I first started reading Conan Doyle's Holmes stories in the seventh grade. Shortly after that, Nicholas Meyer appeared on the scene with one of the earliest (and best) Holmes pastiches, THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION." I was too young to catch the pun in the title (I thought "solution" meant solving the puzzle; instead, it refers to an actual amount Holmes used in his cocaine injections).
The story's premise is that Dr. Watson, worried about Sherlock Holmes' drug addiction, leads him to Vienna on a false trail where he will embark on a cure by Dr. Sigmund Freud.
The biggest problem with the movie is that Sherlock Holmes is billed fourth. But then, he is surrounded by some of the biggest stars of the day.
Top-billed Alan Arkin, as Freud, gives a creditable performance. Arkin was one of those inexplicable megastars of the 1970s along with George Segal and Elliott Gould. I don't know what a Viennese accent sounds like, but I'm prepared to believe Arkin nailed it. And his Freud is by turns intellectual and funny, a rare combination.
Robert Duvall, not far from "Godfather II" is an odd choice for Watson, but he gives one of the earliest respectable film Watsons. A few had paved the way (i.e., Andre Morell, Colin Blakley) but Duvall's is the first Watson shown as he was in the Holmes stories--a moderately successful London doctor, happily married and living with his wife rather than shacked up in a small apartment with another middle-aged man. He's sharp and incisive, just not as smart as Holmes (or Freud). Watson's loyalty to his friends is admirable.
Holmes is played by Nicol Williamson. He's a fine actor and went on to some great things on film (such as Merlin). The excellence of his performance is exemplified by one scene, where he is pulling his "Holmes tricks" for Freud, describing how he knows all about Freud though they never met, yet with the nervous excitement of an addict in desperate need of another fix.
Unfortunately, while Williamson's bona fides as an actor are never in doubt, Holmes being billed fourth in a Sherlock Holmes movie is dreadful. Perhaps stars with big names would not be drawn to a project where they would have to battle billing with (then) bankable names like Arkin and Duvall.
Then there's the lady in distress, played by Vanessa Redgrave. Another big star of that bizarre time, her part is so small and weird it might well have gone to a lesser actress and let Holmes move up a notch in the billing. Though I never saw Redgrave's charm, she was a big star at the time playing a role beneath her talents.
Apart from that, there's the always-blustering Jeremy Kemp. And Laurence Olivier, playing a meek part with his usual scene-stealing aplomb; though he's just a nervous little man, he's the one you watch. Joel Grey from "Cabaret" is lurking around in a most unimportant role for someone who won an Oscar four years earlier.
A interesting, if small, part is played by Charles Gray as Sherlock's brother Mycroft. Though in the stories Mycroft should always be played by Robert Morley (who actually did essay the part in "A Study in Terror") but just as Watson is played in the film as a human being, so Gray eschews the fat and misanthropic Mycroft, but he does zero in on Mycroft's alleged power behind the scenes. Trivia: Gray went on to play Mycroft in the Jeremy Brett television series.
So, with all the cast in place, the film plays out enjoyably, first with Holmes being analyzed by Freud, and then with Freud caught up in a tongue-in-cheek Holmes-like train chase.
The only part that comes off hollow is the uncanonical ending that explains why Holmes is obsessed with Moriarty. It's rather a downer after an evening of fun and excitement with Holmes and Dr. Freud.
The story's premise is that Dr. Watson, worried about Sherlock Holmes' drug addiction, leads him to Vienna on a false trail where he will embark on a cure by Dr. Sigmund Freud.
The biggest problem with the movie is that Sherlock Holmes is billed fourth. But then, he is surrounded by some of the biggest stars of the day.
Top-billed Alan Arkin, as Freud, gives a creditable performance. Arkin was one of those inexplicable megastars of the 1970s along with George Segal and Elliott Gould. I don't know what a Viennese accent sounds like, but I'm prepared to believe Arkin nailed it. And his Freud is by turns intellectual and funny, a rare combination.
Robert Duvall, not far from "Godfather II" is an odd choice for Watson, but he gives one of the earliest respectable film Watsons. A few had paved the way (i.e., Andre Morell, Colin Blakley) but Duvall's is the first Watson shown as he was in the Holmes stories--a moderately successful London doctor, happily married and living with his wife rather than shacked up in a small apartment with another middle-aged man. He's sharp and incisive, just not as smart as Holmes (or Freud). Watson's loyalty to his friends is admirable.
Holmes is played by Nicol Williamson. He's a fine actor and went on to some great things on film (such as Merlin). The excellence of his performance is exemplified by one scene, where he is pulling his "Holmes tricks" for Freud, describing how he knows all about Freud though they never met, yet with the nervous excitement of an addict in desperate need of another fix.
Unfortunately, while Williamson's bona fides as an actor are never in doubt, Holmes being billed fourth in a Sherlock Holmes movie is dreadful. Perhaps stars with big names would not be drawn to a project where they would have to battle billing with (then) bankable names like Arkin and Duvall.
Then there's the lady in distress, played by Vanessa Redgrave. Another big star of that bizarre time, her part is so small and weird it might well have gone to a lesser actress and let Holmes move up a notch in the billing. Though I never saw Redgrave's charm, she was a big star at the time playing a role beneath her talents.
Apart from that, there's the always-blustering Jeremy Kemp. And Laurence Olivier, playing a meek part with his usual scene-stealing aplomb; though he's just a nervous little man, he's the one you watch. Joel Grey from "Cabaret" is lurking around in a most unimportant role for someone who won an Oscar four years earlier.
A interesting, if small, part is played by Charles Gray as Sherlock's brother Mycroft. Though in the stories Mycroft should always be played by Robert Morley (who actually did essay the part in "A Study in Terror") but just as Watson is played in the film as a human being, so Gray eschews the fat and misanthropic Mycroft, but he does zero in on Mycroft's alleged power behind the scenes. Trivia: Gray went on to play Mycroft in the Jeremy Brett television series.
So, with all the cast in place, the film plays out enjoyably, first with Holmes being analyzed by Freud, and then with Freud caught up in a tongue-in-cheek Holmes-like train chase.
The only part that comes off hollow is the uncanonical ending that explains why Holmes is obsessed with Moriarty. It's rather a downer after an evening of fun and excitement with Holmes and Dr. Freud.