Sherlock Holmes: notti di terrore

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.

In 1888, Sherlock Holmes (JOHN NEVILLE) and Dr Watson (DONALD HOUSTON) discover the identity of the Whitechapel serial killer known as Jack The Ripper.

An enormously enjoyable fictional confrontation between Conan Doyle's most celebrated detective and a true crime, which has caused constant fascination since it occurred over one-hundred years ago. The script writers Donald and Derek Ford came up with an excellent screenplay that succeeds in capturing all the eccentricities and intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and his solution to the Ripper killings are quite believable made up of many facts and myths that surround the case that looks never to be solved. Director James Hill who was more famous for his animal adventures with BORN FREE (1965) and his attempt to take swinging sixties pop to the seaside in EVERY DAY'S A HOLIDAY (1964) shows that he was a most versatile film maker who could generate excellent suspense and disturbing horror sequences. Just check out the last killing which is brilliantly shot from the Ripper's point of view with hand held cameras (presumably!) and gaudy lighting saturated in lurid reds. Hill recreates the Victorian London era with great enthusiasm and he is most ably assisted by cinematographer Desmond Dickinson (who is this author's favourite cameraman) and there are first rate performances from Neville as Holmes and Robert Morley as his brother Mycroft. There is a classic scene where Holmes is probing a clue over his violin and Mycroft asks "Why in all these years have you never learned to play that infernal instrument?".

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.

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". (***)

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.