User Reviews (68)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    **Possible Plot Spoilers**

    The fictional world of Sherlock Holmes meets the factual one of Jack the Ripper, as the world's most famous detective investigates the world's most famous unsolved murders.

    The slightly camp approach to Sherlock Holmes is not in evidence here and we are presented with a relatively straight thriller, abounding with atmosphere and surprisingly graphic murders.

    'A Study in Terror' marked the attempt of Compton, a sexploitation film company, to break into the mainstream horror market. As such they seem to have put a lot of effort into the film with many beneficial results. The cast is very good and littered with quality names in supporting roles ( Anthony Quayle, Robert Morley, Frank Finlay, etc.), whilst the storyline offers surprising depth.

    The Jack the Ripper storyline bases itself on fact to a degree, with the real victims names used as characters and the theory concerning an aristocratic cover-up explored. As a murder-mystery the film plays extremely well. A variety of characters are introduced as possible suspects and the fog-shrouded street locations are used effectively. Whilst no classic, the film still ranks as one of the best to feature Conan Doyle's master detective.

    MOST MEMORABLE SCENE - a squawking Barbara Windsor, about to become the next Ripper victim, offering a freebie to Chunky the slaughterman and being turned down.
  • Warning: 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.
  • Sherlock Holmes (John Neville) and Dr. Watson join the hunt for the notorious serial killer, Jack the Ripper.

    Between this movie and "Murder by Decree", this is the superior film. More dark humor, a better Holmes, and much more of a horror aesthetic. One could argue it is not a horror film, but I would strongly disagree... early on, we see a man in black gloves (but no face) shove a dagger through the skull of a victim. Another is stabbed and left discarded in a tub. This is very much on the periphery of the giallo or slasher film.

    There is some similarity between this and "From Hell", also. Which of those two is better, that is hard to say. They are different animals. This one has more of the humor (albeit dark), but "From Hell" is the more grisly picture. They both have some of the royalty aspects, though this one invents the names of the royals rather than uses the actual suspects.

    I would recommend this film rather highly.
  • Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.

    Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'A Study in Terror', especially one with such a great idea. There have been a lot of comparisons with 'Murder By Decree', won't compare them other than saying that to me they are good in their own way and personally rank them the same.

    There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'A Study in Terror', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.

    'A Study in Terror' generally is a good interesting film. Perhaps at times the script could have been more imaginative. Will admit also to not being that surprised by the identity of the killer, am another person who guessed it correctly prematurely.

    Most problematic was the music, which just didn't fit and like it belonged somewhere else.

    Otherwise, there is not much actually to fault 'A Study in Terror' from personal opinion. It is very inaccurate historically, but on its own terms it entertains and shocks effectively. Although modest in budget, the settings and period detail are beautifully realised and have a lot of handsome evocative atmosphere. Very nicely shot too.

    Generally the script is assured and intelligent, with some nice dark humour, and the story has genuine dread and dark suspense. The deaths are gruesome but not gratuitously so, anybody who knows of Jack the Ripper will know that his murders were among the most horrific and haven't-seen-anything-like-it in history.

    John Neville is a worthy and charismatic Holmes, if not one of the best as the character, while Donald Houston achieves a good balance of amusing and dignified without being buffoonish or dull. Frank Finlay, John Fraser and especially Robert Morley (with a couple of the best lines) are the supporting cast standouts.

    Overall, good and interesting. 7/10 Bethany Cox
  • 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?".
  • Prostitutes are being savagely killed in the Whitechapel area of London, Holmes (John Neville) is on the trail of Jack the Ripper. Following the clues he narrows down his suspects, among them, a police surgeon, a missing heir and a disfigured prostitute. On the face of it combining literatures greatest detective. Sherlock Holmes and the most infamous serial killer Jack the Ripper into one movie is a great idea. Of course if you're a stickler for Doyle's canon, you might not agree, I'm somewhere in the middle. The film itself manages to keep the viewer guessing right until the end, it also benefits from a very strong cast, including Anthony Quayle as the police surgeon, Dr Murray, Frank Finlay as Lestrade, both of these also starred in the other and frankly much better Holmes/Ripper movie, Murder by Decree, even Judi Dench turns up in a minor role, as does Babs Windsor as a lady on the evening, typecast again eh?. If I have a problem with the film its Neville, he's not bad, he sort of looks the part, but he's quite lacking in charisma.
  • A STUDY IN TERROR

    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.
  • 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'm a fan of these iconic mysteries, and this production takes a stab at both Sherlock Holmes and Jack The Ripper but in the long run is not really successful on either front in my view, and not for lack of trying.

    John Neville was an excellent Holmes, one of the best performances of the brilliant detective. And Donald Houston played Watson somewhere between the original humorous Nigel Bruce and the more solid athlete as perceived by Robert Duvall in Seven Percent Solution. He seems like a younger, stronger James Mason in Murder by Decree. At first I did not recognize Judi Dench, a lovely young blonde in a smaller role.

    Dialogue as read by the actors at times felt forced, like they had to push through it in quick fashion to move things along. I do think elements of the JTR mystery as they appear here are a bit ahead of their time, but the finale felt unsatisfying and rushed.

    I thought the best elements were the settings - excellent street scenes and a pub filled with rowdy characters. The prostitutes unfortunately were looking very Hollywood though in their bright expensive dresses and perfect hair like they had just come from a salon, and the film generally lacked grit. There is a lot of teasing about the oldest profession that goes nowhere, and things in general are kept fairly tame, cutting away before anything becomes too appropriately sordid.

    I'm a big fan of John Scott but his music here sounded too much like a 60's spy television show (the director James Hill worked on The Saint and The Avengers).

    As noted in the trivia section, it is interesting that two actors in Study In Terror (1965) would appear later in the other Holmes vs Ripper movie Murder By Decree (1979; Anthony Quayle and Frank Finley (who would reprise his Doyle created role of Inspector Lestrade). There are other similarities between the films as well- suspicion of those in places of power, and the same shots of Holmes and Watson having similarly styled conversations riding in carriages together. It made me feel that Decree was more of a remake of Study, with the 1970s infamous Royal Conspiracy Theory solidifying the Ripper plot.

    Overall, A Study In Terror feels like a Hammer production with less sex and gore, and not nearly as mysterious or atmospheric as other JTR movies like versions of The Lodger and Murder By Decree. Not quite mysterious enough for a Holmes story, and not nearly dark enough for JTR, lost in the mid 60s somewhere in between.
  • Why the previous person said this was good is beyond me, I caught this snooze fest on cable the other evening and I have to admit it was dull, dull, dull..

    No way is this better than Murder By Decree, From Hell maybe, but in pales in comparison to the former.

    Firstly this horrible movie has no redeeming qualities what so ever, atmosphere is virtually nil, the acting is atrocious, need I go on?

    The book this is based on is also utterly boring and would be far better suited as a doorstop.

    Heed my advice & avoid this movie at all costs (you have been warned)
  • 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.
  • Original and nice Sherlock Holmes movie . It's an excellent film with a top-notch Sherlock Holmes : John Neville including his usual helper Watson : Donald Huston .This isn't an adaptation based on Arthur Conan Doyle novels , the plot line is a fictional story . The fable mingles Sherlock Holmes (John Neville) and Jack the Ripper. In the film appears Doctor Watson (Donald Huston) 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 .Sherlock Holmes unveils the secrecy of Jack the Ripper - clue by clue - murder by murder.The Jack the Ripper Murders. Sherlock Holmes lifts the veil of secrecy, corruption and terror at the heart of the aristocracy itself. Holy Terror! It's Sherlock Holmes! Here Comes the Original Caped Crusader...and his adventures will make audiences SCREAM!...and STREAM into your theater! Sherlock Holmes meets Jack the Ripper! Here comes the original caped crusader!Clue by clue... Murder by murder...Sherlock Holmes hunts his deadliest adversary... The madman known as Jack the Ripper! Can the genius of Sherlock Holmes stop the terror of Jack the Ripper?

    The film blends thriller , suspense , detective action , terror and a little gore and is quite interesting .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 . In the flick appears the usual of the Arthur Conan Doyle's novels : Mycroft (Sherlock's brother), Mistress Hudson , and of course Doctor Watson. Acting by John Neville as Sherlock Holmes is excellent , likeness to Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett as TV Sherlock ; furthermore Donald Huston as Watson is sublime . Other notorious secondary actors appearing are as follows : John Fraser , Anthony Quayle ,Barbara Windsor , Cecil Parker , Georgia Brown , Barry Jones , Robert Morley , Adrienne Corri and a young Judi Dench , all of them are splendid . In 1979 was made by Bob Clark a remake ¨Murder by decree¨with Christopher Plummer , James Mason . And in 2002 the Hughes Brothers made a special version with Johnny Depp titled "From Hell" .

    The picture was competently directed by James Hill . He was an expert on children films and serials for showing at schoolboy cinema . Hill designed his acquaintance with amusements for the young generation and costume adventures blending with Lions (Born free , The lions are free , The lion at world's end) , Horses (Black Beauty) , Foxes (The Belstone Fox) , Elephants ( An Elephant called Slowly) and sea animals as Sharks and Squid like this ¨Captain Nemo and underwater city¨. ¨Born Free¨ remains his triumph in which the way the protagonists romp with three lionesses who play Elsa at several stages of growth is near-miraculous . Forever in search of a similar movie to equal this hit , he never quite found it . James Hill best movie turned out to be this¨Studio in terror¨ a Sherlock versus Jack Ripper terror thriller with lurid killings . Rating: 7 , above average . Well worth seeing .
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Sherlock Holmes tangles with the nefarious Jack the Ripper in "Born Free" director James Hill's above-average mystery "A Study in Terror," one of the better, big-screen Conan Doyle adaptations in the 1960s. John Neville of "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" wields the magnifying glass and wears the signature deerstalker in atmospheric, turn-of-the-century London. Neville does an exemplary job as the illustrious consulting detective and participates agilely in a brawl during an incendiary scene in a pub ablaze with flames, both in foreground as well as background. Neville has the wardrobe and the language of Holmes down to a tee. Mind you, Neville isn't quite as incisive as Rathbone. Nevertheless, he acquits himself adequately in the role. Incidentally, he played Holmes afterward on the stage. "Meet Mr. Lucifer" lenser Desmond Dickinson captures the action from interesting angles, especially during this conflagration, and illuminates the surroundings in complimentary light throughout this 107-minute film. Some flavorful dialogue in the Donald and Derek Ford screenplay, taken from Jim O'Connolly's original story, has that unmistakable Conan Doyle ring. O'Connolly's numerous credits include "Blood Beast from Outer Space" (1965) and "Horror on Snape Island (1972)." No, "A Study in Terror" is not an adaptation of any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's writings, but he might enjoy what they have done with his characters, particularly the discrete ending. The cast is sterling, including a young Judi Dench, later James Bond's boss in "GoldenEye." Unfortunately, Judi doesn't have much to distinguish herself in this rendition. The story takes place in the dark, seedy, dangerous thoroughfares of White Chapel. Prostitutes are being murdered with wicked looking medical cutlery, and Scotland Yard's Inspector Lestrade (Frank Finlay of "The Wild Geese") is investigating without success. Police Surgeon Dr. Murray (Anthony Quale of "The Eagle Has Landed") comes under Holmes' scrutiny and suspicion when the dastardly acts of the Ripper are linked to a missing scalpel in a surgeon's case. Eventually, our hero meets the individual who whetted his appetite with that case. Of course, all Sherlock Holmes mysteries are scrutinized with regard to the treatment of the detective's hardy sidekick, Dr. John Watson (Donald Houston of "Where Eagles Dare"), who chronicles Holmes' exploits. Houston isn't as buffoonish as Nigel Green's Watson from the landmark Universal Pictures' franchise co-starring Basil Rathbone. Similarly, Lestrade appears briefly, but he isn't depicted as the nincompoop in the Rathbone franchise. A superb but rotund Robert Morley stands out as Holmes' elder brother Mycroft. Morley fits Conan Doyle's description perfectly. He steals the scene during which he upbraids Holmes for squandering his time sawing tunelessly on a violin. Indeed, the worst thing you can say about Houston's Watson is he is a dreary character who never makes an ass of himself. The ending is nifty, and some of the red herrings are serviceable. Altogether, sturdy production values and a compelling cast highlight this adventure that is at least worth watching once. "A Study in Terror" treads lightly with its infliction of terror, but it satisfies audiences wanting a traditional rendering of Conan Doyle's immortal character.
  • Dismissed by David Pirie as "ugly and banal" this rollicking Compton-Tekli yarn in Eastman Colour punctuated by bawdy ballads by Georgia Brown brought to the screen an "apocryphal meeting of two eminent Victorians"; as Raymond Durgnat drolly put it.

    The gleefully gory stabbings that punctuate this tale show all the handmarks of Herman Cohen, who true to form gathered together some of Britain's finest (Robert Morley plays Mycroft, Frank Finlay is Lestrade and this must the only film to feature both Babs Windsor and Judi Dench).

    In the title role John Neville is a master of disguise, mean with a swordstick, actually says "Elementary, dear Watson!" (a line he never actually spoke in print), while the ferocity of the murders and presence of Peter Carsten and Charles Regnier in the cast shows that German money was involved.
  • Sherlock Holmes, the brightest and most eloquent of all fictional detectives ever, on the trail of Jack The Ripper, the beastly London serial killer whose crimes mainly became notorious because they never got solved. It seems like such an obvious concept to process into a Victorian horror screenplay, and yet only two movies (at least, to my knowledge) are dealing with the topic of a showdown between these two legendary figures. I have yet to see the other one – "Murder by Decree" -, but I can already safely say "A Study in Terror" is a vastly entertaining and ingeniously scripted film that respectfully blends the stylish trademarks of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works with the much more fiendish ambiance surrounding the case of the Ripper's murders. Fundamentally, this means we're treated to all of Sherlock Holmes's witty remarks and fabulously far-fetched deduction skills as well as to grim and surprisingly nasty images of sadistic murders. Holmes becomes involved in the case of the murdered prostitutes when an anonymous individual mails him a surgical kit missing one item, which is the deadly scalpel. Thanks to his amazing investigating talents, carefully observing senses and with a little help from his loyal friends Dr. Watson and police inspector Lestrade, Sherlock Holmes does not only figure out who Jack The Ripper is; he also reveals a related blackmailing network and boosts up the lackluster reputation of the condemned Whitechapel area! The Ford brothers' screenplay is rather confusing and doesn't always make sense, but the dialogs are extremely fluent and instantly cause you to overlook possible holes in the plot. Besides, you aren't supposed to guess along for the Ripper's identity, as Sherlock Holmes is always several steps ahead of you anyway. Speaking of which, John Neville easily is one of the finest British lads ever to depict Doyle's super-detective! He's actually second only to Basil Rathbone, who portrayed Holmes 14 wonderful times in Universal's cycle. Neville plays Sherlock Holmes with the exact right doses of arrogance and sophistication, and he knows how to defend himself in a physical battle as well as in a verbal discussion. Donald Houston is almost equally brilliant as the slow but helpful Dr. Watson and there's a tremendously fun little role for Adrienne Corri as the eerily mutilated Angela Osbourne. "A Study in Terror" also masterfully captures the Victorian atmosphere with lavish set pieces, colorful interior filming locations and the enthusiast music, sung in the poor man's tavern.
  • I must confess to being somewhat of a fan of this film. On paper it sounds insane, Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson tracking down and facing Whitechapel's most notorious killer, Jack the Ripper. Lots of good points, the atmosphere of the time is really well created, the film has a suitably murky, bleak feel to it, great costumes, at times it feels like a Hammer Horror production.

    John Neville is excellent as Holmes, physically and vocally he reminds me of the great Basil Rathbone, which is very much a good thing. Barbara Windsor is a delight, at times I did feel like Sid was ready to pop out with a joke, regardless, she lit up the screen. Robert Morley, however, an actor I adore, but he was totally miscast as Mycroft, intelligent yes, quick yes, just lacking the imposing nature the character demands. The chronology is a bit muddled, but efforts are made to get some of the facts in. I wonder would it have been better to invent characters? not sure.

    The Blu ray is well worth getting as the film looks glorious. It's an odd mix, but one I like. Watch it, just don't take it too seriously. I'm a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes, but also have an interest in Whitechapel, the first half of me is satisfied, the latter leaves me scratching my head, 8/10
  • A Study in Terror is directed by James Hill and written by Derek and Donald Ford. Based on characters created by Arthur Conan Doyle, it stars John Neville, Donald Houston, John Fraser, Anthony Quale, Frank Finlay and Adrienne Corri. Music is by John Scott and cinematography by Desmond Dickinson. Out of Compton Films it's an Eastman Color production. Plot pitches intrepid sleuth Sherlock Holmes (Neville) against notorious serial killer Jack the Ripper.

    On paper it's a filmic match made in heaven, two characters as well known as they are invariably different. One a great work of fiction, the other infamously true and dastardly. Yet the story is flat, not that it doesn't lack for quality in execution, it just lacks any suspense or dramatic verve to fully make it worthy of further visits. Cast are mostly very good, especially Neville, who makes for a lithe and autocratic Holmes, while Alex Vetchinsky's sets are period supreme. The Eastman Color, also, is a plus point, British horror always tended to have a better sheen to it in the Eastman Color lenses, so it be here for the dark deeds played out in Whitechapel, London, 1888. But ultimately, and in spite of it being an intelligent spin on the Ripper legend, story doesn't play out well enough to make it a classic of either the Ripper or Holmes cinema adaptations. 6/10
  • sjahson4 February 2009
    1/10
    Yawn!
    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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A Study In Terror came on BBC1 during the early hours and I was very pleased I taped it.

    Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson investigate a series of murders, all prostitutes in the Whitechapel area of London. These murders are the responsibility of Jack the Ripper. Holmes nearly becomes a victim of the Ripper himself towards the end and he is killed in a fire, just after we find out who the Ripper is...

    This movie is very creepy at times, especially the foggy streets of London in the dark.

    Now to the excellent cast: John Neville makes a good Sherlock Holmes and Donald Houston plays Watson (although you can't beat Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce). These are joined by plenty of well known stars: Robert Morley, Carry-On favourite and EastEnder Barbara Windsor, a young Dame Judi Dench, Cecil Parker, Anthony Quale and Frank Finlay.

    A Study In Terror is a must for Sherlock Holmes and mystery fans. Excellent.

    Rating: 4 stars out of 5.
  • BA_Harrison16 February 2014
    A Study in Terror unites two of my favourite movie characters, one fictional, and one very real: Conan Doyle's super sleuth Sherlock Holmes and infamous serial killer Jack the Ripper. Although it's far from the best film to feature either character, there is still plenty of fun to be had as Holmes (John Neville, channelling Basil Rathbone) does his thing, uncovering a dastardly blackmail plot that has had dreadful consequences for Whitechapel's working girls.

    In merging the literary with real-life, huge liberties have clearly been taken with any facts, and avid Ripper-ologists will be able to tear a new one out of the script as historical detail quickly falls by the wayside in favour of the fanciful. Fortunately, the film is just too much fun to let factual inaccuracy spoil matters too much. The murders are nice and gruesome, there's a well staged fight scene that sees Holmes and Watson (Donald Houston) duke it out with some thugs, we get to meet Holmes' equally brilliant brother Mycroft (Robert Morley), eye candy is provided by the rather-too-attractive, soon-to-be-dead whores (who include Carry On regular Babs Windsor), and the whole mystery keeps the viewer guessing right till the end.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In 1888, a series of horrible murders are being committed in London's poor Whitechapel district. With public outcry growing and the police baffled, the world's greatest amateur detective, Sherlock Holmes, is tasked with finding the identity of Jack The Ripper …

    The idea of combining the fictional Sherlock Holmes from Arthur Conan Doyle's stories with the real-life murders of the notorious Jack The Ripper is a clever one. Only one of the stories was actually written prior to the murders but the time line is close enough, and the appeal of having a genius investigate perhaps the most notorious unsolved killings is pretty irresistible. Well written by brothers Derek and Donald Ford, it recreates the detail of the murders quite accurately, but also explores the social justice angle well - Holmes is at times almost sympathetic towards the Ripper as a psychotic driven to his deeds, and angry with the establishment who try to downplay the seriousness of his crimes and the squalor in which they occur. The cast are all talented British stalwarts, with Neville (The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen) a fine Holmes, Quayle good in a key part, and classic Cockney pin-up girl Windsor (the star of many of the Carry On films) at the height of her beauty. With some moody sets and good photography this is an effective if minor little thriller. The enjoyable 1979 Canadian film Murder By Decree with Christopher Plummer as Holmes is a virtual remake (Finlay even reprises his role as Inspector Lestrade) and the Holmes vs Ripper idea has also been used in several comics, books and video games.
An error has occured. Please try again.