JohnHowardReid Copyright 1979 by AVCO Embassy Pictures. A Robert A. Goldston Presentation. Filmed with the assistance of the Canadian Film Development Corporation. USA release through AVCO Embassy: 9 February 1979. Canadian release through Ambassador: 1 February 1979. U.K. release: 20 March 1980. Australian release through Filmways. Sydney opening at Cinema City. 124 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Although warned off by the police, Sherlock Holmes accepts a commission to investigate the Jack the Ripper murders.NOTES: A Study in Terror (1965, see below) was directed by James Hill from an original screenplay by Derek and Donald Ford. John Neville starred as Holmes; Donald Houston was Dr Watson; Anthony Quayle, Dr Murray; Barbara Windsor, Annie Chapman; Kay Walsh. Cathie Eddowes; Edina Ronay, Mary Kelly; Norma Foster, Liz Stride; Cecil Parker, the prime minister. Frank Finlay plays Inspector Lestrade in both movies. This movie won a swag of the first Canadian Academy Awards (given in 1980) including Best Actor (Plummer), Best Supporting Actress (Bujold), Best Director, Best Film Editing, and Best Music Score. It was also nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Sound. Screenwriter John Hopkins received the 1980 Edgar Award for Best Motion Picture. COMMENT: This elaborately expensive, highly engrossing re-make of A Study in Terror (1965) emerges as the more engaging of the two, thanks not only to its vastly superior budget and staggeringly impressive sets, but to its polished performances, particularly Christopher Plummer's man-of-action yet quietly introspective Holmes and James Mason's intelligently supportive Watson. I'm surprised the script was not nominated for any awards. After all not even charismatic players like Plummer and Bujold, nor a director as inventively skilful as Bob Clark can turn dross into gold.

MartinHafer I am a Sherlock Holmes purist, so I am VERY quick to pick apart various Holmes films--looking for the inconsistencies from the original Conan Doyle novels. However, of all the stories I have seen that use these characters that were not based on the writer's original stories, this is among the best. The biggest reason is that the writer seemed to actually have read the stories and knew the characters. The best thing about it is that Watson (played by James Mason) is NOT a bumbling idiot but a brave and reasonably clever man--just like in the original stories. This is a HUGE plus. As for Holmes, Christopher Plummer is not the best but he's better than most. He does NOT say 'elementary my dear Watson' or other such drivel that did not appear in the original tales and he dresses without the stereotypical deerstalker cap and pipe--again, like the original stories. He isn't perfect, though, as you really don't see as much of the deductive skill as you might expect--he's much more human in this story.The story is a WHAT IF--what if Sherlock Holmes had been real and actually investigated the murders attributed to Jack the Ripper. The story is VERY complex and VERY rewarding. However, I must point out that it's easy to feel a bit lost later in the film and you should NOT stop watching. Stick with it--the payoff is great and everything is tied together very well. I am not sure, however, if Arthur Conan Doyle ever would have written such a story as it's tone is very anti-British Empire! I could say more, but it would spoil the film. Overall, excellent acting, very good writing and direction. Well worth seeing and a commendable effort by all.

ShootingShark In Victorian times, a series of ghastly murders are being committed in Whitechapel. With public outcry growing and the police seemingly impotent, the world's greatest amateur detective, Sherlock Holmes, is tasked with finding the identity of Jack The Ripper …Whilst it has a little bit of a TV-movie / special-guest-stars feel to it, this is a handsomely mounted thriller with plenty of suspense and tells its sad story with passion and flair. Plummer makes a terrific Holmes, crafty and amused but also refreshingly forthright - his resentment of the Masonic establishment when he uncovers the truth is deeply moving. Hemmings is also good as the inspector whose secret is not what we expect it to be, and hard-working Canadian actress Clark (Madigan, Colossus: The Forbin Project) scores as Mary Kelly, the key witness/victim. The art direction by Harry Pottle and Peter Childs is excellent and the photography is horror-movie scary as the killer glides down fog-filled alleyways, although it does fall into the old trap of being so excessively dark that it's often difficult to see what's going on. Director Clark was an interesting guy - he made the early cult slasher flick Black Christmas and several other good/weird movies (Porky's or Turk 182! for example); sadly he died in a car crash in 2007. This is probably his classiest production, and a good showcase of his journeyman talent. A sort-of remake of an earlier British thriller, A Study In Terror, although plot-wise the pregnancy/marriage conspiracy storyline is closer to the more recent From Hell. If you're in the mood for a good old-fashioned thriller/chiller, turn out the lights and enjoy.

mark.waltz When vicious murders begin occurring in the equivalent of London's red light district, who do concerned citizens turn to? Why Sherlock Holmes, of course! While the fictional detective wasn't actually around during London's gaslight era when these foggily lit murders took place, it makes fictional sense that eventually somebody would pit the notoriously named Jack the Ripper against London's most well loved detective prior to Miss Marple. If it couldn't be Basil Rathbone, then some other famous British thespian had to take over. In this case, it is Christopher Plummer, as far away from the Edelweiss of "The Sound of Music's" Salzburg as he could get.Plummer gives (in this reviewer's opinion), his best performance as the pipe smoking and argyle cap wearing detective. While I agree he is one of Britain's greatest gifts to the theatre and cinema, I often took pause with his slow moving speech and frequent stalls in reciting his lines. That is totally missing here, and he gives a relaxed and often humorous performance that isn't as hyper as Rathbone's but just as riveting. Just as outstanding is James Mason, taking over Nigel Bruce's role as Dr. Watson. While slightly bumbling, he isn't as eccentric as Bruce was, and as a result, is taken more seriously. In a nod to Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson in the Rathbone/Bruce films), the brief appearance of Holmes' landlady is hysterically amusing because of the bit actresses' resemblance to the wonderful Ms. Gordon.As the storyline unfolds, it is obvious that the writers are developing something more sinister than just the whims of a madman killing prostitutes. It is almost devilish in its innuendos as clues are dropped that give enough information to the viewers to guess what is going on, yet keep them intrigued as well. In smaller roles, Donald Sutherland, Anthony Quayle and Frank Finlay shine, while brief appearances by "Webster's" Susan Clark (whatever happened to her????) and Genevieve Bujold are extremely haunting.Why this film was overlooked at awards time is beyond me, especially for Plummer, Mason and its moody photography. Everything about this film is exquisite and with recent, more youthful looks at Holmes and Watson, this entry in the popular series is worth re-discovering.