A Study in Terror (1965)

Keeping with my series of blogs highlighting Sherlock Holmes movies you may not have seen I highly recommend checking out the 1965 film A Study in Terror.

It's definitely a film of it's time period. Produced at the height of both the Batman television series and the James Bond film, this version of Sherlock Holmes is heavily influenced by both.

Heck!! Even the poster for the movie states "Here comes the original caped crusader".

Based loosely on the same novel by Ellery Queen, we see Sherlock Holmes face off against a factual murderer in the form of Jack the Ripper. This is the first time I can recall anyone doing a film which would have Holmes solving the Ripper murders. I won't be the last either with the film featuring Holmes facing off against Jack the Ripper.

The next film is 1979's Murder By Decree starring Christopher Plummer as Holmes.

Although, this earlier take on the Ripper murders is less factual than the later film. It's not less enjoyable by any means.

Despite it falling into many of the Sherlock Holmes stereotypes created by the Basil Rathbone films, I found it to be a highly entertaining and enjoyable film.

The late John Neville does a very good job as Sherlock Holmes in this film. And although Donald Houston leans more towards the bumbling Nigel Bruce Watson of the Rathbone films with a touch of Oliver Hardy bashfulness. I do find him much more likable and agreeable than the harrumphing old duffer Bruce created.

Both Neville and Houston add a touch of youth to the roles that had not been seen in the previous attempts at Holmes.

The other two things I really enjoyed about the film was Robert Morley's portrayal as Mycroft Holmes and Frank Finlay as Inspector Lestrade. Both actors look exactly the way the characters are described in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original tales.

Finlay would in fact appear as Lestrade once more in the later Holmes/Ripper movie. To my mind, he is still the best actor to appear as the "ferret-faced" Scotland Yard inspector.

A bit of trivia I love to throw out, both the late Robert Morley and Stephen Fry share a distinction as actors who have both played Oscar Wilde and Mycroft Holmes.

And as I had mentioned, the movie doesn't completely stick to the facts of the case in the way the later Christopher Plummer Holmes film or even Alan Moore's epic Jack the Ripper graphic novel From Hell does.

However, this does not make the film all the less enjoyable for me. Even the Batman/Bond flavored action is not that bad.

Not to mention you get to see a very young Dame Judi Dench in only her third feature film.

Although, it seems someone is selling DVD-R copy of it on Amazon.com, sadly it looks as though this film has not had a proper release on DVD just yet. And it really should.

Add this one to your queue of Sherlock Holmes films you need to check out.

Baron Karl Friedrich Hieronymus Freiherr von Münchhausen

I have seen and own both the 1943 German film and the 1988 film directed by Terry Gilliam of Baron Munchausen. For those of you who know me well, The Adventures of Baron Muchausen starring John Neville is one of my all time favorite movies. I can't get enough of the film and it's a shame it was so poorly recieved. But unfortunately, people lack imagination and the ability to suspend their disbelief when it comes to movies.

And some people are just stupid in general and have to complain throughout a movie just because THEY don't understand it and are too arrogant to admit it...

...but I digress.

I finally got the opportunity to buy the Kino release of Münchhausen (1943). Kino is a great company who released and restores rare films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Münchhausen and The Extra Girl which starred the lovely Mabel Normand. In the case of Caligari, they even went in and added the different sepia tones the director had used to paint the film. For someone like me who was only use to bad copies of Caligari, it was a real treat to see it as it was suppose to be seen.

What makes Münchhausen so interesting is it is in fact a propaganda film created by Ufa Studios to commemorate the company's 25th Anniversary. It was produced at 6.5 Million Reichsmarks and filmed in Agfacolor. It was the Nazi's response to films like Britians The Thief of Bagdad and Hollywood's The Wizard of Oz.

AND the movie is it was actually scripted by banned Jewish writer Erich Kastner under a pseudonym.

It's a beautiful film, but at the same time it's somewhat strange to watch realizing the bloodshed and the lives lost to the Nazi oppression at the time. I read online a really good comment someone wrote which read: "It's like looking at a beautiful painting but realizing the horror and atrocity behind that painting. Is it still to be considereda beautiful painting".

It makes for an interesting arguement.

I had also started flipping through the original book by Rudolf Erich Raspe with illustrations by Gustave Dore. I've been putting some thought into creating a Baron Muchausen graphic novel sometime down the road. Both films about Muchausen take the stories with the directors own unique twist to them.

I had thought about perhaps doing my adaptation directly from the stories. There were some really great scenes that didn't make it in either the 1943 and 1988 films that I would love to do.

I had also thought about using my own Dad as the basis for Baron Munchausen. Not that he's a teller of tall tales. But when he does reminisce, his stories from his past are very engaging and amusing.

But I still have to get through the remaining 11 pages of Sherlock Holmes and a couple other pet projects I'm working on with other people before I can think about starting this one.

But I think it would make an excellent graphic novel.

My thoughts on the new Sherlock Holmes film...

I'm not completely put off by the thought of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson respectively. In that respect Guy Ritchie got it fairly right as far as age is concerned. In the first Sherlock Holmes stories, both Holmes and Watson are actually around the age of 27. Although, this would make both actors too old to play the part seeing that Robert Downey Jr. is 43 and Jude Law is 36. But in the grand scheme of things they're young guys. So, let's not split hairs.

Although, here's a tidbit of information for you all. One of Jude Law's earliest acting appearances was all the way back in 1991 in an episode of The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes. The episode was Shoscombe Old Place which starred the ultimate Sherlock Holmes Jeremy Brett.

I happen to like Jude Law. I thought he gave a really great performance as Lord Alfred 'Bosie' Douglas in the film Wilde. That was the movie that kind of won me over for his acting chops. Sort of the same way Chaplin won me over for Robert Downey Jr.'s acting.

Strangely enough, both films are bio's.

But with this said, I think this is probably the most unusual Holmes and Watson since Nicol Williamson and Robert Duvall were Holmes and Watson in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution.

And yes. You read that right. Robert Duvall as Watson.

I don't know much about the series of comic books by Lionel Wigram this upcoming movie is based upon. So, I really can't give an opinion on something I haven't seen or know nothing about.

I suppose from a marketing standpoint, I understand Guy Ritchie's choice for Holmes. There's no bigger name in Hollywood that is in demand other than Robert Downey Jr. at this very moment. And like I said, he's an actor I really like. And I'm happy he has cleaned up his life and he's getting the respect and the attention he deserves.

But here's my feelings. I think a lot of books and movies take a huge risk at trying to make Sherlock Holmes more dynamic. Because it can either work brilliantly or it can blow up in your face.

A good case in point is the movie A Study in Terror which starred John Neville as a more youthful Sherlock Holmes than most moviegoers were use to seeing with the tagline: "Sherlock Holmes meets Jack the Ripper! Here comes the original caped crusader!"

Both Batman T.V. series and James Bond were massively popular at the time. So, the producers were really heavily marketing it on that angle.

And it's a great film!! It didn't do good originally in the box offices. But it's one of my favorite Sherlock Holmes films.

The reason I feel this movie works is because despite stuff like making Holmes a man of action and even giving him a knife which pops out the end of his walking stick, the producers stick close to the original character of Sherlock Holmes. They still remain true to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character while making him James Bond with a cape.

An example of reinventing Holmes that went horribly, horribly wrong is 2002's USA Networks production Sherlock also titled A Case of Evil starring James D'Arcy. It's yet another attempt to do a Young Sherlock Holmes type movie. The producers also saw it fit to give their Young Sherlock a sex drive and make Dr. Watson an eccentric inventor.

How could you possibly go wrong with that? Well, you could and it did!! The movie was awful. AND once again you have Richard E. Grant horribly miscasted as Mycroft Holmes.

As I have stated before I thing REG should be the one playing Sherlock Holmes in most of the productions he has been a part of.

But it's an example of how reinventing the character can make for a really bad film. In this particular film's case, it tried to completely reinvent the whole history of Sherlock Holmes.

With all that said, I'm willing to give Guy Ritchie's film a chance. Mostly because that part of me that likes to see how someone approaches the character of Sherlock Holmes. Good or bad, I like to see how actors approach the character.

Here's another historical fact for you all before I close this blog. When William Gillette took his play Sherlock Holmes to England, the young boy who played Billy the Page on stage was a young Master Charles Spencer Chaplin...

...who Robert Downey Jr. portrayed.

Some of my favorite Sherlock's

Continuing on the subject of Sherlock Holmes, I thought I would compile a list of actors I really enjoyed in the role of Sherlock Holmes. It's probably been one of the most played parts. And you would probably need the fingers of several of your friends hands to count the number of actors who have played Holmes over the decades.

JEREMY BRETT: The DEFINITIVE Holmes in my opinion. To be honest, it took some time to get use to his voice with the character of Sherlock Holmes. I think that's because every actor since Basil Rathbone has been playing Holmes with this almost wooden dictation. Now I cannot read the novels and short stories without hearing Brett's voice in Sherlock Holmes's lines. Or either David Burke or Edward Hardwicke's voices in Watson's narration. Brett made Sherlock Holmes live. As Ratbone cast a shadow on the part for the longest time, I think Brett has now cast his own shadow upon the part. I have no problem with people continuing to make Sherlock Holmes films. And I love to see how other actors approach the character. I didn't mind either Richard Roxburgh or Rupert Everett's takes on the character. But Jeremy Brett is going to be a hard act to follow for a long time to come.


PETER CUSHING: Was actually considered to be the definitive Holmes by many Sherlockians for many years. Even though Hammer made The Hound of the Baskervilles somewhat unrecognizable. I still enjoyed the film for two things. Peter Cushing as Holmes and Christopher Lee as Sir Henry. What I liked about Peter Cushing is he was a man after my own heart as far as how both Holmes and Watson should be portrayed. And he got his chance to stay true to the original Conan Doyle stories playing Holmes for a second time in a BBC Sherlock Holmes series when Douglas Wilmer stepped down from the role. I got to see the Hound of the Baskervilles. And despite some weak acting from some of the supporting actors and the usual tatty sets from the BBC Productions at that time, it's a great production. I really wish that they would release the Peter Cushing series of Sherlock Holmes over here in the States.



















ROBERT STEPHENS: A somewhat forgotten Sherlock Holmes actor and a somewhat forgotten film with The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. But I enjoyed both the film and Robert Stephens's acting in the part. It should be mentioned that Robert Stephens was good friends with Jeremy Brett and actually tried to discourage Brett from taking the part because of how miserable of a time he had when filming Billy Wilder's film and the possibility of being typecasted. Although, Stephens would end up playing the part again on stage in a production of William Gillette's Sherlock Holmes.























JOHN NEVILLE: Another somewhat forgotten Sherlock Holmes actor in another favorite film of mine A Study In Terror. I was already a big fan of John Neville because of the film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. When I had read in a Sherlock Holmes book that he had played Holmes in a film, I had to see it. The plot has Sherlock Holmes face off against Jack the Ripper. The film itself doesn't particular stick very close to some of the facts of the case. It's a very Hollywood sort of explanation behind the identity of Jack the Ripper. But it is still highly enjoyable. The film also features Robert Morley as Sherlock Holmes's brother Mycroft. Morley is probably one of my favorite actors in the role of Mycroft to date. Charles Gray who played Mycroft in the Jeremy Brett series is a very close second favorite for me.























CHRISTOPHER LEE: Unfortuntely, the films he did play Holmes in weren't the greatest as far as great Holmes films are concerned. The biggest problem with his first film as Holmes is when they dubbed it from German to English, they got this awful American voice actor to dub his dialogue. Why they wouldn't get Christopher Lee, who has one of the best voices in the world (possibly next to Tom Baker's) is beyond me. I would imagine the company that did the dubbing were cheap bastards. However, I found Sherlock Holmes and the Incident at Victoria Falls to be one of the better of the three Holmes films Lee played the role of Holmes. But what made all the films worth watching was Christopher Lee's performance. He made a very good Holmes.





SIR IAN RICHARDSON: Another actor I really enjoyed in the role of Holmes. Unfortunately both films he was in, The Hound of the Baskervilles and the Sign of Four, were horribly Americanized and the production tried to make them more exciting for an American audience. BUT Richardson was marvelous and the films aren't without their charms. Actually, Sir Ian ended up having a great deal more success in the role of the man who inspired Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to create Sherlock Holmes: Dr. Joseph Bell in the series Murder Rooms.














CLIVE MERRISON: Although, he has never played Holmes on screen, he has the distinction of doing every Sherlock Holmes story created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle on radio. If you have not had the chance to hear one of the stories, I highly recommend you go out and purchase one either on tape or CD. They're very well done and create wonderful pictures in your mind.







BASIL RATHBONE: As much as I don't like how they placed Holmes in the 1940's and how much Nigel Bruce's idiotic Doctor Watson made me want to tear my hair out, I liked both The Hound of the Baskervilles and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Both of those films are set in Victorian England. Actually, they're the only two of Rathbone's Holmes films that are set in Victorian England One must give credit where credit is due. Rathbone helped make the character popular for many years to come. And now is pretty much part of a great debate in the same way who is better, Kirk or Picard? Who is better Rathbone or Brett? I will, of course go with Jeremy Brett. But probably without the Basil Rathbone films there might have not been any of the Holmes films we see today. Perhaps.


WILLIAM GILLETTE: Okay, so I have never seen him perform Holmes. But unless you're over the age of 100, neither have you!! But I did get the opportunity to listen to him perform as Holmes in a radio play someone posted on Youtube. Why I like William Gillette is because of what he did to popularize the character in the United States. Sure, some people grit their teeth because he was the man who basically pidgeonholed Holmes to wearing the deerstalker hat and smoking the curved pipe. And famously having him fall in love. But it's his play and his portrayal as Holmes is what helped the character to become more well known here. So, with that said I think Gillette owes a great deal of respect for what has become somewhat a tradition with actors.

Somewhat like what playing James Bond or the Doctor on Doctor Who is today.