The Seven-Per-Cent Solution

An odd Sherlock Holmes tale with a fine script from director Nicholas Meyer. I cannot, however, shake this feeling that the cast seems quite uncomfortable with the material. Olivier is horribly wasted in a usually exciting character in that of Holmes' arch nemesis Professor Moriarity. Duvall struggles with the accent and the limp entirely too much as Watson. Arkin is a passable Freud, but almost makes him a caricacture, while Williamson adds a new twist to Holmes. This is a Holmes that Baker Street Regulars will be quite unfamiliar with. Redgrave and Grey are shabby in their pointless cameos. The film works, but it needs more astute characterization from the the actors. There is wonderful art direction and the cinematography is lovely as well.

I resent tampering with success, and if you compare this opus to the Granada Television series with Jeremy Brett as Holmes you will see what I mean. I am not impressed with clever take-offs on beloved characters of literature; or real life for that matter. Now you know how I feel. This film, then, in my opinion, has a silly plot; too many underdeveloped characterizations; and depends too much on Holmes' drug addiction and the invention with Sigmund Freud. Its pace is too fast, and that I must blame on Mr. Williamson and his director; and many of the very fine actors are woefully underused or ignored. Surely these experienced thespians were not cowed by this unusually manic portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, but it seems so. Alan Arkin seems to struggle against odds for his time on camera. I will grant that it is interesting, that Mr. Williamson is a great presence, and that the scenery is wonderful. Other than that, I submit that it is a disappointing waste of time. So, let's move on.

Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson) is deep in the grip of cocaine addiction. His best friend Dr. Watson (Robert Duvall) and brother Mycroft Holmes (Charles Grey) get him to Vienna to receive treatment for his problem by Dr. Sigmund Freud (Alan Arkin). While there a mystery pops up involving a beautiful red-haired woman (Vanessa Redgrave)... Just great. I caught this in a revival theatre back in 1979 when it was playing with "Murder By Decree" (Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper). I just loved it--and it still holds up. The film never takes itself too seriously (during the opening credits there's a note saying the whole picture is true "only the facts have been made up"!) This was beautifully filmed with exquisite costumes and production design. Also director Herbet Ross does a great job--everything moves at a brisk pace--he even makes a tennis game look exciting! It's 2 hours long but I was never bored. The first hour deals with Freud dealing with Holmes' cocaine addiction--the second hour the mystery comes in. During the final 30 minutes it turns into an action adventure flick--but it always stays on track. There's also a lot of amusing visual or verbal references to other Holmes' adventures--we even get to see Toby from "Sign of the Four"! But you don't have to know the references to enjoy them--this film works so everyone can enjoy it. The story mixes Holmes' deductive reason with Freud's psychological reasonings in an interesting and very entertaining way. It also explains why Holmes doesn't like women, why he became a detective and why he hates Moriarty. Acting is (mostly) good. Williamson is just great as Holmes--he perfectly captures the detective under the grip of cocaine...and the recovery. Duvall is surprisingly bad as Watson--he seems constrained by the costumes and unsure of how to play the role. Arkin (a REAL strange choice) is actually pretty good as Freud sporting a believable accent. Grey is just great in his small role as is Samantha Eggar (who disappears much too quickly playing Mrs. Watson). And it's amusing to see Laurence Olivier play Professor Moriarty! Redgrave is hardly in this but she's amusing. Basically one of the best Sherlock Holmes pictures ever! I heard this didn't do well at the box office...that's a shame. It is out on DVD but Universal released it in a hideous full frame transfer (which makes no sense) that completely destroys the film. Try to see it on TCM where it's shown letter-boxed. A GREAT film--lots of fun. I give it a 10.

This movie, brilliantly adapted from Nicholas Meyer's novel, combines top-notch actors in stunning performances with a superb script, a great director, and excellent production and costume designs. Nicol Williamson's portrayal of the cocaine-addicted Sherlock Holmes is one of the best performances I have ever seen in any movie. This one is a must-see.

I remember seeing trailers for this film at the time it was released. I was interested in seeing it, having read the Meyer novel, but never did until May of 2006 when it showed up on cable. I guess what happened is that it came and went so fast back in 1976 that I never got around to it. And viewing it now, I can understand why it didn't last. Nicol Williamson, as good an actor as he is, just doesn't feel right as Holmes. Was Robert Duvall forced on the producers because he was a hot property? Otherwise, why cast an American for a quintessentially English role (Watson) with a phony plummy-British accent? Olivier and Arkin do nicely, although Larry is under-used (as is the lovely Samantha Eggar). The problem is with the script and pacing. It's not serious enough to be a thriller, and not funny enough to be a comedy. At almost 2 hours it's far too long for the content. The chase scene, "cold turkey" sequence, and other sections could easily have been trimmed. The weird "horse attack" sequence is meaningless, and provides the biggest laugh of all: the appearance of horse trainers running around in some of the long shots. This film would be OK for a long rainy evening, but you'll be tempted to use your fast-forward button!

Warning-Spoilers: Let's talk about Nicol Williamson. His performance, though manic, saves this film. Williams, who has been described as a megalomaniac by some, puts his considerable acting skills, and perhaps some of his own personal flaw, into his role to create perhaps the ultimate characterization of the drug-addicted Sherlock Holmes. No one can touch Jeremy Brett as the master detective, but that is not the point of this film per se. The addiction to cocaine, here in hypodermic form, is ravenous, and Herbert Ross and Nicholas Meyer have combined to show at least some of the deleterious effects of that alkaloid. Watching Williamson speak swiftly in frantic paranoia, endure the rigors of withdrawal, and continue to suffer the pangs of addiction is the sort of gritty realism that makes for tour-de-force status. The writing, however, is schizophrenic. The portions of this film dealing with drugs (no pun intended) are strong and convincing, while most of the remainder seems like filler. Watson's (Robert Duvall) ploy to bring Holmes to Sigmund Freud (Alan Arkin) is also well-done, but once "the game is afoot" in Vienna, things turn unintentionally (?) slapstick. Chasing Lowenstein (Joel Grey) is particularly unbearable, first to the horse stable (is Holmes so unaware that Lowenstein is so obvious?), and then to the brothel (where Joel Grey is allowed to mock up the proceedings). The train chase is boring and unbelievable, even if the stunts performed are real and not CGI. The sabre scenes on top of the train are also straight out of Buster Keaton, but with less excitement. The resolution is also unsatisfactory: how do Holmes, Watson, and Freud explain their way out of illegal border crossings, hijacking a train, and destruction of property, all in the name of saving a prostitute? The new slant in this film: that Moriarty is a villain from Holmes' past and not a super-criminal: has a little flavor, but not enough to overcome other flaws. Moriarty's agitated state, and Watson's long stare at his business card, are red-herrings to keep us thinking that Moriarty may yet be behind every devious turn of the story. Yet, the finale of Moriarty is, for us, just another blow to the Holmes legacy. Alan Arkin as Freud is alternately brilliant and schlocky, and Arkin does his usual half-smirk in order to, it seems, throw off kilter any measure of seriousness to his role. Duvall as Watson is entirely too affected by his accent but still comes across as a strong characterization. Vanessa Redgrave seems dull and clumsy here. Yet, for all this, they receive higher billing than Williamson and, at the film's start, you may think that Holmes is secondary to the plot line, which he is not. Excellent sets and scenery will keep your attention to detail, even as your interest in the story fades around midpoint.

Director Herbert Ross enjoyed several commercial successes but never really gained the respect of the industry (perhaps it was all those seemingly-undemanding Neil Simon comedies?). So gathering a top-drawer cast like this must have been quite a boost for Ross, and the delicious possibilities behind a meeting of Master Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Sigmund Freud were endless. Unfortunately, Ross' crack comic timing gets lost in the woodwork in his quest to make the film more formidable, and the results are sedate in the very worst way. In 1891 England, paranoid, cocaine-addicted Sherlock Holmes is rescued by John Watson, who arranges a Viennese meeting between Holmes and Freud, who gets Sherlock through a tough detox; Freud then assists Holmes and Dr. Watson on a kidnapping case, and proves to be as adept at sleuthing as he is a hypnotist. Alan Arkin is totally miscast as Freud, giving what may be his least convincing performance ever (he approaches the part like a giddy kid playing dress-up, and his over-enunciation is theatrical and phony); Nicol Williamson is serviceable as Holmes, but all his sweating and shaking is a terrible drag on the action. This is really Robert Duvall's picture, giving us a more robust Watson, and yet Duvall's narration seems to be there just to fill in the gaps. Herbert Ross only gets inventive during one sequence (a series of cocaine-withdrawal nightmares), and even then he carries out the montage for far too long, so that the audience quickly becomes indifferent. There's a lot of talent here, but the results are stodgy and plodding, with an ugly art direction and uninteresting character chatter. * from ****

The Seven per cent solution was one of my favorite Childhood films. Nicol Williamson was to me Sherlock Holmes. He looked like Holmes and he sounded to me the way Holmes ought to sound. After Watching Basil Rathbone portray Holmes(Rathbone will always be Holmes) I saw several other Holmes but none did justice to the role like Williamson. The story is simple. Sherlock Holmes is addicted to cocaine a seven percent solution 7% Cocaine and 91% saline solution. This addiction renders Holmes mad and paranoid with certain secrets from his past coming to haunt him. Watson decides to take him to Vienna to find the one man who could Cure Holmes. Enter DR. Sigmund Freud wonderfully played by Alan Arkin HE MAKES THE MOVIE!! Holmes is sent to Vienna by remarkable Ruse concocted by Watson and Holmes older smarter brother Mycroft. Holmes meets Freud and is forced to confront his addiction and is forced to cure it. While in the middle of his cure Freud has a patient in his care disappear. Enter Holmes to find her and save her from a Criminal conspiracy the climax of the film is thrilling and exciting and it makes you wonder why Hollywood with it's new generation of filmmakers and writers and actors why can't they do this kind of film today? The Truth is they can't. This movie belongs to a era we will never see again a era in which Adventure didn't mean gore or action did not mean necessarily Blood and Guts and Shootings every five minutes. Nick Meyers Screenplay from his fantastic novel Is in my view perhaps the Greatest Sherlock Holmes ever told a masterpiece from beginning to end. And worthy of the title CLASSIC.

This odd idea teams Nicol Williamson and Robert Duvall as Holmes and Watson and uses the idea that Holmes is neurotic and drug-addicted because of what happened to him as a child. Enter Dr Freud (Alan Arkin), plus a woman in distress (Vanessa Redgrave). Duvall attempts a British accent but fails miserably (probably why he has hardly anything to say within this movie). Williamson and Arkin are great and there is a lot of pleasure to be had from their interpretations of these great characters. Laurence Olivier, however, as Moriarty is dreadful and clearly just turning in a performance by numbers for the cheque. One last item of interest for musical fans is that this film has the first appearance of Stephen Sondheim's song 'I Never Do Anything Twice', later used in the revue Side by Side. Here it is incidental to the plot, but memorable.

I must admit this is quite an entertaining movie, although it has something that doesn't convince me. I can't tell exactly what it is. Maybe it is the contrast between how silly and infantile the plot is (Sherlock Holmes meets Siegmund Freud!) and how seriously everybody (that is: the actors) seems to take it. For me, the image that doctor Siegmund Freud shoots at criminals with a weapon, is bizarre and funny in the first place, but in the movie there is no indication that they mean it as a joke. If someone sees this movie, having never read Sherlock Holmes books or heard of Freud, they will believe it is a perfectly ordinary crime film. I also cannot understand the common attempt to interprete the character of Sherlock Homes in a deep way, as it seems to have been modern in the 1970s (e. g. Billy Wilder's `The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes'). In the latter, Holmes falls in love, and in this one, he becomes addicted to drugs and consequently Freud attributes his whole character to a traumatic event in his childhood. Is this really necessary?