Meurtre par décret

Before the advent of Jeremy Brett "Murder By Decree" had the finest Holmes/Watson/Lestrade teaming in Christopher Plummer, James Mason and Frank Finlay. It's too bad they have such a ridiculous story.

The good: the acting is impeccable. All except a strangely dull, murmuring Donald Sutherland; and a blustery Anthony Quayle. For a more lively Victorian Sutherland catch "The Great Train Robbery."

The bad: everything else. In most Holmes movies he's bounding around London in his famous deerstalker cap and his cape. It's no different here. Holmes even wears this preposterous costume to the opera.

In 1888 Holmes and Watson were impecunious young men sharing digs until their careers took off (Watson wasn't yet married). Here, in 1888, they are prematurely aged, like two old codgers unable to get by alone on their pensions.

The story this is based on (I read Stephen Knight's book when I was young and impressionable) has long been exploded. Of course, in a work of fiction (and Holmes stories are all fiction) they can do what they like but I'd rather have seen this Holmes/Watson combination in a more rousing tale.

It's really silly from the first. Spooky as the empty East End streets are and fine as they are in setting a mood, the streets in the East End of London were teeming with people day and night. One of the biggest mysteries of Jack the Ripper (if one hand was "Jack the Ripper"--we know the blanket name grouping a series of similar murders was an invention of the sensational "fake news" press) is how the victims were all taken to secluded areas. Obviously, the murderer(s) had to be denizens of that area, knowing where to go for seclusion and how to escape swiftly.

Other silly points of this story are the closed carriage. The thing about so-called Jack the Ripper is the facility with which he or she or they came and went with no one noticing anything. A fancy carriage would be noticed. But so would a man in a high hat and cape carrying a patent leather Gladstone doctors' bag: the stereotypical Ripper image.

Worth watching is Mason's competent, courageous, yet still humorous Watson (though I can't imagine a doctor who bravely operated on the field of battle being squeamish about the injuries suffered by "Ripper" victims).

It's a shame because Plummer and Mason are so perfect for their parts and so good. I'd like to have seen them do other Sherlock stories! Also, I've been a Mason myself for thirty years and though I grew disenchanted with them, the Masonic stuff is half-rubbish. But as an honorable fellow who won't violate his Masonic code, disenchanted or not, I can't say which half.

Not only do we have a first rate Holmes/Watson combination, we have a subtle, extra-canonical David Hemings. But I love Plummer, Mason (odd name for this yarn) and Finlay.

This isn't an adaptation based on Arthur Conan Doyle novels , the plot line is a fictional story . The fable mingles Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Jack the Ripper. In the film appears Doctor Watson (James Mason) and Constable Lestrade (Frank Finlay) but not Doctor Moriarty though there is doubt if he's the murderous ; will be the killer? . The plot has a twisted ending and contains outstanding surprises .

The movie displays a first-rate set design and is very atmospheric . The shady and spooky slums are pretty well designed . Some shots create creepy and horror moments . The film blends thriller , suspense , detective action , terror and a little gore and is quite interesting . Acting by Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes is excellent , likeness to Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett as TV Sherlock ; furthermore James Mason as Watson is sublime . Other secondary actors are David Hemmings , Susan Clark , Frank Finlay , Genevieve Bujold , all of them are splendid . In 2002 the Hughes Brothers made a special version with Johnny Depp titled "From Hell" . Rating: 7 , above average . Well worth seeing .

Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. John Watson (James Mason) with a little help from a phsychic (Donald Sutherland) become embroiled in the Jack-the-ripper case. This intermingling of real and fictional charecters is for the most part intriging and for my money, much more enjoyable than the more recent "From Hell" (But then again, if ANYone can make a valid adaption of anything by Alan Moore, please tell me). However, not the best Serlock Holmes movie I've seen and Plummer, while a fairly good Holmes, is still second to Jeremy Brett. All in all another strong accomplishment by the great Bob Clark (Porky's, A Christmas Story and Black Christmas are classics all) this time working with a John Hopskins script. By the way, I have yet to see "A Study in Terror" and thus can't make any comparisions or any thesis on which is better.

My Grade: B+

DVD Extras: Commentary by Bob Clark; poster and stills gallery; Behind-the-scenes still gallery; Talent bios; and theatrical trailer

DVD-ROM: Screenplay

In 1888 London, Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. Watson (James Mason) are asked by a citizen's group to find and stop Jack the Ripper. For some reason the police don't want Holmes to investigate. However he does and as the bodies pile up Holmes and Watson slowly uncover a trail that might lead to the highest reach of British government.

This was released and died VERY quickly in 1979. I'm probably one of the few people who saw it in a theatre. The critics almost unanimously praised it, it had a huge cast of good actors...but it just died. That's too bad because this is a very good Sherlock Holmes film.

It's atmospheric (LOTS of foggy streets), has exquisite production design and is beautifully directed by Bob Clark (I love the way the first murder is done--very effective). Also the acting is great. Plummer gives a very good, different interpretation of Holmes--he makes him more emotional than other actors have...but it works. Mason nicely underplays the role of Watson--he does not make him a bumbling fool like Nigel Bruce did back in the 1940s. In small roles Susan Clark, John Gielgud and especially Genevieve Bujold are excellent. Donald Sutherland, Anthony Quayle and David Hemmings unfortunately are not that good.

There are some problems with this movie though. It's too long (a long sequence involving Watson and some prostitutes could have been completely cut) and is needlessly convoluted. Also they throw politics in the plot which seems out of place. And, strangely, Holmes' deductive reasoning is almost never used. He comes across more as a protector of the people than a detective. Plummer's performance though carries it through. It's quite bloody too--not enough for an R rating but pretty strong for the PG it got back then (PG-13 wasn't a rating yet).

Reservations aside though, I think this is one of the best Holmes' film ever made. Recommended.

A serial killer is on the loose in the Whitechapel area of London. Leaders of the community come to Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and his assistant Dr. Watson (James Mason) for help. Psychic Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland) tells them about his visions of Jack the Ripper. Commissioner Sir Charles Warren puts up roadblocks. Holmes discovers that Sir Charles is a Freemason and referenced in a message from the Ripper about Juwes. Holmes tracks down Mary Kelly. She tells him about a baby and is then kidnapped. This leads to the disturbed Annie Crook (Geneviève Bujold). Inspector Foxborough (David Hemmings) seems to be helpful. Holmes confronts Prime Minister Lord Salisbury (John Gielgud) about the conspiracy.

Holmes and Watson are colleagues and sincere investigators. This Watson is not a bumbling fool. The production value is pretty good considering the cost. The actors are all very high quality. Christopher Plummer is a very effective Holmes. It's a lot of foggy murders but not a lot of action. The plot was reused for the movie "From Hell". It's a pretty good crime investigation.