TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

SnoopyStyle 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.

John austin 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.

Rueiro 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.

aramis-112-804880 Warning, spoilers ahead.Christopher Plummer is one of those actors who seem born to play Holmes. He has perfect facial features and a cold, precise manner. His performance is spot-on as the middle aged Holmes. James Mason is one of the best Dr. Watsons on film. He's no blundering fool, though he's mistaken for one a few times in this film.Enjoy a great teaming of Holmes and Watson, because the story is weak.Possibly to make up for a limp storyline, this film is populated with good actors in bit parts. Two of the smallest parts are Donald Sutherland as psychic Robert Lees, and Geneviève Bujold, appearing for mere minutes, as a madhouse inmate. Toward the end, John Gielgud pops his head in to say "Hi" as the Prime Minister.Anthony Quayle keeps his angry hat on as the head honcho of the police. Inspectors Lestrade (a very fine Frank Finlay) and Foxborough (David Hemmings) come off a lot better, exchanging quips with Holmes and Watson while seeking Jack the Ripper.Though the "Royal Conspiracy" Jack the Ripper theory went through quite a vogue during the seventies and eighties, it has now been completely discredited. They might still have hammered a decent story out of this farrago of nonsense (farragos of nonsense often make great movies), if they had supplied a better ending. In fact, when the "Ripper" is discovered it's disappointing as it was not properly foreshadowed. Nor is the killer one of the big names in the cast, which would have helped. There's a lot of speechifying near the end to clear up what we just saw, but it's lame."Murder by Decree" was first announced with Peter O'Toole as Holmes, which had great potential. With O'Toole as Holmes, Anthony Quayle might have made a noteworthy Watson. Instead, according to the director's commentary, they wanted Laurence Olivier. But bad blood existed between the two "O" actors O'Toole and Olivier, and in the end neither came on board.Still, Plummer and Mason make a fine pairing, and it's too bad they didn't make more Holmes outings before Mason's death in 1984.Unfortunately, this is not the post-Jeremy Brett Holmes where Sherlock can dress like a human being. He gallivants around London in a deerstalker hat and cape meant for country wear -- even flipping his deerstalker on his head while leaving the opera! He looks ludicrous. But his acting is impeccable.