Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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

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.

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

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.