Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

HotToastyRag No offense to Christopher Plummer, but the most memorable part of this Sherlock Holmes movie is James Mason's adorable, disappointed pout as he laments, "You squashed my pea!" It's so cute; I'm sure everyone who sees it wants to rush out and cook him a new side of peas just to make him smile. James Mason is one of the lucky actors who, when he aged, was still handsome and charming enough to show audiences the extremely handsome man he used to be. Even if Murder by Decree is the first of his movies you've seen, you'll probably surprise yourself by taking a fancy to an "old man".But let's get to the plot: Christopher Plummer plays Sherlock Holmes, and as the character is always written and played, he's eccentric, rude, and a jerk. It's not his fault that he's so unlikable, and if you happen to like mean guys, you might develop a little crush on Chris, since this is the era of his prime in the looks department. The bad guy in Murder by Decree is Jack the Ripper, and the supporting cast includes John Gielgud, Genevieve Bujold, Donald Sutherland, Frank Finlay, Anthony Quayle, Susan Clark, and David Hemmings.I'm not a fan of the modern Sherlock Holmes reboots, so if you are, my recommendation might not be relevant. I really like Murder by Decree because of the lovely yet creepy surroundings and production values. There's humor in the script, but when the scenes turn scary, there's very good reason to hide behind your pillow. As usual, the actor who plays Holmes isn't likable and the actor who plays Watson adds class, but just like the original Hercule Poirot movies in the 1970s, there's something special about this one. It feels like the filmmakers really had respect for the story and characters, instead of just wanting to feel important by redoing them and placing a new spin on things.

SnoopyStyle 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.

gavin6942 Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) investigates the murders committed by Jack the Ripper and discovers a conspiracy to protect the killer.Bob Clark would later be known for "A Christmas Story", but at this time was coming off of "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things", "Deathdream" and "Black Christmas" (1974). So if you find horror elements in the film (and it is about a serial killer, after all) do not be surprised. Horror fans will also recognize David Hemmings from "Profondo Rosso" (1975).The inclusion of "the Juwes" (Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum) was a ice touch and brings in the scholarship (or lack thereof) of Stephen Knight. This makes a similar theme to "A Study in Terror" (1965) with Holmes versus the Ripper, but gives it a new spin.Interestingly, "From Hell" (2001) used the same version of Ripper events, though without the use of Sherlock Holmes (perhaps making it more historically accurate, despite being based on plenty of speculation). And still we cannot solve this crime.

jzappa Christmas Story director Bob Clark's bloody crossover thriller takes what could've been merely a customary this-icon-meets-that-icon suspense thriller and furthers it toward something else. Whether that "else" is something duly Holmesian relies on the outlook of the viewer. Various fanatics grade this 1979 high-concepter among the premium Holmes movie takeoffs, welcoming its straight-faced, unpretentious take on the great consulting detective. Others recoil from Christopher Plummer's modest, emotional version, which conspicuously doesn't highlight the literary figure's unflustered deductive reach. That quality is my favorite of those which characterize the icon, but I am not disappointed in this film's depiction of Holmes and Watson, perhaps because of my partiality toward Plummer, as well as that James Mason gives us a refreshing no-nonsense Watson, though a stickler can plausibly contend whether or not the steadfast army surgeon would be so easily upset about his peas.Whether or not Murder By Decree is consistently mindful of the assets of the original characters and of the propriety observed throughout each pursuit, Plummer and Mason together, if nothing else, make one of cinema's most tenderly felt Holmes-Watson duos. On the whole, Murder by Decree is a doting deference to the halcyon days of Hammer Studio, and a crafty alteration of Victorian Britannia to the back end of the anti-establishment 1970s. Clark unravels Rebecca's gaslit London streets and inspects them through his sometimes too self-conscious wide-angle lens for the somewhat ham-handedly warped POV of one Jack the Ripper. Coach, black horse and unrevealed top-hatted steerer emerge from the fog as if out of Dr. Caligari's cabinet, before Clark cuts to a counterpart world of regal pageantry, where reports of the butchery of wanton women are virtually dismissed.The contrast with Holmes and Watson is what makes the merging of the two legends so interesting, rather than just a gimmick. Mason plays Watson in scenes with Sherlock as if they're an old married couple. "When will you be home?" But at work, he's effortless at self-defense despite his age and urbanity, with a smuggled pinch of Humbert as he discovers his finger snagged between a back alley hooker's teeth. Clark largely revolves his compositions around the cast, with Anthony Quayle and John Gielgud's colonial self-importance and David Hemmings' secret radicalism as the boundaries, flanked by the hushed anguish of telepathic Donald Sutherland and Geneviève Bujold's quivering in the asylum, which splinters the great detective's honored and important façade of reason into tears.Sumptuous 1880s reconstructions barely hamper Clark's feelings of the primeval, a durable vision stamped when a razed victim is pushed out of the Ripper's stagecoach passing the camera, an almost concealed glint giving us the perpetrator's outline. And ultimately, in line with what I say above about Holmes, the climactic open letter, where he, no longer in the company of pipe, violin or crooked morphine syringe, switches his probing proficiency from distinctive crimes to public accountability, not only demonstrates a unique emotional turn, but also reminds us Murder by Decree was made in the decade of immortal conspiracy films. Indeed, somewhat like a Tarantino film, it's a pastiche of genres, ironies, styles and most of all characters to create a unique movie.