Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Ben Larson What more could you ask for in a film: Christopher Plummer, James Mason, Anthony Quayle, John Gielgud, Frank Finlay, Donald Sutherland, and Geneviève Bujold, and a great supporting cast? That's two Oscar winners and four nominees; a great cast!The film features warfare between the classes, clashing political programs, and widespread confusion abut sex and insanity. It touches on Freemasons and parapsychology, too. Plummer is excellent as Holmes, and Sutherland is really creepy as a medium.A thrilling tale of murder and politics.

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.

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.

aramis-112-804880 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.