Sherlock Holmes and Saucy Jack

source: Sherlock Holmes and Saucy Jack

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.

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.

...but this movie is absurd. The gay angle has already been mentioned, and what was absolutely galling is Sherlock Holmes making reference that Watson is a "ladies man" in order to put worries aside that they are two gay men living together. What is truly absurd, though, and something I have not seen mentioned anywhere in the reviews, is that at one time, there is a torture/murder taking place in a flat at street level where the killers are so stupid they leave the curtains open so anyone can look in from outside while they are cutting up the victim, which is exactly what happens. This is terrible writing and directing to the point of being amateurish. There are also so many loose ends and things that don't make sense story wise that it makes the movie completely a waste of time. Amateur hour on the part of the writer and the director.

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.

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.

Anyone who has read Sir A.C. Doyle's works regarding Sherlock Holmes will hate this movie. It's an abomination, whereas A. C. Doyle's were clever and quaint. On the other hand, this story is hodgepodge,silly, and completely outside the standards of ACD's work. A disgrace, and the acting is equally poor. In addition, anyone who's read the least about Jack the Ripper will see the inaccuracies and fabrications, which further deplete the quality of this movie. The character of Watson is reasonably well done, but the character of Holmes is not done quite so well. The performance by Donald Sutherland is laughable and its only merit is the make-up artists ability to make him look ghoulish otherwise his acting is atrocious. Overall, a total disaster of a movie that anyone found of Sherlock Holmes will find nothing short of annoying.

"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.

I am a big Sherlock Holmes fan and normally I am very much against Non-canonical Holmes stories. However, when I discovered that there were two films which placed Holmes in the case of Jack the Ripper I immediately bought the DVD for this film and I was more than impressed. The clever plot and the superb acting make this film perfect. Christopher Plummer gives a fine performance as the great sleuth, his performance as Holmes is almost as powerful as Jeremy Brett's, I was also impressed to see a rarely seen side to Holmes' character – emotion. James Mason is also on fine form in the role of the faithful friend Dr John Watson. The dedication given to the film by the cast and crew is shown, the camera movements at the scene of the first murder shown in the film is powerful and extremely suspenseful. This film is a film which should not be missed fans of Sherlock Holmes.

This is a stylish Sherlock Holmes film with the best foggy-London atmosphere I've ever seen on film - just great photography with some wonderful, murky shots. I saw it on VHS and I wouldn't mind seeing it now that it is available on DVD. It has to look really good. Unfortunately, the story doesn't match the cinematography. It just bogs down in too many spots. The script could have used some better editing. It's hard to watch for more than an hour without your mind wandering. Christopher Plummer and James Mason make a good Holmes-Dr. Watson pair, respectively, with good chemistry. I could have done without all the religious exclamations spoken by Mason. A little too much credence is given the "medium" (Donald Sutherland) too, but filmmakers have always loved promoting the occult, especially in Britain, land of "Harry Potter." Sutherland's role was minor (but played up by critics, of course.) As another reviewer pointed out here, you'd never see a character like that show himself in a Conan Doyle piece of literature. The ending is typical modern-day film-making in which the government is corrupt and the Free Masons are the bigoted villains. I'll stick with Basiil Rathbone versions of Sherlock Holmes where you don't have all the political agendas and they concentrated on just telling the crime story.