The Worst Film Ever

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It's 1891 London. Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson) is suffering delusions from his cocaine use and convinced of Professor James Moriarty (Laurence Olivier) as a master criminal. A concerned Dr. John H. Watson (Robert Duvall) decides to create a fictional case for Sherlock to chase to Vienna where he could get treatment from experimental psychotherapist Dr. Sigmund Freud (Alan Arkin). He recruits Mycroft Holmes to force Moriarty to lead Sherlock on the chase. Sherlock arrives at Sigmund's office and is convinced to be treated by his 7% solution. As he recovers from withdrawal, Sherlock deduces Freud's patient Lola Deveraux (Vanessa Redgrave) had escaped from an abductor and recalls a memory of buried secrets.It's a compelling reimagining of the fictional characters. The journey to Vienna is a bit of Sherlock fun. His treatment slows the movie down. It would be more compelling to have Sherlock investigate the case while fully in withdrawal and the delusional snake montage can be trimmed down. The investigating trio is rather intriguing. The acting is generally excellent. The case is circuitous and sometimes muddled. The bad guys are obvious from the start. For a Sherlock Holmes mystery, it needs to be better. The final reveal isn't quite as shocking as the movie wants it to be. Otherwise, this is a great concept.

The movie's wit ended with the opening credits. From the narration in the beginning to the "chance encounter" at the end, everything else was just downright silly. When it does abandon its outright attempts at humor, you aren't sure whether the movie was still trying to be funny in its seriousness or whether the actors really were just unintentionally embarrassing themselves.Not being a hundred per cent faithful to the book should not be a problem, except to make things more visual and much simpler the script called for dumbed down clues that make Toby the bloodhound seem like far better at detecting than Holmes. It was just so annoying and painful to watch.

The DVD release of "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution" was in the early days of DVD production, which you can tell because it doesn't even have a menu separate from the chapters. (You'd almost think I was talking about the early days of film and/or sound pictures; it was only 10 years ago!) The original DVD edition was quite limited and is now out of print without another scheduled release. The OOP DVD edition (if you can find it) now runs as high as $100 to $150 at second-hand retail stores and $75 to $100 on online auctions. (I think Amazon marketplace sellers have copies starting at $120.) So the question is whether the movie itself justifies the equivalent of buying a new Blu-Ray player. Maybe, maybe not. And, in case you don't know, the story itself is not by Arthur Conan Doyle.To shell out $100+ for an entertainment flick of this sort is probably for hardcore Sherlock Holmes fans. This is not quite the deep suspense film I was expecting with a much more intellectual slant. "Seven Per-cent" is instead a fun mystery-thriller very much in the style of 1970's period pieces set anywhere between the 17th and early 20th centuries, such as "The Great Train Robbery", "Murder on the Orient Express", "The Three Musketeers", "The Count of Monte Cristo", etc. (These movies invariably starred either Sean Connery or Richard Chamberlain.) Seems like trains and sword-fighting were the staples of this era of film-making, and in "Seven Per-cent" you get both.The performance that really saves this film is Nicol Williamson as Sherlock Holmes. He provides a nervous-angst to the character that is rarely seen by the likes of Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett. And yet, after having seen Williamson's take on the immortal sleuth, you wonder if this is closer to what Arthur Conan Doyle had in mind. Holmes is somewhat of an intellectual recluse, and Williamson breathes life into this somewhat darker side of Holmes. Holmes was a great sleuth but not necessarily the easiest person with which to get on. The story begins with Holmes suffering from cocaine addiction, making him positively insufferable. His closest associate, Dr Watson (Robert Duvall), resolves to relocate Holmes to Vienna, Austria, for treatment at the hands of none-other than Sigmund Freud (Alan Arkin). Through interesting misdirection, Watson gets Holmes to Freud. Toward the end of his treatment, Holmes becomes enmeshed in another case involving Freud and one of his patients.The movie then literally moves at full-speed ahead with chases, brothels, sword fights, and the obligatory train sequence. However, unlike the first segment involving Holmes' treatment, the second act is never quite fully explained. Not unlike movies today, long action sequences take over the film and the underlying plot is not very well explained. This is certainly an enjoyable movie but far from being one of the best Sherlock Holmes films. The recent offering starring Robert Downey Jr has a bit more depth than this film made 35 years earlier, although Downey's character is 180-degrees from Doyle's. But that said, you almost can't beat Williamson's performance which has to rank as one of the best portrayals of England's greatest detective. If the studios re-released it on DVD, a new price of $15 to $20 seems a lot more elementary.

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.