MovieChat Forums > Murder by Decree (1979) Discussion > A complete jumble of a movie **spoilers...

A complete jumble of a movie spoilers

posted 17 years ago by boomcoach
27 replies | jump to latest

I saw this movie a long time ago, possibly when it was in the theater, but I didn't remember much about it. Rented it last week from Netflix because a) I am a huge Holmes fan and b) I have always had an interest in the Ripper, and my son was doing as research paper on the Ripper suspects and it made me think of this movie.

What we have is a boring jumble of a movie.

I was not bothered by the fact that the movie used a version of the debunked Royal Ripper theory. That theory was still going strong in 1979, and if you are going to put Holmes against the Ripper, you have to have some reason why the killer that Holmes unearthes is never made public, and the Royal Ripper fulfills this. The Royal Ripper is also a much juicier story because we all love to see the mighty fall.

BUT.....

Plummer is a complete mess as Holmes. He is placid and ineffective. He only finds clues when they are shoved into his face. He manages to recover the "Juwes" message with some chemical sleight of hand, which was cool, and his only real "Holmes-ish" moment.

Why not use the historical characters? Why use Lestrade intead of have Abberline refered to Holmes by Lestrade? Why create a fictional doctor instead of Dr. William Gull? Other than the names of the victims there was nothing that rang true to someone with even a passing interest in the Ripper. Those little touches add versimilitude to a story about an historical setting.

Donald Sutherland's "psychic" is merely a clumsy plot device to shove Holmes in the right direction. Use an anonymous note and save a solid actor a bad role.

The plot is so poorly done that we have to end the movie with long boring exposition. At least in "From Hell" the viewer gets to unravel the story as the movie proceeds.

The best thing about the movie is Mason's performance as Watson. His starting the chant to drown out the hecklers place him as a "solid Englishman"; the Pea scene add a nice touch of eccentricity, and, throughout the movie, he is intelligent and the strong right arm for Holmes that the canonical Watson always was.
--
If I was God, I would still be an atheist; I have never had faith in myself.

[–] Bergman_Fellini87 10 years ago

I disagree about your criticism about the lack of true historical characters like Abberline & Gull. As a fictionalised version of historical events, I don't see the problem with having Lestrade as the main inspector in a Ripper film with Sherlock Holmes.

I do like the idea of changing Gull's name. Since it is known that there was no Royal conspiracy at all, it is really disgusting & disrespectful to keep persisting & ruining the reputations of people like Gull long after they're dead. I was appalled when reading Donald Rumbelow's 2013 revised Complete Jack the Ripper, that idiots who saw the 1988 mini-series with Michael Caine, & From Hell, took them as gospel truth & vandalized Gull's grave. They did the same with James Maybrick as well.

At least in the case of this film (although I think Rumbelow also included it as one of the films that led the idiots to desecrate his grave), that, for me at least, the filmmakers intended for a fictionalised story. The Michael Caine mini series, & From Hell, had the filmmakers claiming they were historically accurate (I remember watching the extras on From Hell years ago, & the directors were showing off the sets bragging about historical accuracy).

If you want a real good Holmes/Ripper story, check out the Sherlock Holmes Vs Jack the Ripper PC game. No Royal conspiracy nonsense, & is a hell of a lot more accurate than a lot of these junk films. I was also really freaked out & disturbed by this game.

Anyway, I do like this film though, but it does have problems. There is a real spooky atmosphere & some frightening moments, which From Hell lacked.

[–] poupartca 8 years ago

You say the Ripper case is a topic of personal interest, yet you fault the inclusion of psychic Robert Lees, Sutherland's character, in the story as a clumsy gimmick. Except that Robert Lees was a real person and professional psychic, who actually did come forward to the authorities with stories of detailed visions of the Ripper murders and clues, he believed, the killer's identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_James_Lees

You can't have it both ways by faulting the plot for lacking authenticity AND including a real character to drive the plot forward exactly that real character actually did.

A complete jumble of a movie **spoilers**

A complete jumble of a movie spoilers