brilliant actors, brilliant editing

A Disappointing Continuation

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

No offense to Christopher Plummer, but the most memorable part of this Sherlock Holmes movie is James Mason's adorable, disappointed pout as he laments, "You squashed my pea!" It's so cute; I'm sure everyone who sees it wants to rush out and cook him a new side of peas just to make him smile. James Mason is one of the lucky actors who, when he aged, was still handsome and charming enough to show audiences the extremely handsome man he used to be. Even if Murder by Decree is the first of his movies you've seen, you'll probably surprise yourself by taking a fancy to an "old man".But let's get to the plot: Christopher Plummer plays Sherlock Holmes, and as the character is always written and played, he's eccentric, rude, and a jerk. It's not his fault that he's so unlikable, and if you happen to like mean guys, you might develop a little crush on Chris, since this is the era of his prime in the looks department. The bad guy in Murder by Decree is Jack the Ripper, and the supporting cast includes John Gielgud, Genevieve Bujold, Donald Sutherland, Frank Finlay, Anthony Quayle, Susan Clark, and David Hemmings.I'm not a fan of the modern Sherlock Holmes reboots, so if you are, my recommendation might not be relevant. I really like Murder by Decree because of the lovely yet creepy surroundings and production values. There's humor in the script, but when the scenes turn scary, there's very good reason to hide behind your pillow. As usual, the actor who plays Holmes isn't likable and the actor who plays Watson adds class, but just like the original Hercule Poirot movies in the 1970s, there's something special about this one. It feels like the filmmakers really had respect for the story and characters, instead of just wanting to feel important by redoing them and placing a new spin on things.

A serial killer is on the loose in the Whitechapel area of London. Leaders of the community come to Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and his assistant Dr. Watson (James Mason) for help. Psychic Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland) tells them about his visions of Jack the Ripper. Commissioner Sir Charles Warren puts up roadblocks. Holmes discovers that Sir Charles is a Freemason and referenced in a message from the Ripper about Juwes. Holmes tracks down Mary Kelly. She tells him about a baby and is then kidnapped. This leads to the disturbed Annie Crook (Geneviève Bujold). Inspector Foxborough (David Hemmings) seems to be helpful. Holmes confronts Prime Minister Lord Salisbury (John Gielgud) about the conspiracy.Holmes and Watson are colleagues and sincere investigators. This Watson is not a bumbling fool. The production value is pretty good considering the cost. The actors are all very high quality. Christopher Plummer is a very effective Holmes. It's a lot of foggy murders but not a lot of action. The plot was reused for the movie "From Hell". It's a pretty good crime investigation.

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.

...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.