am VERY quick to pick apart various Holmes films--looking for the inconsistencies from the original Conan Doyle novels. However, of all the stories I have seen that use these characters that were not based on the writer's original stories, this is among the best. The biggest reason is that the writer seemed to actually have read the stories and knew the characters. The best thing about it is that Watson (played by James Mason) is NOT a bumbling idiot but a brave and reasonably clever man--just like in the original stories. This is a HUGE plus. As for Holmes, Christopher Plummer is not the best but he's better than most. He does NOT say 'elementary my dear Watson' or other such drivel that did not appear in the original tales and he dresses without the stereotypical deerstalker cap and pipe--again, like the original stories. He isn't perfect, though, as you really don't see as much of the deductive skill as you might expect--he's much more human in this story.
The story is a WHAT IF--what if Sherlock Holmes had been real and actually investigated the murders attributed to Jack the Ripper. The story is VERY complex and VERY rewarding. However, I must point out that it's easy to feel a bit lost later in the film and you should NOT stop watching. Stick with it--the payoff is great and everything is tied together very well. I am not sure, however, if Arthur Conan Doyle ever would have written such a story as it's tone is very anti-British Empire! I could say more, but it would spoil the film. Overall, excellent acting, very good writing and direction. Well worth seeing and a commendable effort by all.
The story is a WHAT IF--what if Sherlock Holmes had been real and actually investigated the murders attributed to Jack the Ripper. The story is VERY complex and VERY rewarding. However, I must point out that it's easy to feel a bit lost later in the film and you should NOT stop watching. Stick with it--the payoff is great and everything is tied together very well. I am not sure, however, if Arthur Conan Doyle ever would have written such a story as it's tone is very anti-British Empire! I could say more, but it would spoil the film. Overall, excellent acting, very good writing and direction. Well worth seeing and a commendable effort by all.
A Kinder, Gentler Holmes.
rmax3048238 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The screenplay by John Hopkins isn't especially gripping, innovative, or convincing. How could it be? The records of Jack the Ripper have been neglected, pilfered by souvenir hunters for more than a century, until nothing is left of the man but the mythos -- and Sherlock Holmes never existed in the first place. The plot has red herrings and lots of disparate threads only pulled together when Holmes confronts the Prime Minister at the end. Something about the royal family, Freemasons, and a lost child.
But I found the film fairly impressive for a number of reasons. One is Christopher Plummer's take on Sherlock Holmes. He doesn't give us the quick and commanding presence of Basil Rathbone or the shambling "by-the-way" demeanor of Arthur Wontner or the tic-ridden quirkiness of Jeremy Brett. Plummer is gentlemanly and thoughtful. He's held in awe by no one, least of all Lestrade. He gets into scraps -- and loses. He fails in his attempt to save the life of the last victim. At one point he's moved to tears. In other words he's like the rest of us, only better at what he does.
James Mason is comfortable in the role of Dr. Watson but he was getting on and seems a little muffled. Still, what levity there is comes from Mason's character. He gets felt up by a whore in a louche pub. Earlier he tries to spear the last pea on his dinner plate with his fork. The clinking annoys Plummer, who squashes the pea. Mason gazes ruefully at the remains and mutters something about how he doesn't like a pea to be smashed. He likes the way a pea entire feels when it pops in his mouth.
The rest of the cast is up to its usual professional standards and, wow, how did they happen on so many Canadians -- Sutherland, Bujold, Clark, Moore, Plummer? Medals should go to production design, art direction, and set decoration. It's a believable London in the 1880s. Not just the cobblestone, crooked, spectral streets, the veil of smog, or the board gates that open onto ominous brick-lined alleys, but the specific feel of the place. I mean things like the evenly spaced hitching posts along the sidewalks. Who remembered such a necessary detail? The direction by Bob Clark is functional and lacking in self-indulgent display and unnecessary gore. He should get a medal too, just for keeping out of the way of the story and for not shoving our faces into Mary Kelly's intestines. Clark's career at least included this little gem and another terrifying story of a Vietnam veteran, often classed as an old-fashioned horror movie, "Dead of Night." These two can be found among a bevy of commercial potboilers, such as "From the Hip," which is distinguished only by my own magnificent performance in the key role of a courtroom artist who, in his few minutes of screen time, is always out of focus in the background. "Porky's" I won't even mention. Well, I see I HAVE mentioned it -- but stet.
But I found the film fairly impressive for a number of reasons. One is Christopher Plummer's take on Sherlock Holmes. He doesn't give us the quick and commanding presence of Basil Rathbone or the shambling "by-the-way" demeanor of Arthur Wontner or the tic-ridden quirkiness of Jeremy Brett. Plummer is gentlemanly and thoughtful. He's held in awe by no one, least of all Lestrade. He gets into scraps -- and loses. He fails in his attempt to save the life of the last victim. At one point he's moved to tears. In other words he's like the rest of us, only better at what he does.
James Mason is comfortable in the role of Dr. Watson but he was getting on and seems a little muffled. Still, what levity there is comes from Mason's character. He gets felt up by a whore in a louche pub. Earlier he tries to spear the last pea on his dinner plate with his fork. The clinking annoys Plummer, who squashes the pea. Mason gazes ruefully at the remains and mutters something about how he doesn't like a pea to be smashed. He likes the way a pea entire feels when it pops in his mouth.
The rest of the cast is up to its usual professional standards and, wow, how did they happen on so many Canadians -- Sutherland, Bujold, Clark, Moore, Plummer? Medals should go to production design, art direction, and set decoration. It's a believable London in the 1880s. Not just the cobblestone, crooked, spectral streets, the veil of smog, or the board gates that open onto ominous brick-lined alleys, but the specific feel of the place. I mean things like the evenly spaced hitching posts along the sidewalks. Who remembered such a necessary detail? The direction by Bob Clark is functional and lacking in self-indulgent display and unnecessary gore. He should get a medal too, just for keeping out of the way of the story and for not shoving our faces into Mary Kelly's intestines. Clark's career at least included this little gem and another terrifying story of a Vietnam veteran, often classed as an old-fashioned horror movie, "Dead of Night." These two can be found among a bevy of commercial potboilers, such as "From the Hip," which is distinguished only by my own magnificent performance in the key role of a courtroom artist who, in his few minutes of screen time, is always out of focus in the background. "Porky's" I won't even mention. Well, I see I HAVE mentioned it -- but stet.
Well-made, well-acted and solid Sherlock Holmes outing
TheLittleSongbird31 March 2013
Murder By Decree may not be quite perfect. Donald Sutherland is both underused and out of place in scenes that felt somewhat thrown in, the ending is a little tacky and lacking in mystery and the pacing in the middle has a tendency to be on the stodgy side. It is however still a solid and entertaining film. Murder By Decree is a well-made film, the sets and costumes are very evocative, exuding a gloomy and quite chilling atmosphere, and the beautiful photography does nothing to detract from that. Bob Clark's experience in the realm of horror made for great use, his directing shows him in his comfort zone. The music is very haunting and effectively orchestrated without being overbearing, while the script- while occasionally getting bogged down by politics- is thoughtful and literate with some nice bits of humorous banter between Holmes and Watson, and the story is complicated yet suspenseful and engaging. Apart from Sutherland, the acting is excellent. Genevieve Bujold is the standout of the supporting cast in an eerie performance and John Gielgud, David Hemmings, Anthony Quayle and Susan Clark are also great. The leads are what make Murder By Decree, with Christopher Plummer a very human and commanding Holmes and James Mason perfectly cast as a subtly composed Watson. All in all, a solid and well done film, worth checking out definitely. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Not your typical type of Sherlock
Coventry27 July 2010
Several sources, including a loud and proud quotation on the DVD-cover itself, claim that "Murder by Decree" is the best Sherlock Holmes movie ever made. Like most opinions are, this is highly debatable. Me personally, for example, I'm a big fan of the 1940's Holmes series starring Basil Rathbone as the superiorly intelligent detective and Nigel Bruce as his goofy sidekick Dr. Watson. Some of the entries in that franchise, like "The Scarlet Claw" and "House of Fear" to name just two, are near-brilliant and, in my humble opinion, even better than this film. One fact that remains inarguable, however, is that "Murder by Decree" is the most special and unclassifiable Sherlock Holmes movie ever made. The script actually takes the fictional characters created by Arthur Conan Doyle and places them amidst all the convoluted speculations and grotesque conspiracy theories surrounding the mystery of the unsolved Jack the Ripper murders. "A Study in Terror" was the first attempt to blend the characters of Holmes and Jack the Ripper, nearly fifteen years earlier in 1965, but Bob Clark's film digs a whole lot deeper and makes a lot more efforts to come across as plausible and convincing. "Murder by Decree" is a unique Sherlock Holmes film for yet another reason, namely the depiction of our heroic protagonists. Christopher Plummer portrays the most humane Holmes in history, with a regular sense of humor instead of witty remarks that ooze with superiority as well as feelings sadness and compassion. He even wipes away an emotional teardrop at one point! On the other hand, there's James Mason illustrating the most anti-stereotypical Watson ever, as his lines and contributions are sharp and savvy instead of silly. Sherlock Holmes is called in for help by the Whitechapel store owners after the third Jack the Ripper murder. The crimes are despicable and the locals fear that the police aren't making enough efforts to capture the killer since the victims are "only" prostitutes working in a poor London neighborhood. Thanks to his amazing investigating talents, careful observing senses and stupendous deductive skills, Holmes gradually uncovers a complex conspiracy that almost solely involves elite culprits like politicians, Freemasons and even British royals. He has to operate with extreme caution, though, as his investigation might lead the Ripper to more targeted victims. The script of "Murder by Decree" is clever. Too clever, in fact, as I presume you're not even supposed to guess along for the Ripper's identity. Holmes is always several steps ahead of you and the film ends with a long monologue in which the detective explains the entire murderous scheme – in great detail – to a trio of eminent conspirators. Although puzzling, the story remains fascinating and absorbing the whole time. Bob Clark, a multi-talented genre director especially in the seventies, also masterfully captures the exact right Victorian ambiance. The film is literally filled with dark and foggy London alleys, uncanny old taverns and marvelous horse carriages. I only detected a couple of minor details, actually, and they're mainly personal opinions. The film doesn't properly epitomize the "horror" of the Jack the Ripper case (hardly any nasty images or sinister moments) and the sub plot revolving on Donald Sutherland as a paranormally gifted witness affects the credibility in a negative sort of way.
Elementary my dear Ripper!
hitchcockthelegend19 May 2012
Murder by Decree is directed by Bob Clark and adapted to screenplay by John Hopkins from the novel The Ripper File written by Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd. It stars Christopher Plummer, James Mason, David Hemmings, Susan Clark, Frank Finlay, Anthony Quayle, Donald Sutherland, Geneviève Bujold & John Gielgud.
Film pitches Sherlock Holmes (Plummer) and Dr. Watson (Mason) into the hunt for Jack the Ripper in Whitechapel, London 1888...
I've been exploited old fellow, by the very people for whom we are searching.
The greatest of detectives searching for Britain's most notorious serial killer, it's a killer pitch that had already had a film made in 1965 called A Study in Terror. That was a film that couldn't quite get it right, here, 14 years later, there's a bigger budget and "A" list gloss to help tell the tale. And boy does it work! In the cannon of Sherlock Holmes, Murder by Decree is to Holmes films what On Her Majesty's Secret Service is to the James Bond franchise. Appertaining to the great detective himself, it's the odd one out, a divisive picture, not because it's rubbish or technically shy, but because the main man protagonist dares to be human, a man of conscious; politically, socially and ethically. He's still the same charming, clever and complex character most have come to know and love, but Murder by Decree fronts him out as a human being, with Watson alongside him as a non buffoon bloke doing his bit for the case whilst remaining sensitive about the last pea on his plate! It's these characterisations, splendidly played by two actors of considerable talent, that are at the core of the film's success.
If she dies and you come under my hand? Expect no mercy.
Period production value is high, it has to be for a Jolly Jack based movie. Bring the dark, bring the smog and bring the Victorian costumes (Judy Moorcroft). Then play it out amongst shadowy lamp lighted cobbled streets and let the sets drip with slum London sweat and tears. All that is required then is to have a source story of compelling interest, of which Murder by Decree scores greatly as well. It's fanciful for sure, but the most spectacular of all Ripper theories. From a secret love child to the Freemasons, and up to Royalty itself, it's a potent notion put forward. That is of course conjecture as a solution, but the makers are to be applauded for taking that idea and successfully combining the Arthur Conan Doyle creations with historical reality, something that A Study in Terror fell considerably short on.
Rest of the cast is filled out with some quality as well, where Hemmings, Quayle, Finlay, Gielgud and Bujold don't disappoint, the latter of which gets to really perform with substance in the pivotal scene set in an Asylum. Only real let down is Sutherland, or more like what the makers did (didn't do) with him. His psychic Robert Lees crops up for a couple of small scenes for what we expect will be a telling contribution to the plot, but they aren't. It seems like just an excuse to do Sutherland up like he had just awoken from the grave, and to give the picture some ethereal sheen moments. For the finale and the big reveal of the Ripper, Plummer is simply magnificent. He holds court in front of his peers, including the Prime Minister (Gielgud), and unfurls the explanation with impassioned fortitude, it's then that we realise this was always a Sherlock Holmes movie, and not a Jack the Ripper piece. With that, it's one of the best featuring the Deer Stalker wearing fellow. 9/10
Film pitches Sherlock Holmes (Plummer) and Dr. Watson (Mason) into the hunt for Jack the Ripper in Whitechapel, London 1888...
I've been exploited old fellow, by the very people for whom we are searching.
The greatest of detectives searching for Britain's most notorious serial killer, it's a killer pitch that had already had a film made in 1965 called A Study in Terror. That was a film that couldn't quite get it right, here, 14 years later, there's a bigger budget and "A" list gloss to help tell the tale. And boy does it work! In the cannon of Sherlock Holmes, Murder by Decree is to Holmes films what On Her Majesty's Secret Service is to the James Bond franchise. Appertaining to the great detective himself, it's the odd one out, a divisive picture, not because it's rubbish or technically shy, but because the main man protagonist dares to be human, a man of conscious; politically, socially and ethically. He's still the same charming, clever and complex character most have come to know and love, but Murder by Decree fronts him out as a human being, with Watson alongside him as a non buffoon bloke doing his bit for the case whilst remaining sensitive about the last pea on his plate! It's these characterisations, splendidly played by two actors of considerable talent, that are at the core of the film's success.
If she dies and you come under my hand? Expect no mercy.
Period production value is high, it has to be for a Jolly Jack based movie. Bring the dark, bring the smog and bring the Victorian costumes (Judy Moorcroft). Then play it out amongst shadowy lamp lighted cobbled streets and let the sets drip with slum London sweat and tears. All that is required then is to have a source story of compelling interest, of which Murder by Decree scores greatly as well. It's fanciful for sure, but the most spectacular of all Ripper theories. From a secret love child to the Freemasons, and up to Royalty itself, it's a potent notion put forward. That is of course conjecture as a solution, but the makers are to be applauded for taking that idea and successfully combining the Arthur Conan Doyle creations with historical reality, something that A Study in Terror fell considerably short on.
Rest of the cast is filled out with some quality as well, where Hemmings, Quayle, Finlay, Gielgud and Bujold don't disappoint, the latter of which gets to really perform with substance in the pivotal scene set in an Asylum. Only real let down is Sutherland, or more like what the makers did (didn't do) with him. His psychic Robert Lees crops up for a couple of small scenes for what we expect will be a telling contribution to the plot, but they aren't. It seems like just an excuse to do Sutherland up like he had just awoken from the grave, and to give the picture some ethereal sheen moments. For the finale and the big reveal of the Ripper, Plummer is simply magnificent. He holds court in front of his peers, including the Prime Minister (Gielgud), and unfurls the explanation with impassioned fortitude, it's then that we realise this was always a Sherlock Holmes movie, and not a Jack the Ripper piece. With that, it's one of the best featuring the Deer Stalker wearing fellow. 9/10
Excellent Holmes Mystery!
BaronBl00d28 September 1999
If you love the legendary London sleuth, dark, mysterious Victorian streets, an ample collection of plot twists, and good, solid acting, then this film is for you. It has a fine story about the meeting of the greatest detective Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, and the mysterious Jack the Ripper in some of the best Victorian street settings filmed. Christopher Plummer is excellent as Holmes, giving him characteristics rarely seen in film such as humour and compassion. His Holmes is easily the most humane ever on screen, even at one point wiping tears from his face. James Mason makes a wonderful and amusing Dr. Watson. The rest of the cast is just as good and the story, although not very plausible, is nonetheless very intriguing and suspenseful.
A Victorian Action Hero
bkoganbing11 September 2008
In Murder By Decree fiction's most famous detective goes to work on the most famous real life case of his era, that of the infamous Whitechapel Murders, committed by the man that was dubbed Jack the Ripper. What Sherlock Holmes does to solve the case and where the ultimate responsibility for these murders lies is the basis for Murder By Decree.
Christopher Plummer and James Mason play Holmes and Doctor Watson and it's of some interest with the notoriety these killings of women of the lower classes that Scotland Yard has not called in Holmes for a consultation. But involved he gets anyway and Inspector Lestrade is happy to have him for once even though God and Arthur Conan Doyle know exactly how many times Lestrade was proved wrong by Holmes. Lestrade is played by Frank Finlay and a couple of higher ups, Anthony Quayle and David Hemmings aren't real happy Holmes is around. Especially Hemmings who really has his own agenda working.
What Holmes does find out shakes the very foundation of British society and what he finds out you'll have to see the film for.
One of the Ripper's victims is Susan Clark and the reason for her demise is to be found in the why and wherefore of the incarceration in a mental institution of Genevieve Bujold. Both women deliver outstanding performances in an otherwise mostly male film.
You think Sherlock Holmes and usually what comes to mind is a very calculating and observant individual, but something of a cold fish. He has his passions, but it usually is for justice in the abstract. It's certainly is the way he was played by that most famous of Sherlock Holmeses, Basil Rathbone. But Christopher Plummer cares very deeply for the Ripper's victims as real women and real people. His scenes with both Clark and Bujold are the most moving in the film.
The biggest criticism of the Rathbone Holmes series that I've ever run across the way Doctor Watson was downgraded gradually until he was just a buffoon that Holmes kept around for laughs. That is most certainly not the way James Mason plays him. Mason offers Plummer some wise counsel and a strong friend to lean on when the pressure gets turned on.
Plummer is also a man of action the way Rathbone never was. His final battle with the Ripper is quite something. You couldn't imagine Basil Rathbone in such a struggle.
The last 15 to 20 minutes of the film is mostly concerned with a final scene with John Gielgud playing British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury where Holmes lays his evidence and accusations to the parties involved. Gielgud makes a fine Lord Salisbury, pretty much as I've conceived him as a personality.
The identity of the Ripper has been speculated on for years and Murder By Death offers a view that does take in some of that speculation. But you don't have to be an expert on British history to thoroughly enjoy this fine film.
Christopher Plummer and James Mason play Holmes and Doctor Watson and it's of some interest with the notoriety these killings of women of the lower classes that Scotland Yard has not called in Holmes for a consultation. But involved he gets anyway and Inspector Lestrade is happy to have him for once even though God and Arthur Conan Doyle know exactly how many times Lestrade was proved wrong by Holmes. Lestrade is played by Frank Finlay and a couple of higher ups, Anthony Quayle and David Hemmings aren't real happy Holmes is around. Especially Hemmings who really has his own agenda working.
What Holmes does find out shakes the very foundation of British society and what he finds out you'll have to see the film for.
One of the Ripper's victims is Susan Clark and the reason for her demise is to be found in the why and wherefore of the incarceration in a mental institution of Genevieve Bujold. Both women deliver outstanding performances in an otherwise mostly male film.
You think Sherlock Holmes and usually what comes to mind is a very calculating and observant individual, but something of a cold fish. He has his passions, but it usually is for justice in the abstract. It's certainly is the way he was played by that most famous of Sherlock Holmeses, Basil Rathbone. But Christopher Plummer cares very deeply for the Ripper's victims as real women and real people. His scenes with both Clark and Bujold are the most moving in the film.
The biggest criticism of the Rathbone Holmes series that I've ever run across the way Doctor Watson was downgraded gradually until he was just a buffoon that Holmes kept around for laughs. That is most certainly not the way James Mason plays him. Mason offers Plummer some wise counsel and a strong friend to lean on when the pressure gets turned on.
Plummer is also a man of action the way Rathbone never was. His final battle with the Ripper is quite something. You couldn't imagine Basil Rathbone in such a struggle.
The last 15 to 20 minutes of the film is mostly concerned with a final scene with John Gielgud playing British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury where Holmes lays his evidence and accusations to the parties involved. Gielgud makes a fine Lord Salisbury, pretty much as I've conceived him as a personality.
The identity of the Ripper has been speculated on for years and Murder By Death offers a view that does take in some of that speculation. But you don't have to be an expert on British history to thoroughly enjoy this fine film.
The Plummer-Mason double-act is on top form
Corky198422 April 2005
Sherlock Holmes has been played by numerous actors, the great Basil Rathbone being the best in my humble opinion, but Christopher Plummer does a fine job in this offering. There is just the right amount of sarcastic wit in his chats with Watson. James Mason is the highlight of the movie, his portrayal of Holmes' sidekick nicely judged and at times very funny. This film is so good as a result of its main cast, all of whom are talented actors. The director manages to create a chilling atmosphere at times, whilst the style of the film is nicely British. Murder by Decree demonstrates how the Brits can hold their own in a world of Hollywood domination. Its worth a look any day.
Vivid teaming of Holmes/Watson and Jack the Ripper
Libretio21 March 2005
MURDER BY DECREE
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Sound format: Mono
London, 1888: Whilst investigating a series of murders committed by 'Jack the Ripper', Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. Watson (James Mason) uncover a Masonic conspiracy which leads them to the very heart of the British Establishment.
During the summer of 1973, the BBC ran a six-part documentary series entitled "Jack the Ripper" (also known as "The Ripper File"), in which two popular fictional detectives (played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor) investigated the 'true' identity of Jack the Ripper, using all the evidence available to them at the time. Their conclusions form the basis of Bob Clark's all-star period thriller MURDER BY DECREE, which condenses vast amounts of information into a single digestible screenplay. The film's lavish recreation of Victorian London (extravagant opera houses, cobbled streets and miles of gloomy Whitechapel alleyways populated by hundreds of costumed extras) belies its modest $4m budget, and for once, the starry supporting cast - including Anthony Quayle, David Hemmings, John Gielgud and Donald Sutherland - seems perfectly suited to the material.
A combination of Gothic thriller and historical whodunnit, John Hopkins' comprehensive screenplay outlines the social and political divisions which prevailed in England at the time of the Ripper murders, hindering the police investigation and prompting a number of conspiracy theories which persist to this day. However, the script also contains a number of memorable character touches (the episode of the 'errant pea' is most prized by fans) which prevents the narrative from surrendering to mere facts and figures. Plummer and Mason are ideal as Holmes and Watson, though Genevieve Bujold almost steals the film during a heartbreaking sequence in which Holmes looks for clues in a crumbling asylum. You may not agree with the film's conclusions - the same evidence was re-evaluated by author Stephen Knight in his popular non-fiction account 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution' (1976) and David Wickes' excellent TV movie JACK THE RIPPER (1988) starring Michael Caine - but MURDER BY DECREE is generally acknowledged as one of the best Ripper/Holmes movies ever made.
Incidentally, the film's PG rating seems extraordinarily lenient. While MURDER BY DECREE doesn't exactly revel in violence, it conveys the grislier aspects of the Ripper's crimes with enough potency to warrant a PG-13 (unavailable at the time of this film's initial release).
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Sound format: Mono
London, 1888: Whilst investigating a series of murders committed by 'Jack the Ripper', Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. Watson (James Mason) uncover a Masonic conspiracy which leads them to the very heart of the British Establishment.
During the summer of 1973, the BBC ran a six-part documentary series entitled "Jack the Ripper" (also known as "The Ripper File"), in which two popular fictional detectives (played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor) investigated the 'true' identity of Jack the Ripper, using all the evidence available to them at the time. Their conclusions form the basis of Bob Clark's all-star period thriller MURDER BY DECREE, which condenses vast amounts of information into a single digestible screenplay. The film's lavish recreation of Victorian London (extravagant opera houses, cobbled streets and miles of gloomy Whitechapel alleyways populated by hundreds of costumed extras) belies its modest $4m budget, and for once, the starry supporting cast - including Anthony Quayle, David Hemmings, John Gielgud and Donald Sutherland - seems perfectly suited to the material.
A combination of Gothic thriller and historical whodunnit, John Hopkins' comprehensive screenplay outlines the social and political divisions which prevailed in England at the time of the Ripper murders, hindering the police investigation and prompting a number of conspiracy theories which persist to this day. However, the script also contains a number of memorable character touches (the episode of the 'errant pea' is most prized by fans) which prevents the narrative from surrendering to mere facts and figures. Plummer and Mason are ideal as Holmes and Watson, though Genevieve Bujold almost steals the film during a heartbreaking sequence in which Holmes looks for clues in a crumbling asylum. You may not agree with the film's conclusions - the same evidence was re-evaluated by author Stephen Knight in his popular non-fiction account 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution' (1976) and David Wickes' excellent TV movie JACK THE RIPPER (1988) starring Michael Caine - but MURDER BY DECREE is generally acknowledged as one of the best Ripper/Holmes movies ever made.
Incidentally, the film's PG rating seems extraordinarily lenient. While MURDER BY DECREE doesn't exactly revel in violence, it conveys the grislier aspects of the Ripper's crimes with enough potency to warrant a PG-13 (unavailable at the time of this film's initial release).
Holmes and Watson are Better than the Story
aramis-112-80488021 October 2011
Before the advent of Jeremy Brett "Murder By Decree" had the finest Holmes/Watson/Lestrade teaming in Christopher Plummer, James Mason and Frank Finlay. It's too bad they have such a ridiculous story.
The good: the acting is impeccable. All except a strangely dull, murmuring Donald Sutherland; and a blustery Anthony Quayle. For a more lively Victorian Sutherland catch "The Great Train Robbery."
The bad: everything else. In most Holmes movies he's bounding around London in his famous deerstalker cap and his cape. It's no different here. Holmes even wears this preposterous costume to the opera.
In 1888 Holmes and Watson were impecunious young men sharing digs until their careers took off (Watson wasn't yet married). Here, in 1888, they are prematurely aged, like two old codgers unable to get by alone on their pensions.
The story this is based on (I read Stephen Knight's book when I was young and impressionable) has long been exploded. Of course, in a work of fiction (and Holmes stories are all fiction) they can do what they like but I'd rather have seen this Holmes/Watson combination in a more rousing tale.
It's really silly from the first. Spooky as the empty East End streets are and fine as they are in setting a mood, the streets in the East End of London were teeming with people day and night. One of the biggest mysteries of Jack the Ripper (if one hand was "Jack the Ripper"--we know the blanket name grouping a series of similar murders was an invention of the sensational "fake news" press) is how the victims were all taken to secluded areas. Obviously, the murderer(s) had to be denizens of that area, knowing where to go for seclusion and how to escape swiftly.
Other silly points of this story are the closed carriage. The thing about so-called Jack the Ripper is the facility with which he or she or they came and went with no one noticing anything. A fancy carriage would be noticed. But so would a man in a high hat and cape carrying a patent leather Gladstone doctors' bag: the stereotypical Ripper image.
Worth watching is Mason's competent, courageous, yet still humorous Watson (though I can't imagine a doctor who bravely operated on the field of battle being squeamish about the injuries suffered by "Ripper" victims).
It's a shame because Plummer and Mason are so perfect for their parts and so good. I'd like to have seen them do other Sherlock stories! Also, I've been a Mason myself for thirty years and though I grew disenchanted with them, the Masonic stuff is half-rubbish. But as an honorable fellow who won't violate his Masonic code, disenchanted or not, I can't say which half.
Not only do we have a first rate Holmes/Watson combination, we have a subtle, extra-canonical David Hemings. But I love Plummer, Mason (odd name for this yarn) and Finlay.
The good: the acting is impeccable. All except a strangely dull, murmuring Donald Sutherland; and a blustery Anthony Quayle. For a more lively Victorian Sutherland catch "The Great Train Robbery."
The bad: everything else. In most Holmes movies he's bounding around London in his famous deerstalker cap and his cape. It's no different here. Holmes even wears this preposterous costume to the opera.
In 1888 Holmes and Watson were impecunious young men sharing digs until their careers took off (Watson wasn't yet married). Here, in 1888, they are prematurely aged, like two old codgers unable to get by alone on their pensions.
The story this is based on (I read Stephen Knight's book when I was young and impressionable) has long been exploded. Of course, in a work of fiction (and Holmes stories are all fiction) they can do what they like but I'd rather have seen this Holmes/Watson combination in a more rousing tale.
It's really silly from the first. Spooky as the empty East End streets are and fine as they are in setting a mood, the streets in the East End of London were teeming with people day and night. One of the biggest mysteries of Jack the Ripper (if one hand was "Jack the Ripper"--we know the blanket name grouping a series of similar murders was an invention of the sensational "fake news" press) is how the victims were all taken to secluded areas. Obviously, the murderer(s) had to be denizens of that area, knowing where to go for seclusion and how to escape swiftly.
Other silly points of this story are the closed carriage. The thing about so-called Jack the Ripper is the facility with which he or she or they came and went with no one noticing anything. A fancy carriage would be noticed. But so would a man in a high hat and cape carrying a patent leather Gladstone doctors' bag: the stereotypical Ripper image.
Worth watching is Mason's competent, courageous, yet still humorous Watson (though I can't imagine a doctor who bravely operated on the field of battle being squeamish about the injuries suffered by "Ripper" victims).
It's a shame because Plummer and Mason are so perfect for their parts and so good. I'd like to have seen them do other Sherlock stories! Also, I've been a Mason myself for thirty years and though I grew disenchanted with them, the Masonic stuff is half-rubbish. But as an honorable fellow who won't violate his Masonic code, disenchanted or not, I can't say which half.
Not only do we have a first rate Holmes/Watson combination, we have a subtle, extra-canonical David Hemings. But I love Plummer, Mason (odd name for this yarn) and Finlay.
solid Sherlock Holmes
SnoopyStyle20 February 2016
A serial killer is on the loose in the Whitechapel area of London. Leaders of the community come to Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and his assistant Dr. Watson (James Mason) for help. Psychic Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland) tells them about his visions of Jack the Ripper. Commissioner Sir Charles Warren puts up roadblocks. Holmes discovers that Sir Charles is a Freemason and referenced in a message from the Ripper about Juwes. Holmes tracks down Mary Kelly. She tells him about a baby and is then kidnapped. This leads to the disturbed Annie Crook (Geneviève Bujold). Inspector Foxborough (David Hemmings) seems to be helpful. Holmes confronts Prime Minister Lord Salisbury (John Gielgud) about the conspiracy.
Holmes and Watson are colleagues and sincere investigators. This Watson is not a bumbling fool. The production value is pretty good considering the cost. The actors are all very high quality. Christopher Plummer is a very effective Holmes. It's a lot of foggy murders but not a lot of action. The plot was reused for the movie "From Hell". It's a pretty good crime investigation.
Holmes and Watson are colleagues and sincere investigators. This Watson is not a bumbling fool. The production value is pretty good considering the cost. The actors are all very high quality. Christopher Plummer is a very effective Holmes. It's a lot of foggy murders but not a lot of action. The plot was reused for the movie "From Hell". It's a pretty good crime investigation.
Jack the Ripper takes over where Moriarty left off...
mark.waltz9 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
When vicious murders begin occurring in the equivalent of London's red light district, who do concerned citizens turn to? Why Sherlock Holmes, of course! While the fictional detective wasn't actually around during London's gaslight era when these foggily lit murders took place, it makes fictional sense that eventually somebody would pit the notoriously named Jack the Ripper against London's most well loved detective prior to Miss Marple. If it couldn't be Basil Rathbone, then some other famous British thespian had to take over. In this case, it is Christopher Plummer, as far away from the Edelweiss of "The Sound of Music's" Salzburg as he could get.
Plummer gives (in this reviewer's opinion), his best performance as the pipe smoking and argyle cap wearing detective. While I agree he is one of Britain's greatest gifts to the theatre and cinema, I often took pause with his slow moving speech and frequent stalls in reciting his lines. That is totally missing here, and he gives a relaxed and often humorous performance that isn't as hyper as Rathbone's but just as riveting. Just as outstanding is James Mason, taking over Nigel Bruce's role as Dr. Watson. While slightly bumbling, he isn't as eccentric as Bruce was, and as a result, is taken more seriously. In a nod to Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson in the Rathbone/Bruce films), the brief appearance of Holmes' landlady is hysterically amusing because of the bit actresses' resemblance to the wonderful Ms. Gordon.
As the storyline unfolds, it is obvious that the writers are developing something more sinister than just the whims of a madman killing prostitutes. It is almost devilish in its innuendos as clues are dropped that give enough information to the viewers to guess what is going on, yet keep them intrigued as well. In smaller roles, Donald Sutherland, Anthony Quayle and Frank Finlay shine, while brief appearances by "Webster's" Susan Clark (whatever happened to her????) and Genevieve Bujold are extremely haunting.
Why this film was overlooked at awards time is beyond me, especially for Plummer, Mason and its moody photography. Everything about this film is exquisite and with recent, more youthful looks at Holmes and Watson, this entry in the popular series is worth re-discovering.
Plummer gives (in this reviewer's opinion), his best performance as the pipe smoking and argyle cap wearing detective. While I agree he is one of Britain's greatest gifts to the theatre and cinema, I often took pause with his slow moving speech and frequent stalls in reciting his lines. That is totally missing here, and he gives a relaxed and often humorous performance that isn't as hyper as Rathbone's but just as riveting. Just as outstanding is James Mason, taking over Nigel Bruce's role as Dr. Watson. While slightly bumbling, he isn't as eccentric as Bruce was, and as a result, is taken more seriously. In a nod to Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson in the Rathbone/Bruce films), the brief appearance of Holmes' landlady is hysterically amusing because of the bit actresses' resemblance to the wonderful Ms. Gordon.
As the storyline unfolds, it is obvious that the writers are developing something more sinister than just the whims of a madman killing prostitutes. It is almost devilish in its innuendos as clues are dropped that give enough information to the viewers to guess what is going on, yet keep them intrigued as well. In smaller roles, Donald Sutherland, Anthony Quayle and Frank Finlay shine, while brief appearances by "Webster's" Susan Clark (whatever happened to her????) and Genevieve Bujold are extremely haunting.
Why this film was overlooked at awards time is beyond me, especially for Plummer, Mason and its moody photography. Everything about this film is exquisite and with recent, more youthful looks at Holmes and Watson, this entry in the popular series is worth re-discovering.
They will not feel for them
karlericsson14 November 2001
Towards the end of the film, Sherlock Holmes delivers a speech to the people in power in England. He says: "You will not feel for them" and refers to the people in society who are 'down and out', the poor people. He says this is the true crime of it all, that the rich and powerful do not feel for the powerless and poor. Conan Doyle was certainly never so outspoken and in this way this film even surpasses Conan Doyle. It is a milestone in movie-history, which the people in power do not want to see distributed, so it seems, since it is very hard to find and especially not available on DVD, which is more than just suspicious with that cast and the filmic qualities (aside from the social ones) which are considerable. It is truly horrific at times and even a hardened viewer like myself finds under-currents in the brutal scenes which are frightening. The murder with the gruesome too large pupil of the eye is especially horrifying. A 10+ out of 10.
One of the best Holmes adventures
jc1305us10 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Christopher Plummer and James Mason step into two of the most famous roles in literature, those being Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in this absolutely wonderful tale set during the Jack the Ripper murders in whitechapel. What sets this movie above many others in not only the Sherlock Holmes adventures but the thriller genre itself is the excellent script, along with the totally convincing performances by the leads.
This movie totally draws you in to its dark and sometimes horrifying world, where the seamy underbelly of Victorian life is on display. Congratulations must go the production designer who immerses us in the London fog and dark backstreets of 1880's England. Add a beautiful, haunting score and wonderful direction and this rivals the best thrillers I've ever seen. Highly recommended!
This movie totally draws you in to its dark and sometimes horrifying world, where the seamy underbelly of Victorian life is on display. Congratulations must go the production designer who immerses us in the London fog and dark backstreets of 1880's England. Add a beautiful, haunting score and wonderful direction and this rivals the best thrillers I've ever seen. Highly recommended!
Holmes vs Jack
disdressed128 August 2009
this is one of only a few films which pits Sherlock Holmes against the infamous Jack the Ripper.Christopher Plummer portrays Holmes and gives him more warmth,compassion and humour than most portrayals of the character.he is also shown as an infallible human being.also Watson(James Mason)is given more more intelligence and no buffoonery,as is sometimes the case.he is much more useful to Holmes in this characterization.the movie is certainly as dark and eerie as the majority of Holmes films are,maybe even more so.it's entertaining from the get go and doesn't let up.i enjoyed it immensely.for me,Murder by Decree is an 8/10
Great cast, engaging Holmes vs. the Ripper story with just a few slow spots
Leofwine_draca30 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
MURDER BY DECREE is a pretty good exploration of what might have happened had Sherlock Holmes encountered Jack the Ripper. The story had already been done previously in the 1965 film A STUDY IN TERROR, which I found to be this movie's superior, but MURDER BY DECREE still has a lot going for it. It's got a heady atmosphere and some truly sinister moments, like the close-up of the killer's black-iris eyeball, which come courtesy of Bob Clark, the famed director who made the creepy slasher film BLACK Christmas. The look and feel of Victorian London is spot on.
It also boasts the finest Watson put on screen to date: James Mason. Mason is one of those impeccable English gentlemen – Peter Cushing was another – who has the ability to make us believe in any character, no matter what film he appears in. His Watson is humorous, kindly, but exceedingly tough, too, a real force to be reckoned with. Christopher Plummer's Sherlock Holmes is less successful. He's not likable, but the neither was the literary Holmes; Plummer is a fine actor, but I don't know. He just doesn't seem as painstaking as some of the actors who have portrayed Holmes on television. He's good, but not Rathbone.
The story of the Jack the Ripper murders is very familiar. I've seen plenty of films about him, and most of those have a detective as the central character anyway, so the presence of Holmes doesn't really make much sense here. The main drawback with this film is the running time: it's far too long. When it's moving, with the scenes of detection, of carriages flying past, and the excellent, chase-focused climax, it's good fun; when it slows down, as in the drawn-out asylum sequence, it's a bore. The plot elements don't really go anywhere and the various elements of the mystery – Freemasons, the royal family, etc. – don't gel too much. So this is a film that gets by on atmosphere alone.
There are other strengths, though. The supporting cast is fine, with David Hemmings and Anthony Quayle great as stuffy officials, and Frank Finlay splendid as Lestrade. There are some notable cameos from the likes of John Gielgud as the prime minister, Genevieve Bujold as a madwoman, and Donald Sutherland as an eccentric psychic. The comic interplay between Plummer and Mason is splendid, and for me the film's highlight is the small matter of a pea on Watson's plate! As a whole, though, the Johnny Depp-starrer FROM HELL was more to my liking, despite the flashiness and obvious attempts to appeal to the modern audience.
It also boasts the finest Watson put on screen to date: James Mason. Mason is one of those impeccable English gentlemen – Peter Cushing was another – who has the ability to make us believe in any character, no matter what film he appears in. His Watson is humorous, kindly, but exceedingly tough, too, a real force to be reckoned with. Christopher Plummer's Sherlock Holmes is less successful. He's not likable, but the neither was the literary Holmes; Plummer is a fine actor, but I don't know. He just doesn't seem as painstaking as some of the actors who have portrayed Holmes on television. He's good, but not Rathbone.
The story of the Jack the Ripper murders is very familiar. I've seen plenty of films about him, and most of those have a detective as the central character anyway, so the presence of Holmes doesn't really make much sense here. The main drawback with this film is the running time: it's far too long. When it's moving, with the scenes of detection, of carriages flying past, and the excellent, chase-focused climax, it's good fun; when it slows down, as in the drawn-out asylum sequence, it's a bore. The plot elements don't really go anywhere and the various elements of the mystery – Freemasons, the royal family, etc. – don't gel too much. So this is a film that gets by on atmosphere alone.
There are other strengths, though. The supporting cast is fine, with David Hemmings and Anthony Quayle great as stuffy officials, and Frank Finlay splendid as Lestrade. There are some notable cameos from the likes of John Gielgud as the prime minister, Genevieve Bujold as a madwoman, and Donald Sutherland as an eccentric psychic. The comic interplay between Plummer and Mason is splendid, and for me the film's highlight is the small matter of a pea on Watson's plate! As a whole, though, the Johnny Depp-starrer FROM HELL was more to my liking, despite the flashiness and obvious attempts to appeal to the modern audience.
The Ultimate Holmes/Ripper Meeting
Rob-12021 October 2000
Warning: Spoilers
"Murder By Decree" is the ultimate meeting between the two greatest figures of Victorian mystery: Sherlock Holmes and Jack the Ripper. There have been other meetings between the two (including a terrible novel in which Holmes WAS the Ripper), but none quite as satisfying to devotees of both Holmes and the Ripper case.
There is widespread speculation, among those of us who consider Sherlock Holmes a very real person, as to his possible role in investigating the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888. Given Holmes's passion for unsolved mysteries, it seems unlikely that he would not have taken up the Ripper case. And if he did, it seems very unlikely that Holmes would NOT have solved it. So why does the Ripper's identity remain a mystery? Is the Ripper case one of those "unpublished" cases that Dr. Watson occasionally refers to in the Sherlock Holmes stories? If so, why did Watson choose not to publish an account of Holmes's involvement in the Ripper investigation.
"Murder By Decree" answers these questions with true Holmesian style. Christopher Plummer, as Holmes, is a deductive reasoner with an ounce of compassion and a sharp sense of justice. James Mason, as Watson, is not a bungler, but is an active, intelligent aide to Holmes's investigation. And we have scenes that are mainstays of the classic Holmes tales, including the chase through dark, foggy, gaslit streets, and a visit by hansom cab to a dark foreboding asylum, which resembles Baskerville Hall.
And then there's the Ripper, the ultimate unsolved mystery. The movie places Holmes among real-life characters in the Ripper drama, such as Charles Warren, Robert Lees, Mary Kelly, Annie Crook, and Prime Minister Lord Salisbury. It re-creates the murder scenes with historical accuracy. It shows us the East End as it was (and more or less still is): A horrific maze of alleys that is the perfect stalking ground for a predator like the Ripper. The shots from the Ripper's POV, moving through a maze of dark, foggy alleys, accompanied by ominous footsteps and heavy breathing, are particularly scary. This air of mystery surrounding this unknown fiend is partially why the Ripper murders are remembered even today.
The movie takes one of the more imaginative Ripper theories (the "Prince Eddy/Annie Crook" conspiracy) as its explanation for why Holmes and Watson kept silent about their involvement in the case. The movie becomes exceptional when Holmes himself becomes a victim of the conspirators. Holmes discovers to his horror that he has been used. The conspirators have purposely set him on the Ripper's trail, knowing that he will lead them to the elusive Mary Kelly, who becomes the Ripper's last victim.
Is the "Annie Crook" theory true? Probably not, but it still refuses to die. (The NEXT Ripper movie, "From Hell" starring Johnny Depp, uses the "Annie Crook" theory as its base.) But who cares if it's fiction! It's STILL a terrific "conspiracy theory." And it makes for a case worthy of Holmes, one which he solves but cannot win. He stops the conspirators, but emerges from the case outraged and grief-stricken over having led the murderers to Mary Kelly. A more flawed, more human Holmes we have rarely seen, outside of Jeremy Brett.
But Watson reminds Holmes that Mary Kelly died willingly to protect the bastard child of Annie Crook and Prince Eddy, the source of the Ripper conspiracy. And Holmes, through his investigation of the conspiracy, has insured the child's safety. There is still decency in the world. The closing credits, played to music from Holmes's violin, give a sense that, with the Ripper nightmare over, Holmes and the city of London will emerge into the light once more.
There is widespread speculation, among those of us who consider Sherlock Holmes a very real person, as to his possible role in investigating the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888. Given Holmes's passion for unsolved mysteries, it seems unlikely that he would not have taken up the Ripper case. And if he did, it seems very unlikely that Holmes would NOT have solved it. So why does the Ripper's identity remain a mystery? Is the Ripper case one of those "unpublished" cases that Dr. Watson occasionally refers to in the Sherlock Holmes stories? If so, why did Watson choose not to publish an account of Holmes's involvement in the Ripper investigation.
"Murder By Decree" answers these questions with true Holmesian style. Christopher Plummer, as Holmes, is a deductive reasoner with an ounce of compassion and a sharp sense of justice. James Mason, as Watson, is not a bungler, but is an active, intelligent aide to Holmes's investigation. And we have scenes that are mainstays of the classic Holmes tales, including the chase through dark, foggy, gaslit streets, and a visit by hansom cab to a dark foreboding asylum, which resembles Baskerville Hall.
And then there's the Ripper, the ultimate unsolved mystery. The movie places Holmes among real-life characters in the Ripper drama, such as Charles Warren, Robert Lees, Mary Kelly, Annie Crook, and Prime Minister Lord Salisbury. It re-creates the murder scenes with historical accuracy. It shows us the East End as it was (and more or less still is): A horrific maze of alleys that is the perfect stalking ground for a predator like the Ripper. The shots from the Ripper's POV, moving through a maze of dark, foggy alleys, accompanied by ominous footsteps and heavy breathing, are particularly scary. This air of mystery surrounding this unknown fiend is partially why the Ripper murders are remembered even today.
The movie takes one of the more imaginative Ripper theories (the "Prince Eddy/Annie Crook" conspiracy) as its explanation for why Holmes and Watson kept silent about their involvement in the case. The movie becomes exceptional when Holmes himself becomes a victim of the conspirators. Holmes discovers to his horror that he has been used. The conspirators have purposely set him on the Ripper's trail, knowing that he will lead them to the elusive Mary Kelly, who becomes the Ripper's last victim.
Is the "Annie Crook" theory true? Probably not, but it still refuses to die. (The NEXT Ripper movie, "From Hell" starring Johnny Depp, uses the "Annie Crook" theory as its base.) But who cares if it's fiction! It's STILL a terrific "conspiracy theory." And it makes for a case worthy of Holmes, one which he solves but cannot win. He stops the conspirators, but emerges from the case outraged and grief-stricken over having led the murderers to Mary Kelly. A more flawed, more human Holmes we have rarely seen, outside of Jeremy Brett.
But Watson reminds Holmes that Mary Kelly died willingly to protect the bastard child of Annie Crook and Prince Eddy, the source of the Ripper conspiracy. And Holmes, through his investigation of the conspiracy, has insured the child's safety. There is still decency in the world. The closing credits, played to music from Holmes's violin, give a sense that, with the Ripper nightmare over, Holmes and the city of London will emerge into the light once more.
Excellent Sherlock Holmes Story
CaressofSteel754 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
You don't see this movie too much anymore which is a shame. Christopher Plummer and James Mason do a very credible job as Holmes and Watson in this atmospheric Jack the Ripper thriller.
Victorian era London is perfectly represented, and you also get to see Donald Sutherland in a small but important role as a psychic. Hints of a Masonic conspiracy wrap around the edges of this story, and it ultimately comes out that the Ripper cover up goes up to the highest levels of the English government.
I first saw this movie in its first theater run in 1979, and it's something I'd definitely like to own on DVD for posterity.
Victorian era London is perfectly represented, and you also get to see Donald Sutherland in a small but important role as a psychic. Hints of a Masonic conspiracy wrap around the edges of this story, and it ultimately comes out that the Ripper cover up goes up to the highest levels of the English government.
I first saw this movie in its first theater run in 1979, and it's something I'd definitely like to own on DVD for posterity.
Holmes Versus the Ripper
gavin694217 March 2015
Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) investigates the murders committed by Jack the Ripper and discovers a conspiracy to protect the killer.
Bob Clark would later be known for "A Christmas Story", but at this time was coming off of "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things", "Deathdream" and "Black Christmas" (1974). So if you find horror elements in the film (and it is about a serial killer, after all) do not be surprised. Horror fans will also recognize David Hemmings from "Profondo Rosso" (1975).
The inclusion of "the Juwes" (Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum) was a ice touch and brings in the scholarship (or lack thereof) of Stephen Knight. This makes a similar theme to "A Study in Terror" (1965) with Holmes versus the Ripper, but gives it a new spin.
Interestingly, "From Hell" (2001) used the same version of Ripper events, though without the use of Sherlock Holmes (perhaps making it more historically accurate, despite being based on plenty of speculation). And still we cannot solve this crime.
Bob Clark would later be known for "A Christmas Story", but at this time was coming off of "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things", "Deathdream" and "Black Christmas" (1974). So if you find horror elements in the film (and it is about a serial killer, after all) do not be surprised. Horror fans will also recognize David Hemmings from "Profondo Rosso" (1975).
The inclusion of "the Juwes" (Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum) was a ice touch and brings in the scholarship (or lack thereof) of Stephen Knight. This makes a similar theme to "A Study in Terror" (1965) with Holmes versus the Ripper, but gives it a new spin.
Interestingly, "From Hell" (2001) used the same version of Ripper events, though without the use of Sherlock Holmes (perhaps making it more historically accurate, despite being based on plenty of speculation). And still we cannot solve this crime.
Plummer and Mason are perfectly cast in this marvelous, atmospheric thriller
ametaphysicalshark9 December 2008
Out of the twenty-six Sherlock Holmes films I have seen, "Murder by Decree" is my personal favorite. There are certainly some that come close: the superb Hammer version of "Hound of the Baskervilles" from 1959 starring Peter Cushing, and the unbelievably entertaining Rathbone/Bruce film "House of Fear", a film a lot of serious Holmes enthusiasts like to scoff at, but which works beautifully on its own terms. Still, "Murder by Decree" remains perhaps the most satisfying of Holmes' screen adventures for various reasons.
To begin with, the plot and script by John Hopkins are fantastic, in both meanings of the word. It's far-fetched and unbelievable, and treads on the iffy ground of rather silly conspiracy theories, but this particular script is so earnest in its exploration of the matter, even going as far as developing a corruption vs. decency subtext which is handled rather well, that it becomes particularly endearing. Also, for a Jack the Ripper movie which doesn't hold back on gruesome imagery, foggy streets, and continually keeps the audience cowering in fear of another close-up on those creepy black eyes, the film has a surprising amount of humor, and excellent, understated humor it is, with one or two allowances for sillier things like Watson being felt up by a prostitute and a bizarre but fun conversation about a pea.
Among latter-day, post-"Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" films, "Murder by Decree" stands out as a more traditionalist, classical Holmes tale. The plot is original, not taken from Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, but it's really something that he could have written for the most part. The characterization of Holmes and Watson is particularly good, they are slightly different from the stories but this is still unquestionably one of the most faithful film adaptations in this regard. The relationship between Holmes and Watson also feels just right for the material, and their banter is superb. There is no deconstruction of the Holmes mythology here, but it has in common with the later Holmes films a refreshingly human main character instead of the super-sleuth seen in most earlier films.
Christopher Plummer may just be my favorite Sherlock Holmes- there is just enough pathos there, but also a lot of humanity, some bitterness and righteous anger, and all the brooding, contained energy of all of the better portrayals of the character. The script also provides plenty of room for old-fashioned scenes of typically clever Holmes deductions, which are a lot of fun as usual. James Mason is quite easily my favorite Watson, at least as far as theatrical films go, and the rest of the cast are strong as well. The film also boasts superb cinematography, particularly during the creepy, stunningly atmospheric night-time scenes, and old-fashioned, restrained, yet very effective direction by Bob Clark. Best enjoyed on a winter night or in the wee hours of the morning with a nice hot cup of tea.
To begin with, the plot and script by John Hopkins are fantastic, in both meanings of the word. It's far-fetched and unbelievable, and treads on the iffy ground of rather silly conspiracy theories, but this particular script is so earnest in its exploration of the matter, even going as far as developing a corruption vs. decency subtext which is handled rather well, that it becomes particularly endearing. Also, for a Jack the Ripper movie which doesn't hold back on gruesome imagery, foggy streets, and continually keeps the audience cowering in fear of another close-up on those creepy black eyes, the film has a surprising amount of humor, and excellent, understated humor it is, with one or two allowances for sillier things like Watson being felt up by a prostitute and a bizarre but fun conversation about a pea.
Among latter-day, post-"Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" films, "Murder by Decree" stands out as a more traditionalist, classical Holmes tale. The plot is original, not taken from Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, but it's really something that he could have written for the most part. The characterization of Holmes and Watson is particularly good, they are slightly different from the stories but this is still unquestionably one of the most faithful film adaptations in this regard. The relationship between Holmes and Watson also feels just right for the material, and their banter is superb. There is no deconstruction of the Holmes mythology here, but it has in common with the later Holmes films a refreshingly human main character instead of the super-sleuth seen in most earlier films.
Christopher Plummer may just be my favorite Sherlock Holmes- there is just enough pathos there, but also a lot of humanity, some bitterness and righteous anger, and all the brooding, contained energy of all of the better portrayals of the character. The script also provides plenty of room for old-fashioned scenes of typically clever Holmes deductions, which are a lot of fun as usual. James Mason is quite easily my favorite Watson, at least as far as theatrical films go, and the rest of the cast are strong as well. The film also boasts superb cinematography, particularly during the creepy, stunningly atmospheric night-time scenes, and old-fashioned, restrained, yet very effective direction by Bob Clark. Best enjoyed on a winter night or in the wee hours of the morning with a nice hot cup of tea.
Sherlock Holmes vs Jack the Ripper...Bob Clark's Rich & Deep Film Production
LeonLouisRicci12 September 2022
Cult Director Bob Clark (A Christmas Story, etc.) Helmed this somewhat Elaborate Film.
With a Decent Budget (around $4 mil.) a Line-Up of some British Top-Actors (Christoper Plummer, James Mason, John Guilgud, Anthony Quayle) along with Donald Sutherland, Genvieve Bujold, and Susan Clark.
Clark Used Imaginative and Expansive Sets in the Atmospheric Production, Steeped in Dense London Fog. Dank, Dark, and Scary.
Set in the Familiar World of Jack the Ripper's White Chapple, the Film is Populated with a Number of Interesting and Varied Characters.
Not Only Holmes (Plummer) and Watson (Mason) Delivering Their Charming and Personal Preferences to the Roles,
but the Unfortunate Ladies of the Street (Susan Clarke), a Psychic (Sutherland), Members of the Upper-Class (Scotland Yard with Lestrade and Others, Doctors, Political Leaders, and the Central Conspiracy Theory Involving the Ruling Class and the Masons.
The Story is Complex and Involving.
Clark Includes Horror Elements that Start very Subtle but Evolve Gradually to some Truly Horrific Scenes.
The Wrap has Holmes Lecturing Non-Stop for About 15 Min. To those He Knows were the Perpetrators who Hide and Stand Behind Holmes Difficulty in PROVING what He Knows.
Note...Other Films of connective qualities..."A Study In Terror" (1965)...Time After Time (1979)..."From Hell" ( 2009).
With a Decent Budget (around $4 mil.) a Line-Up of some British Top-Actors (Christoper Plummer, James Mason, John Guilgud, Anthony Quayle) along with Donald Sutherland, Genvieve Bujold, and Susan Clark.
Clark Used Imaginative and Expansive Sets in the Atmospheric Production, Steeped in Dense London Fog. Dank, Dark, and Scary.
Set in the Familiar World of Jack the Ripper's White Chapple, the Film is Populated with a Number of Interesting and Varied Characters.
Not Only Holmes (Plummer) and Watson (Mason) Delivering Their Charming and Personal Preferences to the Roles,
but the Unfortunate Ladies of the Street (Susan Clarke), a Psychic (Sutherland), Members of the Upper-Class (Scotland Yard with Lestrade and Others, Doctors, Political Leaders, and the Central Conspiracy Theory Involving the Ruling Class and the Masons.
The Story is Complex and Involving.
Clark Includes Horror Elements that Start very Subtle but Evolve Gradually to some Truly Horrific Scenes.
The Wrap has Holmes Lecturing Non-Stop for About 15 Min. To those He Knows were the Perpetrators who Hide and Stand Behind Holmes Difficulty in PROVING what He Knows.
Note...Other Films of connective qualities..."A Study In Terror" (1965)...Time After Time (1979)..."From Hell" ( 2009).
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews