Recensioni degli utenti

Graham Cutts' 'The Sign of Four' is one of five Sherlock Holmes films starring Arthur Wontner in the main role. Of Wontner's portrayal, Vincent Starrett (author of 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes') declared, "No better Sherlock Holmes than Arthur Wontner is likely to be seen and heard in pictures, in our time... The keen worn, kindly face and quiet prescient smile are out of the very pages of the book". Indeed, Wontner beautifully captures the essence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famed character, enjoyably depicting his quirky brilliance and almost omniscient deciphering of crime scene puzzles, frequently waving off Dr. Watson's (Ian Hunter) stunned admiration with a dismissive, "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary."

After an amputee prisoner serving a life sentence, Jonathon Small (Graham Soutten), reveals the whereabouts of his stolen treasure to two prison warders in exchange for his freedom, he is furious when they betray him. Driven mad by the sight of so many riches, one man, Major John Sholto (Herbert Lomas), murders his acquaintance, and flees with the wealth. Many years later, Small escapes from prison, seeking his revenge and his treasure. Shortly before his death, Sholto bequeaths the valuable pearl necklace from the treasure hoard to Mary Morstan (Isla Bevla), the daughter of the man he murdered. However, when Small comes after Morstan as well, she quite intelligently seeks the aid of the great Sherlock Holmes.

'The Sign of Four' is a surprisingly engrossing mystery. Whilst there isn't really much of a classic whodunit, I was most certainly interested in how the story played out. Throughout the film's prologue, the clunking of Small's wooden leg against the floor was used quite effectively to develop suspense, and the ambitious high-speed boat race and dock brawl at the end of the film was suitably climactic. The professional police detective, Det. Insp. Atherly Jones (Gilbert Davis), was characteristically smug and incompetent, often referring to Holmes as an "amateur," whilst himself reaching completely the wrong conclusion about a mystery.

Though the production values are undoubtedly low-budget, 'The Sign of Four' is a solid Sherlock Holmes film with some good performances and an engaging mystery. Worth a look.

I've seen all four extant films with Arthur Wontner playing Sherlock Holmes (the others are "The Sleeping Cardinal," "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and "Silver Blaze"), and this one is definitely the best. Associated Talking Pictures clearly had better facilities than Twickenham (the company that made the others), and the multiple producers (including Rowland V. Lee and Basil Dean, who had previously directed a Holmes film himself) picked a story with lots of action and hired a capable director, Graham Cutts. Cutts usually gets dismissed patronizingly in biographies of Alfred Hitchcock (Cutts directed a number of films in Britain in the early 1920's on which Hitchcock assisted, including "The Rat" and "The Triumph of the Rat" with Ivor Novello) as a mediocre director who drank and womanized his way out of a major career. Judging by his work here, Hitchcock fans should probably be looking at Cutts as an influence on the Master; this film MOVES (most of the other Wontner Holmes films are boring and plodding), it's clearly staged with a sense of pace, it makes good use of unusual camera angles (including a surprising number of overhead shots), and the final fight scene (though obviously done with a stunt double for Wontner) is a genuinely exciting action highlight. Cutts also gets a marvelous villain performance out of Graham Soutten, and effectively uses the sound of his peg leg at a time when the art of suggesting off-screen action with sound effects was common in the U.S. but relatively unknown in Britain. He also makes Wontner a more convincing Holmes than in his other films in the role — Wontner even LOOKS younger here than he did in "The Sleeping Cardinal," made two years earlier — and Ian Hunter is a more effective Watson than usual even though it's a bit jarring to see a Watson who's clearly taller than his Holmes. As someone who'd watched the other Wontner Holmes films wondering what all the fuss was about — he's always seemed overrated in the role to me — this one has raised my opinion of Wontner as Holmes considerably. Isla Bevan is a striking leading lady with an interesting resemblance to Ginger Rogers — later one of the cinematographers on this film, Robert de Grasse, became Ginger Rogers' favorite cameraman at RKO.

The DVD I got of two Arthur Wontner Sherlock Holmes movies listed this one as Sign of the Four. The print was pretty bad and the dialogue was not very easy to understand (though the British accents may have also have been a factor). Still, I found myself mesmerised by many of the set-ups especially the London-Years Later scene as the man who killed his partner for the treasure confesses to his two sons about what he did with his fear of the one-legged man he betrayed coming to get him having just broken out of prison. Great use of sound effects here to convey possible sounds of a wooden leg off screen. The rest of the film hardly comes close to that in effectiveness but by that time Wontner and Ian Hunter as Watson are on screen with their entertaining banter of Holmes' powers of deduction. There's also a pretty entertaining chase scene at the end. Worth a look for Holmes fans but I hope anyone reading this can find a better print than I saw here...

This Arthur Wontner version of the Sherlock Holmes story "The Sign of Four" is pretty good for the early sound era, and it makes good use of its limited resources. The production doesn't look very impressive, but Wontner is believable as Holmes, the story is entertaining, and some of the sets, though low budget, work well in establishing the atmosphere.

Wontner's Holmes is less willful and forceful, while more witty and upbeat, than the more familiar portrayals by Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett. And while the fine Brett version of "The Sign of Four" is probably now the definitive screen version of the story, in its time this one would probably have been highly satisfactory to its audiences.

The script adapts the original story somewhat, yet it works pretty well. The order of the narrative is simplified, and some extra settings and events are included. One of them, a sequence at a fair, is interesting, and though it changes the tone of the story somewhat, it works in its own right. The character of Jonathan Small is also fleshed out, with less about his past and more of an emphasis on what he is like at the present. As Athelney Jones, Gilbert Davis gets a few good moments of give-and-take with Holmes.

Like Wontner's other Holmes features, this one has an obvious low-budget, early 1930s feel to it. But the series is worth seeing for anyone who enjoys the Holmes stories and who doesn't mind seeing the characters portrayed in a somewhat different light.

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.

'The Sign of Four' is one of my favourite Sherlock Holmes stories, due to the ingenious climax and denouement (one of Conan Doyle's best), great story and one of Conan Doyle's most fascinating antagonists. Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations as possible of the story sparked my interest in seeing this 1932 film adaptation, as part of the series of films with Arthur Wontner.

While it is not as good as the Jeremy Brett Granada version, to me the definitive version of the story, this is a worthy effort in its own right and anybody wanting to see early versions of Sherlock Holmes will get a kick out of it. The basic structure generally is intact, although there are alterations and Small's role is expanded (nice enough but considering the character was fascinating already it was perhaps not needed).

For me, 'The Sign of Four' is not perfect. The sound is quite severely wanting and there is a slightly primitive look to the production values, although there is some evocative and handsome period detail.

Also felt that some elements of the mystery are revealed too early in favour of expanding some of the characters and that, even for a character that never was the brightest bulb on the block, Jones is far too much of an idiot. Isla Bevan's performance sometimes descends into melodrama, though it is a better performance than the Mary Morstan of the Matt Frewer adaptation.

However, the mystery and suspense of this riveting story are intact and handled very well. The climax is tensely staged. As said, the period detail is quite good.

Writing is thought-provoking and the film is never dull and easy to follow. Excepting Bevan and Gilbert Davis (rather too buffoonish), the acting is not bad at all. Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Hunter is a charming and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner. Roy Emerton, Graham Soutten and Miles Malleson are particularly good in support.

In conclusion, good. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The process of dragging the Victorian character Sherlock Holmes into modern times had commenced already by 1931, when Arthur Wontner played Holmes for the first time in SHERLOCK HOLMES' FATAL HOUR. Between then and 1937, he made four more Holmes films, this being the third film of the total of five. The setting is firmly contemporary. Dr. Watson (played feebly by Ian Hunter) makes a phone call from a public telephone box, and when he and the girl (played by Isla Bevan with one of those ridiculous wobbly voices, in between ludicrous fainting fits) visit a circus or fun fair in the dangerous area 'behind Kings Cross' in London, we see kiddies driving electric dodgem cars. However, the atmosphere of the film is firmly Edwardian, verging on Victorian, and the stuffy manners of all the characters are from such a distant past that even Conan Doyle might have been embarrassed by them. Despite all of these factors, this is a charming glimpse of a lost era of incomprehensible manners and pathetic flirtations, of drooping victim girls and pompous oaf police chiefs. Arthur Wontner plays Holmes with an arch and knowing air. He is convincing enough to make the films watchable. This is a film for people who like watching vintage Sherlock Holmes films, and there are plenty of such folk, amongst whom I from time to time may also be numbered. The villains of the film are perhaps the best cast, such as Roy Emerton with his wonky eyes and deadpan crook's manner. This was only the second feature film in which he appeared, but already he was a born classic character actor. He appeared again with Wontner as an arch villain in THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES in 1935. Emerton died in 1944 at the early age of 51. He had been a soldier in World War I, and variously also a stevedore, a cowboy, a fireman, a railroad worker, and a miner. They don't train character actors like that anymore! He appeared in 34 films and added authenticity to them all, I am sure. Perhaps his most unlikely part was as Octavius in Josef von Sternberg's I, CLAUDIUS (1937), which I have not seen.

Before you even judge the film you have to judge how well Holmes is played.Wotner is passable.The film is a reasonable attempt at a Holmes film.Interesting to see a bald Miles Malleson without his usual wig.

Regarded by many critics as the best cinematic Holmes, Arthur Wontner made his debut as the great detective in "The Sleeping Cardinal" (1931). Although prints are available, this one has not yet been released on DVD. Wontner's second impersonation, "The Missing Rembrandt" (1932) is indeed missing, so we are forced to pick up his career with "The Sign of Four" (1932, which is available on a DVD of reasonable quality from St Clair. "Four" used no less than three directors. Graham Cutts directed most of the film, including all the chilling material with Graham Soutten (surely one of the most frightening heavies ever presented in a movie), plus the lively scenes at the fun fair, while Rowland V. Lee handled the great action climax. Some of the dull dialogue scenes, such as all those with the Sholto brothers, were directed by Basil Dean. Compared to other screen characterizations, Wontner generally comes across as more cerebral and subdued. On the other hand, he reverses the process when he dons a disguise. Some of the other screen Sherlocks seem positively anxious not to call attention to themselves when in disguise, whereas Wontner stridently plays these scenes at full volume. In this one, his Dr Watson is none other than the ubiquitous Ian Hunter (that guy will take any role!) who is at least certainly presentable enough to date the lovely Isla Bevan. (A few half-witted contemporary critics, would you believe, criticized screenwriter W.P. Lipscomb for adding a romance to the story, not realizing that this aspect is a feature of Conan Doyle's original novel).

Until Jeremy Brett came along to give the consummate portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, the character of Watson has been mired in buffoonery. In this early movie, it continues. Not only is he totally incompetent, he is seen as a wolfish thirties guy on the make. Of course, in the original story, Mary Marston does eventually marry Watson, but other than his sincerity and kindness, he doesn't seem so obvious. She is also seen as a bit too bold. The movie itself has some content to recommend it, but overall, it's made to be a bit silly. Holmes has none of the idiosyncrasies that make him so interesting. He's kind of a "normal guy," a bit boring. He takes none of the cynical delight in one upping Watson, although he talks about it. Obviously, this was done on a low budget, but stands up reasonably well for the the 1930's. The plot is a good one. I always wonder why, if you have a good story, written by an accomplished writer, why it is necessary to make such wholesale changes. The movie is set in the period of the 1930's with cars and outboard motors. This isn't as anachronous as some of the Rathbone Holmes movies which took place in the 40's. If you want to see another take on the Holmes persona, give this a look.

I recently saw this film simply because it was in a multi-pack of "B" mystery movies. I was very dubious since I had eagerly watched the Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone and didn't expect this film to best his performance. I was wrong. Arthur Wontner was able to convey Holmes' intelligence without the superciliousness that often mars other actors' portrayals. The Holmes/Watson relationship was one of equals instead of Super Genius/Amiable Bumbler. It was a refreshing take on a relationship that can grate as portrayed in the Rathbone films. There are drawbacks to this film, however. The sound quality is not first-rate--at least not on the DVD. The audience is not introduced to Holmes and Watson until 15 to 30 minutes into the film and the main villain's thick Cockney (?) accent made his dialogue heavy slogging--at least to these American ears. Is the print perfect? No. Can the pace be slow? Yes. Don't be deterred. See a wonderful Holmes, an intelligent and rakish Watson. It's a welcome eye-opener for those who have only seen the Rathbone films or the Brett television versions. Don't get me wrong--I think the above-mentioned actors are marvelous and had fine takes on Sherlock Holmes. I just prefer Wontner's ability to portray a wry braininess and the rapport he shared with Ian Fleming's superb Watson.

The review above said this movie made good use of its resources, and I agree with that. The boat-chase-scene was very ambitious for 1932, and the early fight-scene between Sholto and Morstan seems more intense and realistic than similar efforts from that time-period.

Having watched the DVD version just last night, I am sorry to say that understanding the audio-- at least in certain scenes-- takes a good deal of effort. Perhaps British audiences can pick up some of the words more clearly, but the recording technology was just so primitive compared to our time... oh, well. Let's just say I've never felt a keener need for sub-titles with an English-language movie.

Compared to Doyle's novel, there are some important plot-changes. Also, when you consider how closely identified the Holmes/Watson duo is with the late-Victorian era, it really is a bit jarring to see them in a 1932 setting.

Arthur Wontner started his onscreen career as Holmes in 1931 with The Sleeping Cardinal which was followed by The Missing Rembrandt (unfortunately a lost film) a year later and then this one, also in 1932. And compared to The Sleeping Cardinal it couldn't be more different. That one was a very simple, yet effective movie, obviously made with a rather moderate budget, filmed mostly indoors, while this one is a pretty high-scale and action packed production, with several scenes shot on location and actually it often closer to an action movie, than your average murder mystery. Especially during its showdown which features a high-speed boat chase and a fight scene in a warehouse with surprisingly liquid overhead shots.

But the bigger budget and it being a lot more action-packed does not necessarily mean that it is better as well. While it is certainly fun to watch, the movie kind of falls apart at places and I sometimes had the feeling that the production team was often more concerned with the action than the plot and while Holmes warns not to jump to conclusions, he does just that at some occasions.

Wontner's resemblance to the original depiction of Holmes is still uncanny, but due to the script's flaws he cannot shine as much as in the earlier film, however instead of a strong lead we have a strong villain this time with Graham Soutten stealing the show playing Jonathan Small a one-legged heavy who escaped from prison to track down a treasure, which ultimately brings him face to face with Holmes.

I have been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes for many years, both in book form and movie/TV versions. Movie versions have been churned out for well over 100 years and there have been some odd casting for the great detective e.g. Clive Brook, Rupert Everett & even Roger Moore! Personally, I have always favoured the Rathbone/Bruce versions even though they stretched the imagination on occasions by leaping from Victorian London to London during the second World War. I only recently managed to obtain copies of Arthur Wontner in The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes and The Sign of Four and I have to say Wontner seems to be the perfect Sherlock Holmes. What a pity he didn't make more Sherlock Holmes movies! Apart from the sound quality of the print (which has been mentioned in other reviews), his physical similarity to the original Strand Magazine illustrations by Sydney Paget (and others) and his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is quite remarkable.

Arthur Wontner's second Sherlock Holmes effort sees a noticeable production upgrade in comparison to the first, made only one year earlier: there are exterior shots, crowd scenes, and at the climax a boat chase (!), fistfights and shootings. Granted, most of the action is crude, sped-up and murky, but it's still an advancement over "The Sleeping Cardinal"'s boxed-in style; the villains are more sinister here too, compared to how Moriarty was portrayed in the first film. Wontner is even better as Sherlock Holmes in his second go-round; he has grown into the role. Doctor Watson has been re-cast and re-profiled to more fit the mold of the romantic, two-fisted hero. Worth noting: Holmes does not appear in his "greatest case" until the first third of the movie is over! **1/2 out of 4.

The form — at least as established in the Holmes stories and subsequent early detective fiction, has the reader experience things in the order the detective does. In the best, there is some tension as we know the detective is ahead of us in deducing the truth from the same information we have. If you deviate from this, there should be some value because the cost is relatively high.

Now here we have one of the earliest experiments with detective talkies and they went directly to Holmes. What they did here was break the rule in an odd and experimental way. All the history that we are supposed to discover is presented before we even meet Holmes. That is, the story is presented in the historical order of events instead of the order of discovery.

I cannot know the effect this had on the audience when it was new. This film is far closer to when the Holmes stories appeared than it is to me here now. But my guess is that it failed.

There is another experiment, and pretty interesting. Two scenes are shot from high. One of these has an established human perspective: Holmes climbs up a ladder and when he comes down, the camera stays there looking down. Later, when the big chase/fight climax is going on, we again have the camera at this angle — a little further away. The effect must have been striking to the contemporary audience.

These two decisions are at least consistent: we don't *see* things the way our detective does.

A woman (Isla Bevan) believes her life is in danger and talks about some stolen treasure as well as being pursued by a tattooed man (Roy Emerton), a one legged convict (Graham Soutten) and a midget killer (Togo). She calls on Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Wontner) for help.

A rough and ready Sherlock Holmes thriller from one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's well known books. It feels a little earthier and rougher than we'd later come to expect, but it is a decent effort and captivating, even if Wontner as Holmes seems a little too young for the part.

Produced by Basil Dean in one of his prestige productions with future Hollywood director, Rowland V. Lee as one of the production designers. It was remade as a TV movie in 1983.

I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I've read all the stories and up until the Jeremy Brett series was created, I always felt that those who created the Holmes films had a lot of contempt for the original material. The modern image of is simply NOT the Holmes created by Conan Doyle. While this film starring Arthur Wontner did have Holmes uttering the "elementary" phrase again and again and that pipe was also present, this was about as close to the Conan Doyle you could find until the 1980s. Most casual viewers don't realize that up until Granada Television made the films with Brett, the Sherlock Holmes being portrayed in films was more an imitation of William Gillette than Holmes. Gillette had made a career of playing Holmes on stage and in silent films and he liberally changed the character to make it his own--not Conan Doyle's.

While far from perfect, this low budget Sherlock Holmes film at least tried more than most subsequent films--being much closer to the source material than the Basil Rathbone films or even the later Wontner films (SILVER BLAZE was a bit of a mess). I especially like how that accursed deerstalker hat (with the double bill) isn't worn by Holmes like it was in most other films (but not in most of the original stories) and how Lestrade and Moriarty aren't present (they were only in a small number or stories). Those who read SIGN OF THE FOUR would recognize the original story--the same can't be said of Wontner's SILVER BLAZE.

The only serious negative about the film is its quality due to the ravages of time. Being in the public domain, it has been copied and re-copied again and again and by now it's a bit of a struggle to watch and the print is a tad fuzzy. However, being slightly hard of hearing and an American, I was STILL able to follow it reasonably well, so it's likely the film will be very watchable for you.