Sherlock Holmes: The Sign of Four

Sherlock Holmes: The Sign of Four_720p(480P)

source: Sherlock Holmes: The Sign of Four

THE SIGN OF FOUR, a Holmes adaptation featuring Ian Richardson as Conan Doyle's sleuth, is a follow up to the slightly disappointing TV production of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. THE SIGN OF FOUR is only slightly better, a perfectly atmospheric and well mounted production let down by a slightly stodgy script that's going to give more than a few viewers indigestion. Things get off to a good start, with some fine opening titles and a plummy Thorley Walters menaced by a one-legged man. Once Holmes is introduced into the storyline, though, it slows down completely and becomes more than a little boring. There's something about Richardson that I just didn't care for in his portrayal as Holmes; he's too mannered, slightly self-conscious, that you can't forget that he's acting. I had the same trouble with Peter Cushing in the part. Despite the presence of decent sets and costumes, the TV-movie atmosphere means that the scares and thrills are somewhat diluted. The characters are difficult to like, aside from Cherie Lunghi's damsel in distress, and there's something slightly silly about having a dwarf in blackface as one of the villains. THE SIGN OF FOUR isn't bad by any means, but it's distinctly average all the same. It may be that the written stories are just so good nobody will ever do them justice.

So many reviewers have dissected the film on the minutiae of adaptation, characters, actors, plot, etc, but not much to say about poor Tonga. He is played by John Pedrick who, like in these reviews, is given little attention in history. Looking for details of his life and career is a disappointing effort. This is pretty much a given concerning small people in general and in the movie industry in particular. I give the film six stars and the lack of attention to John a minus 2.

This is the first of the two Richardson Sherlock Holmes stories This again is a faithful adaption of the story. I enjoy watching this as some of the stunts are well filmed including the thames boat chase.

"Another monograph?" says Dr. John Watson (David Healy), as he walks into the smoke-filled parlor at 221B Baker Street where he shares quarters with Mr. Sherlock Holmes (Ian Richardson). "Yes," says Holmes, adjusting a long row of burning cigars. "This is on the distinction between the ashes of the various tobaccos. So far, I have enumerated 93 forms of cigar, cigarette and pipe tobacco." This monograph, long thought lost, is now assumed to have been suppressed by the major tobacco companies in Britain and the United States. With The Sign of Four we will encounter one of Holmes' most dangerous and resourceful villains in a story which features a one-legged man; a prison treasure map; a box of diamonds, emeralds and pearls; an Andaman native named Tonga with an appetite for raw meat; the second largest known diamond in the world, named The Great Mogul; the Baker Street Irregulars and enough bestial murder, greed and revenge to curdle the blood of the most innocent of young Victorian ladies. The Sign of Four is the tale of the one-legged Jonathan Small and three other prisoners held in the British military prison on the Andaman Islands. They know where a fortune in jewels is buried there. Small's trust in Major John Sholto, the commander of the prison, is sadly misplaced. They help Sholto and Captain David Morstan locate the jewels on the promise that the fortune will be shared when they are released. However, Sholto takes the jewels back to London. When later Morstan arrives for his share, Sholto kills him. Sholto on his deathbed six years later tells his two sons of the treasure and insists that to wipe away Sholto's guilt. Captain Morstan's daughter must have Morstan's share. When one of the sons anonymously sends The Grand Mogul to Miss Mary Morstan (Cherie Lunghi), a trail of death and horror begins to work its way towards her in the person of the now-released Jonathan Small. With the animal-like Tonga by his side, with thick fog swirling through London's gas-lit streets, Small intends to have his vengeance...and all of the jewels. Only Sherlock Holmes, with Watson by his side, stands between Small and the frightened but brave and lovely Mary Morstan. Executive producer Sy Weintraub arrived in Britain with the idea of making a series of made- for-TV feature length stories with Ian Richardson as Holmes. He managed only two, and it's our loss. This and the first film, Sherlock Holmes - The Hound of the Baskervilles, are given first-rate, exciting productions and good, tight scripts. A real pleasure in The Sign of Four is Holmes against a collection of side show freaks, including Holmes on a turning, ornate carousel trying to elude a poison-dart-puffing Tonga. Richardson is a fine and subtle actor who gives just a bit more warmth to Holmes than, say, Brett or Rathbone gave. I would be hard-pressed to say which I like best. Fortunately, it's possible to like all three. "What a very attractive young woman," John Watson had said to Holmes as Miss Marston left their quarters after she met the two and pleaded for their help. He finds her so attractive that, in the fullness of time, she eventually will become Mrs. John Watson. "Is she?" Holmes replied. "I didn't observe." We'll have to wait for Sherlock Holmes to encounter Miss Irene Adler for the next step in Holmes' personal development. For fans of Sherlock Holmes, the two Richardson movies are well worth owning.

Always my favorite Sherlock Holmes story, I am a bit annoyed that the original plot wasn't good enough for the writers. I thought Ian Richardson was a very good Holmes, but the remainder of the cast seemed stiff and uninteresting. Mary comes off as too much of a goody two shoes and Watson is pretty dense and sort of unattractive in the way he present himself. The Sholto brothers aren't quite cracked enough as they are portrayed. There's also that silly byplay as Holmes and Watson try to keep up with Toby. Still, it works Ok.

This is not at all a bad adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle's second Sherlock Holmes novel. Ian Richardson makes a fine (if too affable) Holmes, and David Healy (though portly enough to be Mycroft Holmes) is one of the screen's better Watsons. It's quite entertaining...and when I first saw it, I considered it the best Sign of Four adaptation ever made. In later years, however, I would discover the Granada productions...and their adaptation of Sign of Four, which far overrides this one in terms of faithfulness, style, pacing, direction, acting, and suspense. There are a few problems with this adaptation which could have easily been rectified. First off, the plot structure is changed so drastically from that of the novel. Not necessarily a problem, in itself. But in this case, too much is revealed to us too early on, leaving little room for suspense, and making Holmes's deductions seem fairly anti-climactic. Rather than learning of the particulars of various events through Holmes's brilliant deductions, we actually SEE the events first, then watch Holmes work them out via deductive reasoning. The other major disadvantage to this structure is that the introduction (a representation of events that Conan Doyle didn't reveal to us until the final act!) is quite labored and unnecessarily delays the introduction of Holmes and Watson. By the time Holmes begins to seriously investigate the matter of the one-legged man and his strange ally, we are nearly halfway through the film. We already know far more than we should, and many of the events which follow are altered due to the shifting of later themes to an earlier point in the film, giving a very uneven feel to the overall piece. The first two acts are far too leisurely, and the final act plays out at breakneck speed. Beyond that, some of the characters have been changed beyond all recognition. Again, this is a needless change, and does nothing to enhance the story. In fact, in some cases, notably the alteration of Thaddeus Sholto, the changes detract from the effectiveness of various scenes. Conan Doyle's Sholto was an extremely nervous little man...seemingly on the verge of a minor nervous breakdown at all times. This greatly enhanced the suspense of the story...as being in his presence made us, as readers, a bit jittery, as well. So, naturally, presenting him as a dashing young man with a fine gift for articulation deadens the impact of the scenes in which he appears. I know I'm focusing on the negative here, but I find it difficult not to compare this film with the Granada production which usurped it three years later. That adaptation was practically perfect in every way...fantastic performances all around (including a spot-on Thaddeus Sholto, courtesy of Ron Lacey), extremely faithful to the source material...easily one of the best Holmes adaptations ever committed to film. Still, this version has a lot to offer, and is quite fun in its own way. Though I would have liked to have seen Holmes indulge in a few mood swings (and perhaps brandish his cocaine needle, just for the sake of accuracy), Richardson is one of the better Sherlocks. And Healy is no slouch as Watson, even if he doesn't match David Burke or Edward Hardwicke. The truth is, I was duly impressed with this film the first time around, and I still quite enjoy watching it from time to time. View this and the Granada version back-to-back and debate the pros and cons for yourself.

This was stage actor Ian Richardson's second stab at playing master sleuth Sherlock Holmes in the same year; while quite fine in the role, he does occasionally resort to hamminess. Both films were sourced from two of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's more popular stories and, in fact, I also own the 1932 movie and 1968 TV versions of it (but have yet to watch either and will need to wait for a subsequent Holmes marathon!); the latter stars horror icon Peter Cushing and, for what it is worth, here we get genre regular Thorley Walters in a brief but pivotal role. The central mystery – involving loot, a map, betrayal, and a peg-legged villain – owes something to R.L. Stevenson's "Treasure Island", yet also incorporating a welcome macabre element in the presence throughout of a cannibalistic pygmy! Similarly unexpected, though, is the incongruity of having Dr. Watson smitten with the detectives' latest client (played here by Cherie Lunghi); however, an obtuse Scotland Yard Inspector – basically a given in any Holmes case – is on hand to counter with logical (and, by intimation, comical) reasoning the intelligent (and, obviously, correct) deduction supplied by the famed occupant of 221B Baker Street. For the record, the 1991 TV- movie THE CRUCIFER OF BLOOD (with Charlton Heston and Richard Johnson as Holmes and Watson respectively) is an alternate retelling of the tale which I also have yet to catch up with, despite having been regularly shown on that medium in my neck of the woods...

This television movie is a fair adaption of the Sherlock Holmes short novel 'The Sign of the Four.' While the basic storyline of the search for a treasure brought back to England from India is here as are all the characters from the original story, there are also a number of changes - some of which are minor and insignificant but a few of which are major changes. The biggest change is in the ending, a change that seems unnecessary and certainly does not improve the story. There is also some pointless padding to the story such as the carousel scene and the emphasis on Tonga. However, Ian Richardson's portrayal of Holmes is so wonderful that all else can be forgiven. Richardson portrays Holmes as "a man who has an extraordinary genius for small details," and is aloof without being cold, is confident without being arrogant and has an occasional sense of humor. Holmes' interaction with Inspector Layton at the Sholto house murder scene is so good that it's worth watching the movie just for that one scene.