Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Leofwine_draca 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.

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.

Nywildcat1 Whomever came up with the idea of pitting Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper was a sheer genius! This movie was thoroughly engaging and kept me riveted through out the duration of the film.Christopher Plummer was fantastic as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason is, to me at least, the definitive Dr. Watson. The chemistry the two of them had on screen was amazing and I would have liked to have seen them do more Sherlock Holmes movies together. But to me, it was really James Mason who stole the show. It was interesting for me to read somewhere that Mr. Mason would only do the role if Watson wasn't portrayed as a complete buffoon. Instead, he was portrayed as an intelligent man (which he should be, if he's hanging around with Holmes)who had a certain naiveté about him, rather than being a complete idiot. And at no point did Holmes come across as condescending to him, which is often the case in most Holmes movies. Watson played an absolutely integral part in solving the mystery, rather than making it seem as though Holmes was able to solve it entirely on his own.Since, in real life, the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was, was never solved, it does take in to account all the conspiracy theories. Was he a surgeon gone mad? Were the murders somehow connected to the royal family? Were the murders truly random or interconnected? It will keep you guessing until the end.*************************MINOR SPOILER ALERT BELOW********************* There were only a few drawbacks that would have otherwise made it an almost perfect film. For starters, Donald Sutherland, who plays a psychic that has some mysterious connection to the Ripper, is vastly underused. At one point he psychically realizes who the Ripper is, but refuses to tell Holmes who it is. He tells Holmes the street that the suspect lives on, but that's all. It does lead Holmes in the right direction, but that's about it. In other words, I feel that his character, who was a minor one, wasn't really necessary and didn't really add much to move the plot forward. Holmes could have really figured it out in another way. Also, perhaps it was just me, but when Holmes encounters Mary Kelly, a prostitute that holds the key to the whole mystery, she is so scared and hysterical, that I found it difficult to understand what she was saying,so it was a bit confusing for me as to how he was lead to Genevieve Bujold's character in an insane asylum. Lastly, when the murderer(s) are revealed, it's anticlimactic because you never meet these characters anywhere else in the film. Even though one is referred to earlier, you never meet them. Unlike a usual whodunit, where you have to guess who the killers are and why, the whole point was just for the why. When Holmes explains the reasons behind the killings, you are completely satisfied with the explanation, but still feel a bit cheated about the who.Despite these drawbacks, it was a thoroughly enjoyable film and a "Must See" for all Sherlock Holmes enthusiasts. James Mason alone is worth the viewing.

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.