The film-makers have spun a unique film from an original concept by Nick Meyer (author/director of "Time After Time", which combined the forces of H.G. Wells and Jack the Ripper), but there are some problems with the directing that I feel bring the film down below its potential.
The story finds Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson) during his "lost" years when he was believed to be dead, but was in actuality (as this movie shows, anyway) deep in the throes of addiction to cocaine, the "7 percent solution" of the title. Industrious Dr. Watson (Robert Duvall) and Holmes' brother Microft (Charles Gray) scheme to induce Holmes to travel to Vienna, where they make Holmes believe that the evil Dr. Moriarty (Laurence Olivier) is traveling. In fact the real reason Microft and Watson are luring Holmes to Vienna is so that he can be treated by the celebrated Dr. Freud (Alan Arkin). While in Vienna Holmes undergoes a harrowing cure, solves a mystery involving a prostitute (Vanessa Redgrave), and also lends a few ideas concerning dream analysis to young Dr. Freud.
With such an original concept and such an outstanding cast, you would expect a film that is more than just slightly above average -- but you would probably be disappointed. The script is fine and the performances are excellent. In particular Williamson distinguishes himself with his convincingly manic energy in the early scenes where he is shown obsessing over Prof. Moriarty (who, in the film, may only be a harmless schoolteacher from the Holmes brothers' past). Redgrave isn't given much to do and seems a non-presence. Arkin lends some very nice touches with a surprisingly under-stated performance. Duvall as Watson is a little bit hard to take.... he's convincing as a human being, which is more than can be said for some cinematic Watsons, but he doesn't seem to project much off the screen, it feels hollow somehow, like an impersonation more than a performance. Olivier is good in his moments on screen, making us wonder if Moriarty truly is as harmless as Watson thinks he is just long enough to get the plot underway.
What really brings the film down a notch, IMHO, is the direction by Herbert Ross. Every time the action gets intense we're treated to very tight angle shots that look like they were taken by a hand-held camera. Presumably this was done (especially in the sequences depicting Holmes' cure and the scene where they are trapped in a large room where they are attacked by horses) to give the scenes a feeling of urgency and intensity but it backfires IMHO by making them look at this point like cheap shlock scenes. The idea of Holmes seeing snakes everywhere is interesting, for example, particularly as it ties into a Freudian image that connects these sequences to the mystery about Moriarty. But the actual scene depicting these visions comes off more like something in a low budget animal horror film like "Frogs". Another scene that comes off very poorly due to this technique is the big climactic scene where Holmes discovers the secret to his complex around Moriarty -- for one thing Olivier looks exactly the same age as he did in the contemporary scenes, but more importantly those tight angles just make the whole thing feel cheezy (as if it's being obvious wasn't bad enough). The whole fight scene on the train at the end should be more fun than it is, but for some reason I just felt like I was watching it from a distance and did not feel emotionally involved. This is because too many of the shots were from a helicopter or something like that way up above the action, and also because the story has not built enough sympathy with Redgrave's character to make us feel that it's vital for her to be saved.
There are a lot of nice things here: Williamson's performance, a unique story involving the famous detective, even a fun song by Steven Sondheim. It's worthwhile but IMHO it could have been a much better film if Meyer or another director had done it.
The story finds Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson) during his "lost" years when he was believed to be dead, but was in actuality (as this movie shows, anyway) deep in the throes of addiction to cocaine, the "7 percent solution" of the title. Industrious Dr. Watson (Robert Duvall) and Holmes' brother Microft (Charles Gray) scheme to induce Holmes to travel to Vienna, where they make Holmes believe that the evil Dr. Moriarty (Laurence Olivier) is traveling. In fact the real reason Microft and Watson are luring Holmes to Vienna is so that he can be treated by the celebrated Dr. Freud (Alan Arkin). While in Vienna Holmes undergoes a harrowing cure, solves a mystery involving a prostitute (Vanessa Redgrave), and also lends a few ideas concerning dream analysis to young Dr. Freud.
With such an original concept and such an outstanding cast, you would expect a film that is more than just slightly above average -- but you would probably be disappointed. The script is fine and the performances are excellent. In particular Williamson distinguishes himself with his convincingly manic energy in the early scenes where he is shown obsessing over Prof. Moriarty (who, in the film, may only be a harmless schoolteacher from the Holmes brothers' past). Redgrave isn't given much to do and seems a non-presence. Arkin lends some very nice touches with a surprisingly under-stated performance. Duvall as Watson is a little bit hard to take.... he's convincing as a human being, which is more than can be said for some cinematic Watsons, but he doesn't seem to project much off the screen, it feels hollow somehow, like an impersonation more than a performance. Olivier is good in his moments on screen, making us wonder if Moriarty truly is as harmless as Watson thinks he is just long enough to get the plot underway.
What really brings the film down a notch, IMHO, is the direction by Herbert Ross. Every time the action gets intense we're treated to very tight angle shots that look like they were taken by a hand-held camera. Presumably this was done (especially in the sequences depicting Holmes' cure and the scene where they are trapped in a large room where they are attacked by horses) to give the scenes a feeling of urgency and intensity but it backfires IMHO by making them look at this point like cheap shlock scenes. The idea of Holmes seeing snakes everywhere is interesting, for example, particularly as it ties into a Freudian image that connects these sequences to the mystery about Moriarty. But the actual scene depicting these visions comes off more like something in a low budget animal horror film like "Frogs". Another scene that comes off very poorly due to this technique is the big climactic scene where Holmes discovers the secret to his complex around Moriarty -- for one thing Olivier looks exactly the same age as he did in the contemporary scenes, but more importantly those tight angles just make the whole thing feel cheezy (as if it's being obvious wasn't bad enough). The whole fight scene on the train at the end should be more fun than it is, but for some reason I just felt like I was watching it from a distance and did not feel emotionally involved. This is because too many of the shots were from a helicopter or something like that way up above the action, and also because the story has not built enough sympathy with Redgrave's character to make us feel that it's vital for her to be saved.
There are a lot of nice things here: Williamson's performance, a unique story involving the famous detective, even a fun song by Steven Sondheim. It's worthwhile but IMHO it could have been a much better film if Meyer or another director had done it.