Murder by Decree (1979)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Good movie but grossly overrated

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Being as I am a Sherlock Holmes enthusiast, I find very fascinating the idea of having the detective investigating the infamous Ripper murders. It is an idea that never occurred to Doyle or, at least, he never materialised on paper. The first Holmes adventure, A Study in Scarlet, came out in 1887, just one year before the murders. This is an impeccably atmospheric depiction of Victorian London with a top-notch cast of the sort you will hardly see in a film today, and the sequence of events is so suspenseful that keeps you engaged until the very end.But you mustn't take the conspiracy theory seriously, because it is totally ludicrous. I have never read the Stephen Knight book from which this film borrows the idea of the Royal family and the Freemasons' association with the mysterious killer or killers. But although it sounds fascinating and there must be people who truly believe it, when you think a little about it you realise its absurdity. The heir to the throne falling for a commoner and marrying her in secret? A so high and mighty a person as a Victorian royal could be, knowing that if the affair ever came to the public knowledge the Monarchy would be ruined? He might seduce her, (after all, many kings in the past used to have mistresses and they fathered bastards), but never get mixed-up with the girl to the point of marrying her. That is totally preposterous. And then, how the conspirators did know whom the girl had revealed her secret to? She moved among the East End crowds and could have told just anyone. How could the murderers know which persons in particular she had been talking to so they could silence them forever? Nevertheless, despite all of these questions that make the famous conspiracy theory totally implausible, if we watch the film just as the piece of entertainment it is, with a fascinating blend of fiction with real-life characters of the Ripper's time (Sir Charles Warren, Robert Lees, Mary Kelly and the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury), this is an excellent suspense film to kill a couple of hours on a Saturday night.

...but this movie is absurd.The gay angle has already been mentioned, and what was absolutely galling is Sherlock Holmes making reference that Watson is a "ladies man" in order to put worries aside that they are two gay men living together.What is truly absurd, though, and something I have not seen mentioned anywhere in the reviews, is that at one time, there is a torture/murder taking place in a flat at street level where the killers are so stupid they leave the curtains open so anyone can look in from outside while they are cutting up the victim, which is exactly what happens.This is terrible writing and directing to the point of being amateurish.There are also so many loose ends and things that don't make sense story wise that it makes the movie completely a waste of time.Amateur hour on the part of the writer and the director.

Murder By Decree may not be quite perfect. Donald Sutherland is both underused and out of place in scenes that felt somewhat thrown in, the ending is a little tacky and lacking in mystery and the pacing in the middle has a tendency to be on the stodgy side. It is however still a solid and entertaining film. Murder By Decree is a well-made film, the sets and costumes are very evocative, exuding a gloomy and quite chilling atmosphere, and the beautiful photography does nothing to detract from that. Bob Clark's experience in the realm of horror made for great use, his directing shows him in his comfort zone. The music is very haunting and effectively orchestrated without being overbearing, while the script- while occasionally getting bogged down by politics- is thoughtful and literate with some nice bits of humorous banter between Holmes and Watson, and the story is complicated yet suspenseful and engaging. Apart from Sutherland, the acting is excellent. Genevieve Bujold is the standout of the supporting cast in an eerie performance and John Gielgud, David Hemmings, Anthony Quayle and Susan Clark are also great. The leads are what make Murder By Decree, with Christopher Plummer a very human and commanding Holmes and James Mason perfectly cast as a subtly composed Watson. All in all, a solid and well done film, worth checking out definitely. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Warning, spoilers ahead.Christopher Plummer is one of those actors who seem born to play Holmes. He has perfect facial features and a cold, precise manner. His performance is spot-on as the middle aged Holmes. James Mason is one of the best Dr. Watsons on film. He's no blundering fool, though he's mistaken for one a few times in this film.Enjoy a great teaming of Holmes and Watson, because the story is weak.Possibly to make up for a limp storyline, this film is populated with good actors in bit parts. Two of the smallest parts are Donald Sutherland as psychic Robert Lees, and Geneviève Bujold, appearing for mere minutes, as a madhouse inmate. Toward the end, John Gielgud pops his head in to say "Hi" as the Prime Minister.Anthony Quayle keeps his angry hat on as the head honcho of the police. Inspectors Lestrade (a very fine Frank Finlay) and Foxborough (David Hemmings) come off a lot better, exchanging quips with Holmes and Watson while seeking Jack the Ripper.Though the "Royal Conspiracy" Jack the Ripper theory went through quite a vogue during the seventies and eighties, it has now been completely discredited. They might still have hammered a decent story out of this farrago of nonsense (farragos of nonsense often make great movies), if they had supplied a better ending. In fact, when the "Ripper" is discovered it's disappointing as it was not properly foreshadowed. Nor is the killer one of the big names in the cast, which would have helped. There's a lot of speechifying near the end to clear up what we just saw, but it's lame."Murder by Decree" was first announced with Peter O'Toole as Holmes, which had great potential. With O'Toole as Holmes, Anthony Quayle might have made a noteworthy Watson. Instead, according to the director's commentary, they wanted Laurence Olivier. But bad blood existed between the two "O" actors O'Toole and Olivier, and in the end neither came on board.Still, Plummer and Mason make a fine pairing, and it's too bad they didn't make more Holmes outings before Mason's death in 1984.Unfortunately, this is not the post-Jeremy Brett Holmes where Sherlock can dress like a human being. He gallivants around London in a deerstalker hat and cape meant for country wear -- even flipping his deerstalker on his head while leaving the opera! He looks ludicrous. But his acting is impeccable.