SJBUSHELL

Having just watched this film I thought I would add my penny's worth to IMDB.

I have to admit that I am a fan of Murder By Decree and there have been comparisons between that film and A Study In Terror. In my mind they are quite dissimilar.

A Study In Terror is what I would call a Sherlock Holmes film with the murders of Jack the Ripper playing second to the characters whereas Murder By Decree is a film about Jack the Ripper with Sherlock Holmes playing second to the murders and the plot. I think this is borne out in that Murder By Decree you could have actually had any two detectives investigating the murders and the film would have worked. A lot of attention is paid to the historical facts and the timing and places of the murders. In A Study in Terror the victims are 'cannon fodder' and the facts not that historically correct. There was no mention of the 'Jewes' message left on the wall after the infamous double murder and, although Mary Kelly was murdered indoors, it was in a ground floor room. That is not to say A Study In Terror is not a good film, it is. We have an instantly recognisable Sherlock in John Neville who plays the part well; the supporting cast are good in their own right to. Interestingly Frank Finley played Lestrade in both A Study in Terror and Murder by Decree and Anthony Quale also appears in both films but in different characters.

I cared more about the victims in Murder by Decree (especially the scene with Annie Crook in the mental institution) than I did A Study in Terror and I think that is why I like that film more. Still A Study in Terror will keep you interested and I would recommend both films but for different reasons.

Ok, so the acting was rather theatrical and the message rather patriotic. But, like Henry VI, it was a propaganda war film to stir the spirit of the English people in the height of the second world war. It didn't have the writing credits of Shakespeare but this must also be taken into consideration. To critise a film written for the sole purpose of bolstering the battered and bombed people of the British Isles in WWII and comparing it with what we are used to now as historical films (although Braveheart, The Patriot and U571 may be more deserving of criticism than The Prime Minister) is being blindsighted.

This film should be considered for what it's purpose is and what film has ever portrayed any historical figure in his or her real light. We have documentaries for that.

Just watch the film for what it is.