Terror en la niebla

I am both a fan of Sherlock Holmes and an interested observer of the case of Jack the Ripper. This film, with excellent show-saving performances by John Neville, Anthony Quayle, Robert Morley and the whole cast, was clearly written by a Sherlockian rather than a Ripperologist. A lot of Holmes's lines are lifted from stories in the original cannon. The fictional story here (where Holmes encounters Jack the Ripper) is good and basic, and I prefer the simplicity of its solution to the complexity of that in "Murder by Decree", the other Holmes-Ripper film, made in 1979. The research, however, on the Jack the Ripper crimes was clearly lousy, if not non-existent: From the first five seconds of the film, with Mary-Anne Nichols (nicknamed "Polly", but would The Times call her that?) having a knife stuck through her neck and seconds later a fat woman discovering her, when in reality, Nichols had her throat cut and her uterus torn out, two hours before she was discovered by two men. The "dear boss" letter is anything but complete here, there is no mention of the other letters or reasonable explanation for why the Ripper sent it. The writing on the wall for murder three is absent. Still, if you don't mind historical inaccuracies, this film is definitely worth watching. It has my approval.

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.

Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'A Study in Terror', especially one with such a great idea. There have been a lot of comparisons with 'Murder By Decree', won't compare them other than saying that to me they are good in their own way and personally rank them the same.

There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'A Study in Terror', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.

'A Study in Terror' generally is a good interesting film. Perhaps at times the script could have been more imaginative. Will admit also to not being that surprised by the identity of the killer, am another person who guessed it correctly prematurely.

Most problematic was the music, which just didn't fit and like it belonged somewhere else.

Otherwise, there is not much actually to fault 'A Study in Terror' from personal opinion. It is very inaccurate historically, but on its own terms it entertains and shocks effectively. Although modest in budget, the settings and period detail are beautifully realised and have a lot of handsome evocative atmosphere. Very nicely shot too.

Generally the script is assured and intelligent, with some nice dark humour, and the story has genuine dread and dark suspense. The deaths are gruesome but not gratuitously so, anybody who knows of Jack the Ripper will know that his murders were among the most horrific and haven't-seen-anything-like-it in history.

John Neville is a worthy and charismatic Holmes, if not one of the best as the character, while Donald Houston achieves a good balance of amusing and dignified without being buffoonish or dull. Frank Finlay, John Fraser and especially Robert Morley (with a couple of the best lines) are the supporting cast standouts.

Overall, good and interesting. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This is a model B-movie: fast-paced, engaging, atmospheric, full of great twists. Most "A" productions would only wish they were this good! Neville makes a suitably arrogant and surprisingly physical Holmes, and Houston is a perfect Dr.Watson. The director does wonders with an obviously low budget. Much, much better than the similar "Murder By Decree". (***)

The two big crimefighting superheroes of the middle 60s were James Bond,and Batman.I think that the cultural miliue that was going on had a significant influence on the way that these films and tv programs impacted this film.It is an interesting and respectable addition to the Holmes canon.And while neither Neville as Holmes nor Huston as Watson do more than imitate Rathbone and Bruce,they do what they need to do with honors.What I found fascinating was the casting of Morley as Mycroft Holmes.A physically appropos choice(Mycroft is described as mildly obese,balding,untidy,and indolent)Morley also suggests the powerful intellect and penetrating insight that Mycroft possesses.And even if he does add some rather stuffy,pompous,and overly fussy comic relief,what of it?The movie does benefit,and it "fleshes out"(forgive the pun,given Morley's size)Mycroft's eccentric personality.

Sherlock Holmes (John Neville) and Dr. Watson join the hunt for the notorious serial killer, Jack the Ripper.

Between this movie and "Murder by Decree", this is the superior film. More dark humor, a better Holmes, and much more of a horror aesthetic. One could argue it is not a horror film, but I would strongly disagree... early on, we see a man in black gloves (but no face) shove a dagger through the skull of a victim. Another is stabbed and left discarded in a tub. This is very much on the periphery of the giallo or slasher film.

There is some similarity between this and "From Hell", also. Which of those two is better, that is hard to say. They are different animals. This one has more of the humor (albeit dark), but "From Hell" is the more grisly picture. They both have some of the royalty aspects, though this one invents the names of the royals rather than uses the actual suspects.

I would recommend this film rather highly.