Kein Koks für Sherlock Holmes

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.

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!

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)

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!

From the opening to the closing credits, filled with illustrations that originally accompanied Doyle's stories in the Strand, the details of the movie are painstakingly accurate when compared to those in the canon. This is one non-canonical Holmes story that exists in the same world as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.

The movie takes the liberty of assuming that all of Dr. Watson's accounts of Sherlock Holmes are true, except for one. That would be "The Final Problem", in which the great detective supposedly dies at the hands of his arch-enemy Professor Moriarty. The movie suggests that this story is merely a cover up for a period in time in which Holmes was getting help with his cocaine addiction from none other than famous psychiatrist Sigmund Freud.

The settings and characters ring true to both Doyle's mysteries and the Sydney Paget illustrations that accompanied them. Sherlock Holmes' deerstalker and cloak, though never mentioned by Doyle, look more like Paget's illustrations than ever before, more rugged than in most film interpretations. American actor Robet Duvall, despite sometimes struggling with the British accent, portrays Watson as an intellectually and physically fit comrade for Holmes, not a bumbler. Laurence Olivier's Prof. Moriarty matches the vision of Doyle and Paget rather than the cliché mustache twirler of other movies. Only now, Moriarty isn't really a criminal mastermind. He's Holmes' childhood math tutor.

Alan Arkin depicts Freud as a man of intelligence, insight, and above all, honor.

The inclusion of lesser known characters like Mycroft Holmes and Toby is a plus. There are also references, both direct and sly, to canonical Holmes stories.

While Nicol Williamson's performance as Sherlock Holmes lacks the vigor and spark of Basil Rathbone or Christopher Plummer, Williamson succeeds in showing Holmes as a troubled individual rather than a god. The movie mixes drama, subtle humor, mystery, and even action, finally showing Holmes as the capable fighter he was in the canon. The end of the film strays from the books in order to explore the uncharted territory of Holmes' childhood, providing a deeply moving climax.

This may come truer to Sir Arthur's original vision than any other pastiche written for film so far, largely thanks to the efforts of writer/director Nicholas Meyer. It's obvious in every scene that Meyer has a great love for the writings of Arthur Conan Doyle.