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 rather enjoyed this tale of mayhem and detection in Victorian London, although it owes nothing to Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle except the identity and temperament of the two lead characters.John Neville makes an acceptable Sherlock Holmes and Donald Houston fills in the role of his sidekick, Doctor Watson, with dignity and compassion.The story pits Holmes and Watson against, not the cerebral machinations of Professor Moriarty, but the very real predations of Jack the Ripper, probably the most famous serial killer in history. Some fans have wondered why Conan-Doyle himself never tackled the job. After all, it was contemporaneous with the popularity of his creation, Holmes, since the murders took place in 1888.Some of the characters in the film correspond roughly to historical figures -- the rabble-rouser who inflames the crowds demanding justice. Most are made out of whole cloth. Aberline, the detective in charge, appears nowhere.The plot of the movie throws a couple of likely suspects at us -- Anthony Quayle as a police mortician and community organizer who wants to rid Whitechapel of prostitution and debauchery, the missing medical-school drop out who is the son of a Duke. But in fact the movie presents the real crazed murderer as a nice guy with a complex of improbable motives.Neville lacks the confident stride and crisp diction of Basil Rathbone. He looks properly hawk-like but should probably be taller and a bit haughty, which he is not. He has one supremely good moment when that mask of dispassion is dropped. Inspector Lestrade has just come out of the drab flat of Mary Kelly, last of the five victims, who has been not just disemboweled but cut to pieces, with her intestines draped over the furniture. Lestrade looks stricken. Holmes stops short and asks with concern, "Lestrade, my dear fellow, are you not well?" It's only a moment but in that moment we can all realize how horrifying these events really are. Previously, Jack's encounters with the whores have been shown but there's been a minimum of blood. Now we have a better grasp, through Holmes' reaction to Lestrade's state, what went on after the girls were dead.Whitechapel at the time was considerably worse than what we see on the screen. The saloon where the whores pick up fares and get drunk looks hardly worse than some of the bars I've visited on Third Avenue in New York. The girls themselves are decently dressed and the streets we see are properly spooky. The problem is that the production designer may not have known what conditions were like in Whitechapel in 1888, or else it was thought they were too repulsive to be shown on screen.The fact is, there was no safety net for the poor. If you were a wife and mother and your husband was killed or disabled on the job, you became a street walker wearing a signature white apron. Your clothes turned to rags, you worked and lived for a drink of gin, and you were liable to sleep in a flop house with lice-ridden chairs instead of beds, although there was a rope strung across the ranks of chairs so customers could have something to rest their torsos on. Your teeth went to hell. You didn't look sexy and beautiful like Jack's victims on the screen. And the streets were a murky mixture of garbage and the detritus from chamber pots and horse manure. The neighborhood reeked. Most of this unpleasantness isn't suggested in the movie, which presents us with a more decorous model of Victorian poverty.Still, the central plot is kind of interesting as we follow Holmes and Watson through both the upper and lower levels of London society. And Anthony Quayle's performance is worth catching for itself. The character, as written, is full of ambiguity, as real characters tend to be, and Quayle, with his Australopithecine features, is just fine in the role.

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.

A Study in Terror is set during Victorian times in 1888 to be precise & starts late on night in the poverty ridden London district of Whitechappell where a serial killer known as Jack the Ripper is at large, prostitute Polly Nichols (Christiane Maybach) is the second to dies from his blade & soon after another prostitute named Annie Chapman (Barbara Windsor) falls victim to the Ripper. The worlds greatest detective Sherlck Holmes (John Neville) & his trusty sidekick Dr. Watson (Donald Houston) are on the case after a set of surgical scalpels are mysteriously sent to Holmes in the post, as Holmes investigates the Ripper case the likes of blackmail, dark family secrets, lies & a whole host of other undesirable elements surface for Holmes to shift through & get to the horrible truth...This British production was directed by James Hill & is a surprisingly decent murder mystery. The script by Derek & Donald Ford uses the intriguing premise of having the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes tackle the still unsolved real-life case of Jack the Ripper, it's a neat idea & it works very well thanks to a good script that manages to juggle the mystery & horror elements effectively & to it's credit there's more going on in A Study in Terror than just the Ripper murders for Holmes to get to the bottom of. There are a few suspects & each one is given just about enough motive to put them in the frame for the murders yet there isn't one huge stand out candidate who are obvious, adding to a pleasing amount of mystery is a fair amount of exploitation & action which I didn't expect from a film of this vintage. The character's are good & it keeps to the basic notion of each of it's main stars, Sherlock Holmes is the unflappable super smart detective who misses literally nothing & Jack the Ripper is portrayed as a doctor as he was suspected to be in reality. It moves along at a nice pace, it will probably keep you guessing for most of it's running time & it all comes together in satisfactory climax although it never explained how Holmes himself escapes the fire, does it?Director Hill does a better job than expected with some very atmospheric scenes set in a Victorian fog enshrouded London. The period sets, costumes & props are excellent with with lots of attention to detail throughout. There are some nice moments here especially the long point-of-view murder of the fourth prostitute late on in the film. This was probably considered pretty strong back in 1965 & while not up there with the likes of todays horror films there's some decent gore here, there's a scene set in a slaughter house complete with lots of hanging, gutted pig carcasses, someone has a knife shoved through their neck, there's a slit throat & a cool scene when someone is stabbed in a water trough & the camera is based in the bottom so we can see clouds of blood discolour the water from underneath.Technically A Study in Terror is great, we British know how to turn in a decent period effort & there's even an impressive fiery climax featuring a fight between Holmes & the Ripper in a burning pub. The acting is fine & I loved the cockney accents especially all the prostitutes who were a hoot, there's a good cast here including Barbara Windsor, Oscar winner Judi Dench, Robert Morley, Frank Finlay & Adrienne Corri.A Study in Terror is a neat film that was much better than I was expecting, if your looking for an atmospheric murder mystery with some added exploitation then A Sudy in Terror might be what your after. Definitely worth a watch.