Murder by Decree (1979) User Reviews

Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper

[preppy-3 · 8/10 · 24 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.

Original and nice Sherlock Holmes movie

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 1 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 .

Vivid teaming of Holmes/Watson and Jack the Ripper

[Libretio · 7/10 · 21 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).

"There is still decency." A marvellous film.

[simon-118 · 4 September 2000]

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.

A Kinder, Gentler Holmes.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 8 January 2010]

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.

Not your typical type of Sherlock

[Coventry · 7/10 · 27 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.

Well-made, well-acted and solid Sherlock Holmes outing

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 31 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

Elementary my dear Ripper!

[hitchcockthelegend · 9/10 · 19 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

Superbly atmospheric, produced but flawed...

[Poirot-3 · 7/10 · 7 December 1998]

"Murder by Decree" could have been one of THE great Sherlock Holmes films but suffers from problematic scenes that need to be edited or cut altogether. Outstanding art direction and recreation of London in 1888 help to salvage it. It also features winning interpretations of Holmes and Watson by Christopher Plummer and James Mason (my favorite Dr. Watson), and fine performances by a strong supprting cast. It also features one of the scariest moments I've ever seen in a film, when the black eyes of the killer appears in a tight close-up. Scary! Overall: sluggish at time, but entertaining.

Forget the later versions -- this one is the best.

[ghill47 · 9/10 · 27 February 2006]

I happened across this film recently and found it to be a superb forerunner to FROM HELL which was filmed many years later. To be frank, this version is a lot more believable. It impressed me deeply because of the excellent depiction of the cramped, narrow, damp and winding back streets of Whitehall, all shrouded in permanent fog, and with a queasy, chromatic musical score to alert you that not all is well and dark deeds await.

The characters are believable and well played: Plummer underplays Holmes when so many other actors take him over the top: James Mason is an earthy, skeptical Dr. Watson whose blusterings are amusing without ever become a pain in the tail; we have a cooperative and good-natured Lestrange, a suitably shell-shocked Mary Kelly, and Anthony Quayle puts in not only an incredibly gruff and abrasive performance as Scotland yard's Charles Warren, but also wins the movie's bizarre-makeup award. Donald Sutherland also modestly underplays his role as the sickly psychic with a mustache that Wyatt Earp would have envied. And of course, the unmasked villains are suitably sinister and reek of the madness being perpetrated on the panicky London slum.

Also deserving a nod are John Gielgud and others who play high government officials with the proper stuffy condescension and total disregard for "inferiors" of whatever class or religion, putting the stability of the monarchy far above those the ruling class are supposed to be caring for. It's hard to visualize Holmes an an insurrectionist, but if this was not the appropriate situation, nothing would be.

This film would merit a 10 out of 10 except for the peculiar character played by David Hemmings, who seemed out of place to begin with and brought too much attention to himself as someone to keep an eye on, as if he were a walking clue for the more inattentive viewer. Good performance, just an awkward and blatant addition to the story characters.

Forget the drug-hazed and farcical Johnny Depp character of FROM HELL: rather, watch the clear-headed relentless Holmes take on Saucy Jack with such a fervency that he overlooks more hidden, sinister forces attempting to steer him towards satisfying their own ends....

solid Sherlock Holmes

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 20 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.

Stick with this one through the confusing portions...it all works out great by the end.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 11 March 2012]

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.

A well-crafted period thriller

[Rueiro · 7/10 · 9 March 2014]

Being as I am a Sherlock Holmes enthusiast, I find very fascinating the idea of having the detective investigating the infamous Ripper murders. It is an idea that never occurred to Doyle or, at least, he never materialised on paper. The first Holmes adventure, A Study in Scarlet, came out in 1887, just one year before the murders. This is an impeccably atmospheric depiction of Victorian London with a top-notch cast of the sort you will hardly see in a film today, and the sequence of events is so suspenseful that keeps you engaged until the very end.But you mustn't take the conspiracy theory seriously, because it is totally ludicrous. I have never read the Stephen Knight book from which this film borrows the idea of the Royal family and the Freemasons' association with the mysterious killer or killers. But although it sounds fascinating and there must be people who truly believe it, when you think a little about it you realise its absurdity. The heir to the throne falling for a commoner and marrying her in secret? A so high and mighty a person as a Victorian royal could be, knowing that if the affair ever came to the public knowledge the Monarchy would be ruined? He might seduce her, (after all, many kings in the past used to have mistresses and they fathered bastards), but never get mixed-up with the girl to the point of marrying her. That is totally preposterous. And then, how the conspirators did know whom the girl had revealed her secret to? She moved among the East End crowds and could have told just anyone. How could the murderers know which persons in particular she had been talking to so they could silence them forever? Nevertheless, despite all of these questions that make the famous conspiracy theory totally implausible, if we watch the film just as the piece of entertainment it is, with a fascinating blend of fiction with real-life characters of the Ripper's time (Sir Charles Warren, Robert Lees, Mary Kelly and the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury), this is an excellent suspense film to kill a couple of hours on a Saturday night.

Murder by dullness

[son_of_cheese_messiah · 3/10 · 20 March 2011]

Sherlock Holmes meets Jack The Ripper! No doubt this potentially exciting prospect drew so many top notch actors to the project. Masonic intrigue! A Royal conspiracy! What more could any film fan want? Sadly, the rich promise of this plot is very poorly realised. It looks atmospheric, at least to start with, with the pea-souper fogs and a good feel for how life in the more deprived parts of London must have been in the late nineteenth century. The fogs soon become tiresome (you've seen one fog you've seen them all), serving to hide the none-too-plausible plot more than anything else. The hackneyed music does not help, and gives the impression of a dated 1970s cheap TV thriller.

The film deteriorates as it proceeds. At first, the plot is interesting enough to sustain the attention and the audience can delight in spotting the succession of famous faces. This makes us overlook the mundane dialogue, sometimes muffled by poor recording on street scenes, and the bad acting such dialogue creates. But when this wears off, the routine writing and general lack of direction become very wearisome.

The denouement, which takes up the final 15 minutes, is as boring and static as can be imagined, although most viewers will have switched off by then. This is a long and detailed explanation of the plot. Any writer worth his salt knows such lengthy explanation have no place at the end, being very anti-climatic. This film should actually be shown to students to demonstrate how not to write.

(slight spoiler) Not only is this denouement boring but it fails to really resolve anything. Holmes' involvement in this matter has not managed to save anyone's life, but has lost a few; that the murders will now stop is not done to him, they would have stopped with the death of Kelly anyway; the child was already guaranteed safety (if I understood it correctly). All we have is the possible resignation of the PM, whose involvement is minimal at least.

Sorry for such a low grade but with the cast and the premise this should have been at least good. A waste of the actors' talents and the audience's time.

The Plummer-Mason double-act is on top form

[Corky1984 · 22 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.

good performances but fundamentally flawed movie

[wbg02 · 6/10 · 28 July 2004]

Let me begin on a positive note by stating that I was very impressed with the performances in the movie. Christopher Plummer surprisingly but effectively infuses Sherlock Holmes with emotion and at times a giddy enthusiasm. James Mason's Doctor Watson is no doddering old man. He lacks the Holmesian spark of genius, yet he is a capable contributor to the investigation. The real surprise is Genevieve Bujold. Although appearing in only one scene, her character has an emotional transformation that is quite moving.

Normally, with solid acting and strong production values, I would give this movie a passing grade. Yet, the drawbacks are so central to the plot itself that they make the movie fundamentally flawed. I understand the conspiracy theory espoused on the Jack the Ripper murders does not have to be historically accurate to make the movie a good piece of entertainment. However, the conspiracy of the elite is presented with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. From the first scenes in the concert hall, the viewer knows the direction of where the story is going. ***Mild spoiler*** The Star Chamber confrontation with John Gielguld's Lord Salisbury is just a gratuitous slander of a public official. It was not needed and made the thesis less credible. ***End spoiler***

Yet the above is not my main complaint. What is inexcusable for a Sherlock Holmes movie is that there is no MYSTERY. In a Holmes movie, one expects to have the mind challenged to interpret clues. There are hardly any clues at all in this movie; and none presented with any amount of context that would allow the viewer to think. To put it bluntly, there is 10 times more deductive reasoning used in one episode of a Law & Order television show than in the two hours of Murder by Decree. The producers were so intent on making an attack on the Victorian establishment that they forgot to make a Sherlock Holmes movie.

I am hard on Murder by Decree because an opportunity for a great movie was wasted. It had good actors giving strong performances, effective use of set and location shooting, and an interesting idea of having a famous fictional detective hunt for an infamous serial killer. Yet, the solution to the murders is presented in an obvious manner without a hint of mystery. What could have been a classic is just a watchable but flawed movie.

Not the Holmes to Which I am Accustomed

[gengar843 · 7/10 · 23 September 2005]

WARNING-SPOILERS- I am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes films, Jeremy Brett and Basil Rathbone defining for me the essence of the detail-oriented, multi-talented, and steely-hearted consulting detective. I've also enjoyed the various Jack the Ripper portrayals in film, especially The Lodger, and A Study in Terror, but also ranging towards the Victorian Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, an obvious (to me) extension of that theme. Naturally, one would assume that Sherlock Holmes chasing Jack the Ripper (the plot of Murder by Decree) would then satisfy me enormously. It did not. I was rather surprised at how entirely unauthentic Holmes appears in this movie. Whether it be his reliance on "intuition" and hunches (rather than explicit detection and lab work), his reckless stalking {rather than his normally-calm surveillance} (which costs Mary her life), or his candid sentimentality (instead of his felicity to facts), this Sherlock Holmes is, to me, nearly-unrecognizable.

Christopher Plummer does a fine job in expressing that which is handed him by the writers, but where is Holmes? He is laid out no less than twice(first by a horse-drawn carriage, then by the sword-wielding murderer)- the real Holmes was no less for courage, but quite a bit more aware and resourceful. Holmes' chimney-sweep disguise is more slapstick than chicanery, and his abilities with weapons also seem to be lacking.

Leaving that complaint, I move to Dr. Watson, played with a faraway air by the inimitable James Mason. I think Watson's role was given a bit more meat (although his run-in with prostitutes goes on far too long), but I must blame either Mason or the direction of Bob Clark for the inexcusable limitation of Watson's range of emotive force. Here, we see a Watson that is, in my opinion, more aloof yet more clumsy than any true Watson. Watson's vaunted affection for, and way with, the women is never truly explored here, nor is his great love for Holmes brought to bear. No, if anything, Plummer's Holmes is so much more human and Mason's Watson too stuffy for my tastes. Mason's underplayed wittiness was much too dry, and Holmes humor was less twinkling than normal. Comments to the contrary, which claim that this teaming of Holmes and Watson is "superb," fail to transmit just how OLD Holmes and Watson are here, a chronological error as well as a plotting goof.

David Hemmings brings his usual pie-eyed trepidation (which made him so lovable in Barbarella, and so believable in Harlequin), but it falls flat. Foxborough is as lead-footed as Holmes, and his relationship to anarchic forces is hardly explored.

Frank Finlay, however, is GREAT as Lestrade, and I lamented his smaller role.

Anthony Quayle blusters his way through the role of Sir Charles, conveying neither the inhuman nor loyalistic elements needed for realism here.

Donald Sutherland as Robert Lees was perhaps the goofiest of roles, but the casting cannot be faulted, for he is among the goofiest of actors. As to Lees, I viewed him as a red herring, especially since Holmes allowed Lees to protect himself by refusing to name the true culprit(s), a move which jibes neither with the no-nonsense Holmes to which I am partial, nor the open-hearted Holmes which is allegedly presented in Murder by Decree.

As to Jack the Ripper, that portrayal is well-done. This is truly a Ripper, rather than a Holmes, film. It is nearly a pseudo-documentary, exploring various hypotheses on the Ripper's identity before the full-scale solution is tendered. The final analysis is hardly surprising, given the transparent nature of most of the characters, even if the ramifications are eye-opening. The Ripper himself is played with gusto, with dilated pupils peering from behind misty alleyways. The eerie score (reminiscent of Halloween) may also dilate your own eyeballs! There is a goriness which interplays with the lighter Holmes which makes the Ripper scenes even more effective; and some portions are not suitable for children (extended strangulation scene, evisceration scene).

The detection work is negligible in this film. A discarded grape cluster is boiled in a lab fit for Peter Cushing's eye-rolling Dr. Frankenstein (which lab, incidentally, is the target for a cheap laugh), and a few observances are made but, essentially, this Sherlock Holmes likes to collect scraps of information from unreliable sources (a murdered informant, a party committed to an asylum, e.g.), play hunches, and (really) rely on good fortune. I found myself not envying this Holmes' skills, which means that he is, in my mind, a hack.

The direction in Murder by Decree is also faulty. There is a pace set at the beginning which is not maintained, and the viewer's attention is soon strained by scenes too long, and repeated motifs. On the other hand, the set design was marvelous, illuminating London in Victorian charm. Holmes' den is quite familiar, and the asylum will make your stomach turn. The East End is shrouded in fake fog, but the wicked loneliness of the place is riveting.

In Murder by Decree, there is no tour-de-force acting, the sub-plots are poorly-defined, and the writing seems overly-moralistic. However, the costuming is pleasant (except for Holmes' overbearing deerstalker cap), and the casting is OK, if you enjoy these particular actors. If you've come to see a Sherlock Holmes film, you may be sorely disappointed, but if you've come to see a Jack the Ripper film, I think this is worthwhile.

Prostitute victims shown in all their tragedy!

[knutsenfam · 7/10 · 27 September 2005]

Comments above summarize some of the great moments.

I wish to say that the director here also shows the main victims (prostitutes) as well as other women/girls exploited by the powerful, as truly vulnerable and abused.

And he does so without glamorizing the victims (thus this film is not voyeuristic, but truly tragic). The scenes of violence against the women are somewhat muted, so no one can go "voyeuristic" over the fate of these women---whose main reason for being murdered is ---that they were in the wrong places---at the wrong time.

For instance, the prostitutes are women mainly in their forties, ravaged by their so destructive life style, and they show it. One slightly younger prostitute, maybe late 30's, trues to lure Watson with the line "But I have all my teeth!" And then she finds---a loose tooth. The look on her face! *****

So unlike Hollywood which "uses" most prostitutes in their films as an opportunity for voyeurism...as most prostitute characters look like they entered the field of prostitution---yesterday, ...and are not yet ravaged by the disease, violence and emotional damage that is the lot of most prostitutes then and now.

This is a film where the strong do stand for the weak.

Our civilization would be worthless...if the strong didn't stand up for the weak.

One of the best Holmes adventures

[jc1305us · 9/10 · 10 November 2013]

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!

Tiresome to watch. Even more so for hard core Sherlockians.

[Superhanz · 6/10 · 7 March 2015]

Not being sure whether this was based on a book or not, the similarities between this plot and that of "From Hell"'s are too many to be neglected to realize the latter's director was much happier in choosing, to start with, to utterly and completely kill the character of the clairvoyant or "medium", if you like: That character just doesn't belong whatsoever to any Sherlock Holmes story (either by Conan Doyle himself or not) taking itself seriously. Utterly and completely unnecessary to its development! Then we have the acting: great actors but mostly, seeming completely out of place.

The great James Mason has his TNT-like potential confined to a tired, old fart (too old actually) of a Watson.

Not to mention the unfortunate decision to turn his notoriously witty and clever character into some sort of comedy relief - take the pea scene, for instance: he was told to dither and procrastinates too much for a true Watson! From Nigel Bruce to Jude Law and Martin Freeman, I'm still to see such a demeaning portrayal of the good doctor.

Then we have Holmes. Unlike the original character, the director quite possibly prompted by the producers, have managed, in their quite apparent failed attempt to make him more human, to almost make him cry like a five year old, scaredy girl. Oh my, where to start? He's lost that truly Sherlockian "certainty". Sherlock Holmes shouldn't just ASK so many questions: he DEDUCES, pure and simply! Specially, as I mentioned earlier, bow to a bloody medium in trying to solve his case!! He's just not sure of his surroundings: at the funeral, why has he suddenly lost his powers to deduce the bad guys are still following him and are therefore certain to track Mary Kelly down via him carelessly taking them to her? For this review's size sake, I won't even delve into other flimsy character portrayals but believe me: it is really mostly other appalling portrayals to watch! But there are still positive point nonetheless. The scenery, props (sometimes a bit overdone, skulls with blinking lights longing at Sherlock's studio and so on and finally, the great Victorian London atmosphere they still managed to pull out regardless. Hence my rating it a point above a weak 5.

Murder By Decree

[nash-43 · 9/10 · 5 October 2006]

Of course through the years, many movie makers have chosen to use their films to make social commentary on society's evils and its direction. In many ways Murder By Decree is one of those films. With the fictional characters of Holmes/Watson "arguably the best teaming of actors to play the roles to date" and a fairly factual account of the white chapel murders, the makers of this film, in my opinion, succeed admirably. With wonderful, albeit, not typical, performances by Christopher Plummer and James Mason as Holmes and Watson and a very emotional scene in which Genevieve Bujold gives a "film stealing" performance, the producers take on politics, politicians, political arrogance and the plight of society's unfortunates. For those who care, the names and the places are all there. The feel of 1888 London is there. Some may get lost in the politics of the movie, even though they are not driven home until the very end. There are a few flaws, many gems, and more than a few chills. I am a fan of the genre and a fan of this film.

Utterly atrocious

[rgcustomer · 6/10 · 28 June 2009]

I hate to spend more time on this film than it's already sapped from my life, so I'll keep it short.

1. Sherlock and Watson are essentially played as an effeminate gay couple. And maybe that's true to who they really are. Who knows? But I expected them to end up in bed together for some tender makeup sex after the pea incident, which would have been an interesting touch, but sadly the writer didn't follow up on that. If you aren't going to explore that relationship like you would any other romantic relationship, then just play it straight and focus on the story.

2. The idea of having a fictional character investigate a real serial killer is nauseating. It shows a real lack of integrity on the part of the writer. If there's evidence, make a documentary, otherwise leave it alone.

3. Sherlock Holmes bases his career on deductive logic, and yet he relies on a medium without investigating him? We're supposed to believe that?

4. One baddie hangs himself in a net? The man actually has both arms and both legs functioning, and somehow all his weight is on his neck? Nets are unstable, but they aren't magic killing machines.

5. As usual, our hero goes into the baddies' lair, tells them everything he knows, hands over what appears to be the only copy of the evidence, and ... they have a polite debate about manners instead of killing him. People who control the means of investigation, and who have no problem with murder and cover-up, just let him walk away. And I'm the Queen of England.

6. I'm no fan of religions or secret societies, but this seems to be an outrageous and baseless attack on Masons. The world has enough crackpot conspiracy theories without adding to them.

7. The editing was just horrible. A half-hour could have been cut out, and it would have improved the pacing considerably without losing anything. The fact that this won the Genie for editing says more about the deplorable state of Canadian film that year than it says about this movie.

They will not feel for them

[karlericsson · 10/10 · 14 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.

Very entertaining Sherlock Holmes

[steiner-sam · 7/10 · 19 June 2021]

It is a Canadian-British film set in 1888 London, England, as Sherlock Holmes figures out the Jack the Ripper murders. The movie follows the premise of the 1976 book "Jack the Ripper: the Final Solution" by Stephen Knight.

The film opens as we see glimpses of a couple of the early murders. Scotland Yard seems to be baffled, and a citizens' committee comes seeking the help of Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. Watson (James Mason).

They're soon called to another murder where they encounter Sir Charles Warren, the Commissioner of Police (Anthony Quayle), and Inspector Foxborough (David Hemmings). Warren orders Holmes not to interfere, which was, of course, meaningless. Holmes glimpses a woman in the crowd who looks like she might be involved. This turns out to be Mary Kelly (Susan Clark), a prostitute connected to the earlier victims.

Holmes consults a medium, Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland), who gives further hints about the perpetrator. As Holmes and Watson investigate further, it appears the Freemasons are involved in what seems to be a conspiracy that includes some of the government's highest members.

Eventually, they are led to a woman held in an insane asylum, Annie Crook (Geneviève Bujold), who reveals a relationship in the royal family that resulted in a child. When they return to London, Holmes and Watson cannot prevent the murder of Mary Kelly, but ultimately Holmes catches up with the perpetrators. He then outlines the whole sordid story to the Commissioner of Police, the Home Secretary, and the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury (John Gielgud).

For me, this was a very entertaining film. The reviews were somewhat mixed. The critical reviews thought it plodding, but I was fine with the pace. The positive reviews loved James Mason, but I thought Plummer was every bit as good Mason. Geneviève Bujold was excellent as Annie Crook. Plummer and Bujold won Canadian Genie awards for their performance.

Conan-Doyle must be turning in his grave

[rodblakeman-82930 · 3/10 · 10 August 2020]

I'd rather watch a spider crawl up my arm (and I hate spiders) than watch this garbage ever again. Some fine actors who all but left their talent at home, saving James Mason who carried the movie. The script was utter rubbish, the filming dire, and the best I can say for it is that it is not the worse film made in the late 70s, but it is probably up there in the top half dozen.