The Seven-Per-Cent Solution

Sherlockians will no doubt grouse, but this is certainly the best Sherlock Holmes tale outside the "canon" and one of the best Holmes films ever. Although Conan Doyle never really combined his characters with historical figures, it's a great device. Alan Arkin gives one of his wonderful performances, employing one of his all purpose accents, and initially very understated. Holmes helps bring out heroic qualities you don't suspect in Sigmund Freud, pace, Anna Freud. Nicol Williamson looks and moves like Holmes, truly "hawk-like". Robert Duval is one of the best Watsons ever, outside of the BBC. Some characterizations of Watson make it hard to believe that he could possibly be a doctor, or even any kind of useful member of society. But this Watson is believable as a person, doctor and friend. The plot line also provides an answer as to who Holmes really is, and what makes him tick. Not THE answer, but an answer. A lot of fun, and very well done. Great period color. Don't go all serious, and you'll have a good time. Nice use of the cimbalom in the score during action sequences. Gives it that "Hungarian" flavor.

Sherlock Holmes falls into a maisma of self-pity and paranoia through his repeated and continued use of a seven percent solution of cocaine. His faithful Watson and brother Mycroft concoct a scheme for him to go to Austria to meet Sigmund Freud, who can help him with his drug addiction. This is a brilliant film in many ways, and also a flawed film. The film is decidedly fresh with its coupling of Holmes and Freud, and its script which explains many of Holmes's character traits through a psychological examination of his character. The script by Nicholas Meyer is first-rate. The direction by Herbert Ross is also very good as it blends humour with mystery, as well as an introductory course in Freudian psychology. Nicol Williamson is a wonderful Holmes. He is precise, calculating, ego-maniacal, and blessed with just a tint of "real" madness. Williamson also is very adept at plowing through the dialogue with witty zeal. Arkin does almost as well as Freud. Arkin plays off Williamson very nicely and adds his own subtle kind of humour. The scene the two men share upon their first meeting is one of perfection of timing. The rest of the cast, however, is a bit weak, or serves as nothing more than scenery. Robert Duvall has to be one of the worst Watsons I have ever seen on screen before. He is so bland in the role, TOO stiff upper lip and his British affectation of speech sounds just like someone trying to imitate a Britisher. He also limps far too much. Joel Grey is wasted in his small role, as is Vanessa Redgrave(looking stunning if nothing else). Samatha Eggar is there just two or three minutes for absolutely nothing). Laurence Olivier does a nice job as a different Moriarity than we are used to, and character Jeremy Kemp is adequate as a wealthy Prussian villain. The next best thing for me in terms of acting after Williamson and Arkin has to be Charles Gray as brother Mycroft(a role he would reprise in the Granada Sherlock Holmes series with Jeremy Brett). Gray was a wildly under-appreciated actor. He gives a wonderfully eccentric performance. The film has a great climatic ending, a rollicking musical score, and some tense, suspenseful action. It also makes the most famous character in all of fiction a little more human to all of us. Good stuff!

I really enjoyed this little fantasy film about the supposed treatment Sherlock Holmes received for his cocaine addiction from Dr. Freud. This is awfully strange, having a real-life and fictional character interact together, but the writers were able to make it work.

Up front I should let you know that I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan--having read all the stories several times. In most of my reviews for Holmes movies, I am very critical because they take such liberties with the stories--and almost always ruin the stories. At first, I was reticent to see this story because of this--after all, it's NOT based on a Conan Doyle story and the last such film I saw (THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES) was terrible in places because it took too many liberties with the character (especially at the end of the film). However, despite my reservations I saw the film and am glad I did.

At first it did bother me, as the film did SEEM to contradict many of the Holmes stories. However, through the course of the film, they were able to explain away all these differences very well--in particular, Holmes' hatred for Professor Moriarty. Additionally, having the fictional character be psychoanalyzed actually was pretty cool--though Freud's analysis almost always took months or years, not a few quick sessions.

Up until the last 10 or 15 minutes of the film, I was very pleased with the movie but then the film had a serious flaw that knocked off a point. The sword fighting scene at the end (interesting, by the way, in a Freudian sense) was totally unnecessary and totally distracting. It was like another writer took an intelligent script and added a macho idiot fight scene for no discernible reason. Had it been me, I would have had Holmes simply shoot the guy--not pad it out for no apparent reason. Additionally, while it was integrated into the story later, the whole tennis match sequence seemed contrived and silly. Still, with so much to like, both these scenes can be overlooked.

An excellent film for Holmes lovers. Additionally, psychology teachers and therapists will also appreciate the inclusion of Freud.

By the way, Charles Gray plays Holmes' brother, Mycroft in this film. A decade later, he played this same character in the Jeremy Brett series as well.

Till the late sixties,Sherlock Holmes was the brilliant sleuth,whose deductions the audience was invited to admire respectfully.Then came Billy Wilder and his admirable "private life of Sherlock Holmes":this director was so ahead of his time the movie was not successful when it was released(it was even cut:one hour is lacking and we are still waiting for the whole film).But it spawned a whole lot of SH movies which continued the destruction of the myth :Herbert Ross's "7 per cent solution" but also "young Sherlock Holmes "aka "pyramid of fear" (1986) and "without a clue" (1989) to name but two.None of these movies equals Billy Wilder's opus which I urge everybody to see .

Herbert Ross had already tackled the detective story when he filmed "Seven-per-cent solution" but his "the last of Sheila" was more Agatha Christie influenced.Nicholas Meyer's screenplay was a very good idea:Sherlock Holmes meeting Freud ,why not? And there are a lot of details that show that Meyer loves Conan Doyle:he refers to several affairs the sleuth was involved in ,he introduces -for a very brief time- Moriarty's character and Even Mycroft Holmes.Billy Wilder had already used Holmes' brother :and to think that Mycroft only appears in ONE of Conan Doyle short stories!And the orient express dear to Agatha Christie is also here.

The film sets are marvelous,from Victorian England to Francis Joseph's Vienna.The first-rate cast (check the cast and credits) gives the movie substance.It's excellent entertainment.

Nicholas Meyer was to continue in th e same vein:not only he wrote another story pitting HG Welles against Jack the ripper,but he also directed the movie starring Malcolm McDowell and David Warner (time after time,1979)

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.