Murder by Decree (1979)

Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. Watson (James Mason) attend the theater, only to find the show delayed as it will not start until the Prince of Wales arrives.  When the tardy prince enters, the commoners boo!  Dr. Watson saves the day with a 'God save the monarchy!' or some such, earning great praise from Holmes.  It is 1888 and there are radicals who would see the monarchy toppled.  After the performance, Holmes and Watson exit to find hawkers selling news of the latest murder by Jack the Ripper.  To Watson's astonishment, Scotland Yard has not consulted Holmes regarding the murders.  However, a band of merchants is waiting for them at Baker Street and request that Holmes investigate Jack the Ripper.  Holmes is given a lead: speak to Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland).  Lees proves to be a psychic who has had visions of the Ripper and even spotted him once.  The police have dismissed Lees as a crank.  While Holmes follows the psychic, Watson interviews the various friends of the murdered women to see if there is some commonality.

I saw the movie in theaters when it was released and could only remember two things about it prior to rewatching it.  First, the royal family was somehow involved in the Jack the Ripper murders.  Second, Holmes squashed Watson's pea with a fork.

The plot is ludicrous.  The Duke of Clarence - younger brother to the Prince of Wales - had an affair with Annie Crook (Genevieve Bujold), a catholic, whom he also married.  Then he left her.  However, she gave birth to a daughter and that's trouble.  Word of this scandal filtered through the Freemasons, many of whom are at the highest echelons of government.  Two Freemasons decide to fix the problem.  One, a doctor, sends Annie to an insane asylum.  But where is the child?  They discover that Annie told some friends of her affair and entrusted the child to one of them.  The two Freemasons murder their way through the various friends, leaving the mutilated corpses for... reasons.  The police know that the murderers are Freemasons, thus their intentional incompetence in solving the case.  Sigh.

Much as I like Christopher Plummer, he made for a disappointing Holmes.  He is far too emotional for Holmes.  He is surprisingly jovial, often smiling and laughing.  He is reduced to tears after interviewing a woman in an asylum.  Plummer admitted at the time that his was a "passionate and caring Holmes."  Nope, Holmes should be aloof, analytical, and only occasionally amused by the foibles of others.

James Mason was too old for Watson.  However, he otherwise fits the role quite well.  Interestingly, he took the part only if his Watson wasn't a Nigel Bruce-like buffoon.  Indeed, his Watson is a steady and sober figure who is an active participant in the investigation, a partner to Holmes rather than a mere sidekick.

David Hemmings is wasted as Inspector Foxborough.  Perhaps he was meant as a red herring that I didn't see on this viewing.  Though he is generally helpful toward Holmes, he had other motives and eventually proves to be aligned with the radicals who booed the Prince of Wales.  Uh, okay.  Such political machinations proved to be more a distraction than an integral part of the story.  The muddy alliances of the Freemasons being pro-government and protecting the Ripper vs. the radicals being anti-government and seeking to stop the Ripper wasn't effectively done.

The inclusion of Donald Sutherland as a haunted psychic was bizarre.  Since when does Holmes use hocus pocus to solve crime?  However, when Sutherland pointed at the house of the Ripper, all I saw was his famous final scene from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Ha!  I wonder if that was intended.

The big fight scene between Holmes and one of the Freemasons was poorly done.  Why did Holmes leave his gun behind just before he went chasing after one of the murderers?  Not to worry, he has a scarf with a weight at the end.  How does one manage to get strangled to death in a net?  They're not going to kill him off like this, are they?  Yes, they are.  Pathetic.

Overall, disappointing.  This was not Sherlock Holmes, but some imposter taking his name.  This was not a mystery that required brilliant analytical skills, but merely a crime in need of very basic investigative work.  If not for the insanity of Annie or the overwhelming fear of Mary Kelly (Susan Clark), either of them could have just exposed the whole story.  Nope, they only give broken accounts that Holmes reassembled.  Meh.  Skip this one.