Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

People are voting emotionally.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Don't Believe the Hype

Here, the legendary fictional detective Sherlock Holmes (John Neville) is on the case of the infamous real life murderer Jack the Ripper, brutally murdering Whitechapel prostitutes in Victorian London in this exceptionally good looking and twist-laden, nicely written movie. Without my spoiling things too much, Holmes learns that a well to do family is caught up in the drama.The idea of pitting Holmes against The Ripper is a clever one, and would be visited again 14 years later in "Murder by Decree". It's also a pleasure to see a cast full of esteemed British acting talent, beginning with Neville, whose Holmes is not only blessed with that intelligence and incredible deductive ability but true charisma as well. Donald Houston is a genial Dr. Watson. Notable is that two of the cast members here, Frank Finlay and Anthony Quayle, are also in "Murder by Decree". Finlay plays Inspector Lestrade in both movies while Quayle plays different roles.Wonderful atmosphere and production & costume design mix with efficient direction by James Hill ("Born Free", "Black Beauty" '71) and a story that is detailed but never too hard to follow. While some viewers may be able to figure out the identity of the killer, they may not anticipate just how Holmes is able to crack the case, which becomes one of the most interesting elements here. Sex and violence are accented here to a degree, with an eyeful of some of the ladies' bosoms and a little dose of the red stuff.The excellent cast also includes a young Dame Judi Dench, in one of her earliest movie roles, as well as John Fraser, Adrienne Corri, Charles Regnier, Cecil Parker, Peter Carsten, John Cairney, Edina Ronay, and Avis Bunnage.The movie is by turns suspenseful, exciting, creepy, and funny, with the two stars sharing a marvellous chemistry. And, speaking of exciting, the ending is a true corker, and will have viewers on the edge of their seats. The pacing is consistently strong and the sense of danger created right from the start. It would indeed be amusing to compare and contrast "A Study in Terror" and "Murder by Decree" and have a solid double feature of Holmes vs. The Ripper mysteries.Executive produced by Herman Cohen.Eight out of 10.

There are some good Sherlock Holmes films based on the stories of Conan Doyle. There are some bad Sherlock Homes films based on the stories of Conan Doyle.This is neither. It's a bad Sherlock Holmes film that has nothing to do with any Conan Doyle story, and instead ropes in Jack the Ripper. I have no idea why the makers of this film ignored the many Conan Doyle stories and instead chose this B-movie screenplay, but for whatever reason it just doesn't work. The cokernee stereotypes would be more at home in a Carry On film (perhaps that's why Barbara Windsor is in it), the plot is poor and Donald Houston is perhaps the worst Dr Watson ever to disgrace the silver screen (and that's saying something, there have been many atrocious portrayals of Watson). The only slightly redeeming feature is John Neville as Holmes - he's not a great Holmes, he's a passable one, but he is head and shoulders above everything else in this.Really only notable for an early movie appearance from Judi Dench.

A Study In Terror is not the only film to pit Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper. Neither is it the best, falling well short of the standard set 13 years later by Bob Clark's Murder By Decree. Concluding with a memorable speech by Christopher Plummer's Holmes about "madmen wielding sceptres," his 1978 conspiracy thriller had the advantage of providing a satisfactory explanation to the conundrum: if the master sleuth really did solve the mystery of the Whitechapel murders, why are we - to this day - none the wiser? This earlier effort is a mixture of lurid exploitation piece, with Babs Windsor among the body count of murdered prostitutes doing her 'tart with a heart' acting, and stodgy social commentary, represented Anthony Quayle's po-faced pathologist denouncing the degenerate morals of the East End. The murders have something of the voyeuristic nastiness of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom, but with the self-reflexive twist of a film-making murderer. The pub scenes on the other hand do conjure up a bit of an atmosphere of bawdiness, with their raucous music hall singing.The plot, such as it is, hangs on the Ripper's surgical skills, the estranged son of a tetchy upper class type, a burly publican and a woman disfigured in an acid attack. I won't say any more, because some viewers might genuinely want to enjoy the detective story mechanics at work here. Stylistically A Study In Terror is Hammer-esquire Victorian Gothic, although the percussive incidental music has a strangely Latin American feel. At best, the film is something of a curiosity, with Donald Houston (later to star in Moonbase 3) amiable enough as Watson. It also features a cameo by Robert Morley as Sherlock's brother Mycroft Holmes, Frank Finlay as Inspector Lestrade and a brief appearance by a very young (not yet Dame) Judi Dench as Anthony Quayle's soup kitchen running daughter.

I'm a big fan of the original Universal Sherlock Holmes series and while there have been attempts by other studios to make films based on the classic character by Arthur Conan Doyle, only Hammer Horror's take on The Hound of the Baskervilles has come close to touching the majesty of Universal's films. However, for my money, A Study in Terror is both an excellent take on Sherlock Holmes and certainly one of the best films about the great London detective outside of Universal's efforts. This film is not based on an actual story by Arthur Conan Doyle and instead we get a story in same style as Doyle's that pits Sherlock against another notable historical figure, Jack the Ripper. Sherlock Holmes becomes interested in a series of murders happening around Whitechapel with prostitutes as the victims after a parcel containing a set of surgical instruments is anonymously delivered to his address. After inspecting the case, he soon comes up with some clues and begins following the trail which leads him to the seedy underbelly of Victorian London...It seems this film was directly trying to imitate the classic Universal ones as the two lead actors are very similar to Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Neither is as good, of course, but John Neville gives an excellent performance as the eloquent detective, while Donald Houston is right on cue as Holmes' understudy. The film also features the good natured humour of the earlier series and that makes the film more enjoyable to watch. Director James Hill does an excellent job of creating an atmosphere for the film; the foggy streets of London are great and suitably fit the macabre storyline. The story itself is an interesting one and it plays out well also. The mystery is constantly engaging and the few murders featured are enough to spice it up. The story features enough red herrings and clues to keep the audience and Holmes guessing and the mystery elements are certainly satisfying enough. The identity of the ripper is not abundantly obvious by the end and the film's conclusion is good. Overall, I enjoyed this film very much and can certainly recommend it to my fellow Holmes fans!