A Study in Terror  Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
IMDb
22 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Who Need A Decree When You've Got Terror?
from Worcester, England
16 November 2006
As I wrote in my review of 'Jack the Ripper' (1959), it's only in recent years that movies about Saucy Jack have bothered with historical accuracy and providing a 'real' solution to the question of the Ripper's identity. The German silent productions 'Waxworks' and 'Pandora's Box' used the character as a sort of bogeyman, more akin to Dracula, Mr Hyde or the Phantom of the Opera than a real-life serial killer, and the various versions of 'The Lodger' and the aforementioned Jack the Ripper simply used Jack as a hook on which to hang entirely fictional mysteries, with no real people or situations in them.
'A Study in Terror' is no exception to this rule, and is all the better for it. This Herman Cohen-produced, James Hill-directed picture is an unpretentious little B-picture that pitted Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper a full thirteen years before Bob Clarke's big-budget, star-packed 'Murder By Decree'. While 'Murder...' is a good film, with a gripping storyline and strong performances from the likes of Christopher Plummer, James Mason and Donald Sutherland, it does take itself rather seriously in its attempt to present a supposedly surprising, and at the same time authentic, conclusion (which would have already been known to anyone who watched the BBC TV production 'The Ripper File', or read Stephen Knight's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution'). 'A Study in Terror' does not try to do this and is concerned only with giving the viewer an entertaining ninety-five minutes.
Interestingly, '...Terror' was the first Jack the Ripper movie to propose aristocratic involvement in the murders, eight years before the late Joseph Sickert came out with his somewhat similar, but allegedly true theory that covered much the same ground, involving not just an aristocrat, but a Prince, who married beneath him. Admittedly, Sickert's theory claimed that the murders were committed to keep the marriage a secret, rather than to avenge a wrong, but it does seem curious that the fiction and alleged fact are so similar.
Although this film does present the real victims killed by Jack the Ripper and does so in the right order, there are many inaccuracies, the most notable being that the actresses playing the unfortunate individuals, including Carry On and Eastenders star Barbara Windsor and Edina Ronay, daughter on the famous chef Egon, are, in the main, considerably younger and more attractive that the real victims (Windsor, who played Annie Chapman is, even today, at almost seventy, considerably better looking than the real 'Dark Annie'), but this is an exploitation movie, and eye candy is a integral part of this subgenre. In fact this is a perfect example of an exploitation picture when you examine its constituent elements. The makers exploited not only the 1960's horror boom, but also the perennial interest in Jack the Ripper and the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes perfectly.
For a B-movie, 'A Study in Terror' boasts a surprisingly strong cast, including Dame Judi Dench, John Fraser, Adrienne Corri, Robert Morley, Frank Finlay and Anthony Quayle, who all lend strong support to John Neville and Donald Houston as Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson. Crucially, Neville, like Basil Rathbone before him and Jeremy Brett after, not only looks right as Holmes, his strong, sharp features recalling Conan Doyle's description of the character, but his portrayal of the character is more in tune with the classic conception of Holmes than Christopher Plummer in 'Murder By Decree'. Similarly, Donald Houston gives an entertainingly blustering, Nigel Bruce-like performance as Watson, whereas James Mason's portrayal of the character was a little too low-key for my taste. Finlay and Quayle apparently enjoyed the experience of crossing Holmes and the Ripper so much that they came back for more in 'Murder by Decree', with Finlay repeating his performance as Inspector Lestrade. Personally, I think he's better in this film, and Anthony Quayle, as Dr Murray, invests his character with a quiet strength and dignity that is missing from his unsympathetic Sir Charles Warren. As Mycroft Holmes, Robert Morley is amusing in his scenes with Neville's Sherlock, particularly expressing his exasperation at his brother's less than tuneful violin playing.
One area in which 'A Study in Terror' holds the edge over 'Murder by Decree' is it's ending. Without giving too much away for anyone who has yet to see either film, '...Terror' has a thrilling, literally explosive climax that befits a film of it's type, whereas '...Decree' drags a little, again because the makers want us to take it so seriously. My suggestion is to watch both movies and make up your own minds on this subject
Was the above review useful to you?
15 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
A Sherlock Holmes film rather than a Saucy Jack one!
11 May 2004
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.
Was the above review useful to you?
14 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
"Enormously enjoyable."
from Poole, Dorset
14 May 2004
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?".
Was the above review useful to you?
16 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
A treat for both Holmes and Ripper fans.
Author: gridoon
21 February 2003
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".     (***)
Was the above review useful to you?
10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
A delight for Sherlockians, a frustration for Ripperologists
from Norfolk, England
16 October 2004
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.
Was the above review useful to you?
10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Entertaining thriller that is a lot better than the similar 'Murder By Decree' (or 'From Hell' for that matter).
from Perth, Australia
12 October 2003
This is a great little thriller which featured the Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack The Ripper premise many years before the better known 'Murder By Decree'. John Neville (The X Files' "The Well-Manicured Man") makes a great Holmes, and Donald Houston plays a very good Watson. Robert Morley appears as Holmes' brother Mycroft, and the rest of the cast includes dependable character actors like Anthony Quale, Judi Dench, Frank Finlay, and even Barbara Windsor of "Carry On" fame. 'A Study In Terror' lacks the big budget excess of 'From Hell' and is all the better for it. For me it is a much more entertaining movie.
Was the above review useful to you?
9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Holmes meets Jack the Ripper in a Technicolor thriller
from Glen Cove, New York
17 March 2005
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.
Was the above review useful to you?
7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
60s Interpretation of Holmes
from Cleveland, Ohio
23 December 2000
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.
Was the above review useful to you?
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
"There's nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." Enjoyable mix of two historic legends.
13 March 2007
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
A Study in Terror is set during Victorian times in 1888 to be precise & starts late on night in the poverty ridden London district of Whitechappell where a serial killer known as Jack the Ripper is at large, prostitute Polly Nichols (Christiane Maybach) is the second to dies from his blade & soon after another prostitute named Annie Chapman (Barbara Windsor) falls victim to the Ripper. The worlds greatest detective Sherlck Holmes (John Neville) & his trusty sidekick Dr. Watson (Donald Houston) are on the case after a set of surgical scalpels are mysteriously sent to Holmes in the post, as Holmes investigates the Ripper case the likes of blackmail, dark family secrets, lies & a whole host of other undesirable elements surface for Holmes to shift through & get to the horrible truth...
This British production was directed by James Hill & is a surprisingly decent murder mystery. The script by Derek & Donald Ford uses the intriguing premise of having the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes tackle the still unsolved real-life case of Jack the Ripper, it's a neat idea & it works very well thanks to a good script that manages to juggle the mystery & horror elements effectively & to it's credit there's more going on in A Study in Terror than just the Ripper murders for Holmes to get to the bottom of. There are a few suspects & each one is given just about enough motive to put them in the frame for the murders yet there isn't one huge stand out candidate who are obvious, adding to a pleasing amount of mystery is a fair amount of exploitation & action which I didn't expect from a film of this vintage. The character's are good & it keeps to the basic notion of each of it's main stars, Sherlock Holmes is the unflappable super smart detective who misses literally nothing & Jack the Ripper is portrayed as a doctor as he was suspected to be in reality. It moves along at a nice pace, it will probably keep you guessing for most of it's running time & it all comes together in satisfactory climax although it never explained how Holmes himself escapes the fire, does it?
Director Hill does a better job than expected with some very atmospheric scenes set in a Victorian fog enshrouded London. The period sets, costumes & props are excellent with with lots of attention to detail throughout. There are some nice moments here especially the long point-of-view murder of the fourth prostitute late on in the film. This was probably considered pretty strong back in 1965 & while not up there with the likes of todays horror films there's some decent gore here, there's a scene set in a slaughter house complete with lots of hanging, gutted pig carcasses, someone has a knife shoved through their neck, there's a slit throat & a cool scene when someone is stabbed in a water trough & the camera is based in the bottom so we can see clouds of blood discolour the water from underneath.
Technically A Study in Terror is great, we British know how to turn in a decent period effort & there's even an impressive fiery climax featuring a fight between Holmes & the Ripper in a burning pub. The acting is fine & I loved the cockney accents especially all the prostitutes who were a hoot, there's a good cast here including Barbara Windsor, Oscar winner Judi Dench, Robert Morley, Frank Finlay & Adrienne Corri.
A Study in Terror is a neat film that was much better than I was expecting, if your looking for an atmospheric murder mystery with some added exploitation then A Sudy in Terror might be what your after. Definitely worth a watch.
Was the above review useful to you?
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Exploitation shocker plays fair with Holmes lore
Aspect ratio: 1.75:1
Sound format: Mono
More than a decade before Bob Clark pitted Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper in the superior MURDER BY DECREE (1978), Herman Cohen produced this ignoble marriage of Victorian supersleuth and notorious mass murderer, featuring John Neville and Donald Houston as Holmes and Watson, pursuing 'Saucy Jack' through the fog-shrouded streets of Whitechapel. As expected, the narrative is spiced with exploitation fripperies (note how Desmond Dickinson's camera leers over the female victims before their gory demise), but the script - co-written by future sexploitation director Derek Ford (THE WIFE SWAPPERS, SEX EXPRESS) and his brother Donald (THE BLACK TORMENT) - is a pleasingly tangled affair, attentive to the customs and traditions of Holmes lore, while the expert teaming of Neville and Houston is further bolstered by an astonishingly starry cast (including John Fraser, Anthony Quayle, Robert Morley, Barbara Windsor, Adrienne Corri, Frank Finlay, Cecil Parker and a young Judi Dench!). The budget is meager, but production values are solid, and director James Hill (BORN FREE, THE BELSTONE FOX) marshals proceedings with a sure hand throughout.
Was the above review useful to you?
Page 1 of 5: