The Sign of Four

This version of "The Sign of Four" is the closest anyone has come to transferring the spirit and letter of Doyle's stories to film. And it stars what might be the best Holmes and Watson to ever appear onscreen, Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke. "The Sign of Four" is a very close adaptation of Conan Doyle's novel, but that would count for nothing if it wasn't stylishly directed, sumptuously produced, and perfectly acted.

It was also made at the right time, when the Granada Sherlock Holmes TV series had proven a success and received the go-ahead and financial backing to expand its format. "The Sign of Four" was filmed in 35mm with a lavish (for TV) budget and presents a convincing vision of Holmes's world, from the cluttered Victorian furnishings to a steam launch chase down the Thames. Jeremy Brett was at the peak of his powers, before manic depression and heart failure permanently wrecked his health. His mercurial Holmes lives only for detection--without a case he's twitchy and irritable; on the trail he suave and scintillating. Hardwicke's Watson is grizzled paragon of common sense and decency. The other players (Jenny Seagrove, John Thaw, Ronald Lacey) are a perfectly cast assortment of eccentrics.

Director Peter Hammond is over-fond of compositions involving mirrors, but he keeps the eye (and the actors) occupied. At its best the film is a catalogue of quintessential Sherlockiana: London fog, hidden treasure, the Baker Street Irregulars, and Holmes's outlandish disguises, violin playing, and elaborate deductions. The plot is classically Holmesian, involving Imperial misdeeds coming home to haunt their perpetrators. Some have criticized the film for the lengthy flashback near the end, but this is the emotional heart of the film, the why-done-it that comes after the criminal's apprehension and gives a tragic coloring to his crimes. It gives the literal Sign of Four an ethical resonance.

Like all of the Granada Holmes productions, "The Sign of Four" has been remastered and released on Blu-Ray. It looks great but whoever handled the color correction eliminated the day-for-night effects so many scenes are brighter then they should be.

Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant crime series, and has a brilliant star in the name of Jeremy Brett, who was without doubt the best Sherlock Holmes.

What is excellent about this adaptation, is the closeness to the book, and of course the acting of Brett and Hardwicke. And the fine camera work and period detail. Jenny Seagrove and Ronald Lacey did very well in their roles.

But for me, the highlight was the boat on the river chase, and the introduction of Jonathan Small(the flashback sequences were very interesting and beautifully played too), who was brilliantly played by the late John Thaw. He was the best actor in the adaptation, apart from Brett. It must be really uncomfortable with a wooden leg though. Great music too, very haunting at the beginning especially.

This is really good, if a little creepy, Tonga was very scary. The Ian Richardson version is also good, but not as effective. 9/10 Bethany cox

One of Conan Doyle's best Holmes stories is adapted to perfection in this, the first feature length Holmes adventure from Granada Television. Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke are fantastic (as always) and the supporting cast are quite good, not to mention appropriately quirky (especially important in this adventure).

The adaptation itself is, as was typical with the Granada series (and at least the first two feature length outings), quite faithful to the original story. It's well crafted and beautifully directed, with all the twists and turns of the Conan Doyle original (one of his most remarkable tales).

In short, this version of The Sign of Four manages to outshine all previous adaptations, and hasn't been rivaled since. The 1983 television version with Ian Richardson was certainly passable, but doesn't come close to this. Once again, Granada prove that their Holmes is without equal.

Among the best of all the excellent Granada/Brett Holmes portrayals. Careful use of locations, bold casting and holding firm to the original Conan Doyle story all combine to make for an excellent production, along with Brett and Hardwicke's ever brilliant representations of Holmes and Watson respectively.The production and direction pace the tale superbly well as Conan Doyle intended. The only negative (no fault of the production team) is that in the riverside scenes, the gentrification of London's riverside and disappearance of the riverside historical locations is apparent. All in all, if you are new to Brett/Granada's Holmes shows, or indeed to the Holmes stories in general, you could do worse than to start here with this excellent production.

Ronald Lacey lets a sly, dry fart slip out at 19.03 too as he smokes his shisha and gives the back story to Holmes/Watson and Miss Morstan, just as an amusing asides....

This is an extremely faithful adaptation of the original Doyle novel, and for purists, it can hardly be objected to (although the novel does start and end with Holmes' drug usage -- but is clearly eliminated in this adaptation, apparently by Jeremy Brett who thoroughly objected to that aspect of Doyle's character). As for the uninitiated, or general viewer, it's a bit of a slog. Brett is snappish and somewhat rude at times, unlike the Holmes of the stories, but otherwise excellent, with a gritty baritone that is quite commanding. Ronald Lacey almost steals the show as the Sholto brothers (and it's sad that he would die only a few years later). The real problem with this film is the slack editing and low key direction. Many scenes provide opportunity for dramatic punch but are handled matter-of-factly, with no help from an equally low-key music score. Also, the series of requisite backstories presented in the novel is too much for the film, getting to a point where we're even given a flashback-within-a-flashback. And to top it off, the climax of the story is yet another backstory flashback. It IS Doyle and it IS faithful, so you can't complain that the filmmakers took liberties and fouled things up... but the weakness of the novel as film material is also exposed. Purists though, should be delighted.