The Sign of Four

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.

Holmes and Watson are called in to investigate a crime involving a year old murder and a box of priceless jewels. Holmes must deal with an ex-con and his murderous companion, who are bent on revenge and the retrieval of a large missing diamond. Another good Holmes adventure.

It really is a disaster that only SIGN and HOUN were filmed with Ian Richardson. No other has been portraying Holmes in such a smooth and witty way - not even Rathbone whom I always considered a bit too perfect and too cold. The setting and the costumes in the Sign of the Four are brilliant and the acting of all the characters is quite convincing. Unfortunately Watson is a shade too Brucian. Few changes were made to the story, but for the worse and therefore quite acceptable. It has been said more than once so far but I must repeat it: The boat chase is brilliant. I must give credit to another point. Although we do see Holmes in his Deerstalker and Inverness cape in some scenes, he mainly is dressed like a gentleman would be in those days. Richardson is not an all-cliche Holmes. 9 out of 10.

Miss Mary Morstan has been receiving jewels from an unknown source for some time when the anonymous man wants a meeting. She takes along Holmes and Watson and they uncover a years old pact regarding stolen treasure – the so called `four'. However Holmes finds that someone is killing off the four in the hunt for the treasure and must race to stop him and save the jewels.

Over the past few months I have been watching al to of the Rathbone/Bruce Holmes films and have been enjoying them, but I thought I'd take another version and try it out. I heard good things about this version and they were mostly right – this is a good telling of the story, even if I struggled to follow some parts of it (my fault and not the film's!). The plot is a little duller than it should have been because we already know what's going on from the start as opposed to working it out with Holmes. However it is still enjoyable and has some exciting moments of action and good moments where Holmes deduces the clues!

The film also has a reasonable vein of good humour running through it and is funny at times. Happily this does not come from Watson being a buffoon of sorts. He is clearly Holmes' sidekick rather than equal but nonetheless he is certainly different from Bruce's playing. Richardson is a good Holmes and made me forget Rathbone, while Healy does quite well as Watson – although Bruce is forever in that role for me (even though I dislike that version of Watson). The rest of the cast are good and support the tale well.

Overall this is a good film with a worthy sense of time. It is a lot `straighter' that the Rathbone Holmes films but that is not a bad thing. Not a classic but certainly an enjoyable mystery film that is involving without being gripping.

A handsome production, with atmospheric sets, picture-perfect casting and a welcome dose of humor, but somewhat spoiled by a few schlocky moments (like Holmes' fight with the cannibal dwarf) and an arguably wrong structure that reveals too much of the mystery, too soon. Still good for fans of the character or the genre. (**1/2)