Sherlock Holmes: notti di terrore

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.

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.

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?".

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". (***)

I have no idea how many times Sherlock Holmes has battled Jack the Ripper over the years but here he is at it again, and in brilliant color to boot. I mention the color since the film, coming as films were rapidly being only made in color, takes great pleasure in showing us the colorful world of Victorian London and White Chapel in particular. Its a very 1960's sort of thing to do, as is the use of bongos on the soundtrack. Neither of these things really hurt the films plotting, but they do place it in a reality that could only be an English film studio in the 1960's. There's a feeling attached to many non-Hammer English films of the period that the producers were trying to give you something you couldn't get at home on a black and white TV, namely color. This need to show off detracts from what is a good thriller.

The plotting of Holmes attempt to solve the Ripper killings is reasonably well done. The hows and whys of the killings are interesting, however I have to say that I find that they are not as well done as in Murder by Decree, which is one of my favorite films (Holmes or otherwise.) For this reason I have some reservations, which are purely personal and should not stop you from at least watching this good movie.

John Neville as Holmes gives a very human portrait of a man of both mind and action, doing what ever it is to get the case solved. His relationship with Watson is pretty much as equals, something that is missing from most Holmes films which present the Holmes/Watson relationship in such away as to make you wonder why they are friends. I like that you can understand why they are together.

Over all, a good little movie, though as I said it suffers by comparison.