Best movie ever!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

This engaging Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper movie is a great little film, with a plot twisting and turning as our intrepid heroes uncover clues and yet still staying simple enough to be easy viewing. The Victorian setting is portrayed well as a brutal, violent time and the sleazy aspects of living in Whitechapel (the filth, the grime, the homeless, the prostitutes) are dealt with unflinchingly. Indeed these times are a lot more realistic than the glossy look of the later television movie JACK THE RIPPER with Michael Caine, as they truly reflect the squalor of one of London's most notorious quarters.The mystery elements move along nicely with a new clue dropping into the case about every ten minutes; things never get boring. Thankfully the murders are dealt with in a sensationalist manner, and the horror of the situation is played to the hilt. There's even a gruesome throat slitting that wouldn't be out of place in a sleazy Italian giallo. Ignore the critics, these scenes make the film better. The producers were obviously going for a mainstream audience and so included a couple of exciting fight scenes in as an extra bonus, and the climax takes place in a burning room, with Holmes and the Ripper battling it out while timber collapses around them. It's definitely a lot of fun.What the film benefits most from is an impressive cast which contains loads of familiar faces from British stage, television and film. Every major role is played by a notable actor, such as Frank Finlay who makes a weasely Inspector Lestrade (he looks the part, but is far less obnoxious than his literary counterpart - he actually helps Holmes here!). Donald Houston is a good Watson, and there's far less of the buffoon in him here than in other portrayals. His banter with Holmes is kept light and so we get plenty of much-needed comic relief into the situation. John Neville is well-cast as the great detective himself, and puts in a highly accurate performance, even if he isn't particularly charismatic; he conveys Holmes' genius and mannerisms excellent. Robert Morley enjoys himself in a light role as Mycroft Holmes, while the prostitutes who get the sharp end of a knife are played by such popular actresses as Adrienne Corri, Barbara Windsor (thankfully dying an early death), and Judi Dench.A STUDY IN TERROR may not be a masterpiece, but it's a film well above average for the genre and manages to mix and match (successfully might I add) plenty of different components which come together in a pleasing brew. From me, it definitely gets the thumbs up.

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.

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.

I'm a big fan of low- to medium- budget horror films from this period, but A Study in Terror -- from sexploitation specialists Compton, who thought they could create high class horror because of their success with Roman Polanski's Repulsion -- is almost pure mediocrity and wastes a great cast. It can't hold a candle to Bob Clark's masterful Murder by Decree; even From Hell, which suffers somewhat from Big Studio bloat, is preferable. I might recommend the film based solely on the opportunity to see actors like John Neville and Judi Dench; but beyond this factor, there is little to enjoy here. Stick with the above-mentioned movies. Also, try The Lodger and The Man in the Attic.