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

I'm a fan of these iconic mysteries, and this production takes a stab at both Sherlock Holmes and Jack The Ripper but in the long run is not really successful on either front in my view, and not for lack of trying.John Neville was an excellent Holmes, one of the best performances of the brilliant detective. And Donald Houston played Watson somewhere between the original humorous Nigel Bruce and the more solid athlete as perceived by Robert Duvall in Seven Percent Solution. He seems like a younger, stronger James Mason in Murder by Decree. At first I did not recognize Judi Dench, a lovely young blonde in a smaller role.Dialogue as read by the actors at times felt forced, like they had to push through it in quick fashion to move things along. I do think elements of the JTR mystery as they appear here are a bit ahead of their time, but the finale felt unsatisfying and rushed.I thought the best elements were the settings - excellent street scenes and a pub filled with rowdy characters. The prostitutes unfortunately were looking very Hollywood though in their bright expensive dresses and perfect hair like they had just come from a salon, and the film generally lacked grit. There is a lot of teasing about the oldest profession that goes nowhere, and things in general are kept fairly tame, cutting away before anything becomes too appropriately sordid.I'm a big fan of John Scott but his music here sounded too much like a 60's spy television show (the director James Hill worked on The Saint and The Avengers).As noted in the trivia section, it is interesting that two actors in Study In Terror (1965) would appear later in the other Holmes vs Ripper movie Murder By Decree (1979; Anthony Quayle and Frank Finley (who would reprise his Doyle created role of Inspector Lestrade). There are other similarities between the films as well- suspicion of those in places of power, and the same shots of Holmes and Watson having similarly styled conversations riding in carriages together. It made me feel that Decree was more of a remake of Study, with the 1970s infamous Royal Conspiracy Theory solidifying the Ripper plot.Overall, A Study In Terror feels like a Hammer production with less sex and gore, and not nearly as mysterious or atmospheric as other JTR movies like versions of The Lodger and Murder By Decree. Not quite mysterious enough for a Holmes story, and not nearly dark enough for JTR, lost in the mid 60s somewhere in between.

Most Sherlock Holmes films are terrible. The Jeremy Brett TV series remains the platinum standard, against which just about everything else lags far behind. (The Basil Rathbone films are a major disappointment, because the producers were too cheap to create period films, and Rathbone's superior performance is wasted on less-than-Doyle-quality stories.) It's actually possible to talk about "A Study in Terror" with the Brett series in the same breath. It's that good.It has two flaws (which I'll get out of the way first). It was photographed with what are (by today's standards) primitive color film. The contrast is so great, that it's hard to light darker scenes to get any real sense of atmosphere (though some come close).The other is that the script, and to a lesser degree John Neville's performance, give Holmes a degree of wit and warmth lacking from Doyle's original. His is not quite the Holmes we're expecting.The strong suit is the script, with plausible situations, strong characterizations, and solid dialog.Recommended.

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.