Avaliações de usuários

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.

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)

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.

There have been many adaptations of The Sign of Four as one of Doyle's most highly respected works. No adaptation follows implicitly, but this film does well at blending notable passages and dialogue from the book in with adventurous romps through London, and even to a carnival where death seems the main feature. Unlike other adaptations, rather than attempting to solve the case ourselves, we watch the villain at work and follow along as Holmes attempts to piece together the sparse clues.

Although the film takes great liberties in making the storyline unique and exciting, it still manages to convey the very heart of what Doyle intended. Richardson is an excellent Holmes; he portrays him with just the right amount of light humor and intelligence to make him enthralling even while in the background. He also does an excellent job of reacting. When Mary clings to him after a particularly jarring series of events, the uncomfortable Holmes untangles himself and insists on not making a fuss. One scene I happen to particularly like is when Inspector Layton is brought in to the crime scene. Watching him brush off Holmes' suggestions, while our favorite sleuth is attempting not to laugh or groan at his absurdities, is nothing less than humorous. I also appreciated finally witnessing the scene left out in many adaptations... the thrilling chase of the Aurora on the Thames.

Like many others, I find Ian Richardson the definitive Holmes, and mourn that not more films were made with him as the gallant and often eccentric private detective.

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.

I like the book very much, and love the Jeremy Brett version. This film was very entertaining and fresh, plus it was faithful while taking some strange liberties(ie. Small hiding the jewels in his wooden leg). The production values are excellent, the score haunting, the script well written, the river sequence superbly staged and the final solution magnificent. Then we have a great cast, Ian Richardon is suitably sly and sardonic which is what I mean by the adaptation's freshness, Cherie Lunghi is charming and David Healy is good as Watson. Joe Melia was the only disappointment for me, his Small lacked the wonderful understated approach that John Thaw conveyed so well in the Brett version. Then there are one or two scenes that are slightly lacking in atmosphere(Tonga wasn't as scary or as imposing this time around) and the direction is occasionally a little too slight. Overall, it is a good film and a solid adaptation. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.

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.

Although in some parts not too faithful to the original story this is a good Holmes adaptation. Everyone involved is making a good effort and the the finished product is solid enough.

One thing I did definitely not like is the way Tonga was presented. I am aware that he was portrayed as "so deeply marked with all bestiality and cruelty (and that) his small eyes glowed and burned with a sombre light, and his thick lips were writhed back from his teeth, which grinned and chattered at us with half animal fury" (quote from the original story). I'm sure I can't apply 21st century political correctness to a 19th century story but the scenes where Small fed his companion with raw meat in an earth hole were definitely not necessary in a 1983 production.

Still, this being the only thing that bothers me a bit, this is a great movie. Ian Richardson comes close to my idea of Holmes and is second in line for my favourite Holmes, Brett AND Rathbone being in the fist place.

The original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please.

Sometimes more thrilling than the novel, this adaptation mixes in romance, deception, and the cold hand of the master detective. I've seen more than one adaptation, but I'd say this one and the latest, with Matt Frewer, are tied as far as excitement goes. Both differ from the story, but on the upper hand, Holmes undertakes the thrilling Thames boat chase. It's somewhat strange in places, but I much appreciated the added sequences with Tonga and Mary. Ian Richardson is an excellent Holmes - second only to Basil Rathbone, who was born to play the part.

An excellent adaptation, and one for any Sherlockian to be proud of.

The 1983 TV-version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles", the other Sherlock Holmes adaptation starring Ian Richardson as the unearthly brilliant private detective, was a very pleasant surprise, especially considering that already many great film versions exist of the same novel. This admittedly set my expectations for "The Sign of Four" somewhat higher, but the truth is that the two cannot be compared. "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is a gothic mystery, with many horror elements, whereas "The Sign of Four" is more of a straightforward thriller. There isn't much of a mystery/whodunit aspect in this film, since the murderer(s) and the motives aren't exactly kept secret, so one could even righteously raise the question if Sherlock's brilliant deduction skills are required to resolve the case. Still, though, this is an enjoyable effort with a nicely sinister atmosphere (notably during the carnival sequences) and a handful of memorable supportive characters (also linked to the carnival, in fact). Richardson depicts a very solid Holmes, but what slightly bothered me already in the previous film is that he doesn't bring anything from himself into the character.

My leisurely stroll through the Holmes canon via Project Gutenberg continues; luckily, I need only to procure myself a copy of The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes when the time comes, and I can't imagine that being too difficult. I'm enjoying it so much to the point of perhaps discovering another fandom; my fellow fen are quite sweet and it's been booming steadily since the 2009 film. But, of course, my enjoyment doesn't mean that The Sign of the Four is without its problems.

In The Sign of the Four, Holmes and Dr. Watson are hired by Miss Mary Morstan, a governess who has been receiving strange notes (and pearls!) from an anonymous source. They accompany her to a meeting with her anonymous source, who turns out to be a one Thaddeus Sholto, who claims that his brother, Bartholomew, possesses a treasure that once belonged to her father-a fortune that would turn this governess into one of the wealthiest heiresses in England. But when Bartholomew is discovered dead and the treasure missing, Holmes and Dr. Watson must track down the killer to protect their client.

Let's get this out of the way first-The Sign of the Four is a very racist novel. I'm going to try and do this without spoiling you, which ought to be interesting, at the very least. One of the villains is Adamanese, and he's portrayed as the stereotypical bloodthirsty "savage"-he's also the faithful sidekick, devoting himself to the main villain who once helped him recover from a serious illness. He has no motivation beyond helping his master and general sadism. When they finally meet, Holmes and Watson are struck with how ugly and demonic he looks. It makes the representation of Mormons in A Study in Scarlet look like a solitary snide remark. I can accept it as a product of the times, but it still makes me uncomfortable, since it's presented as the rightful view instead of solely Watson's view. (To contrast, there's a moment where Holmes dismisses the capacity of women; Watson wants to correct him, but doesn't feel up to the battle.) Be forewarned.

The Sign of the Four develops Holmes and Watson beyond their A Study in Scarlet characterizations; infamously, it starts and ends with Holmes indulging in his cocaine habit, with Watson looking on disapproval, wondering why such a brilliant man would risk his mind like that. Holmes becomes more aloof and wonderfully odd, with strange acquaintances all over town and generally being superior. (At one point, Watson, a little fed up with him, hands him a completely clean watch to take him down a notch. It works.) Watson in love is wonderful. Mary is a calm, rational, and wry young woman-as Watson is writing from the perspective of a happily married man, we occasionally hear Mary's side of things. My favorite moment occurs when Watson, trying to distract Mary from the grim situation at hand with war stories, accidentally tells her a story where he shoots at a musket with a double-barreled tiger cub; Mary teases him to this day about it. It can get a bit syrupy at moments-particularly their declaration of their love-but I have a soft spot for dorks in love, so it only endeared them to me.

Watson's voice, as ever, is great fun; a dashing and very capable man who alternately admires and despairs over his amazing but very strange friend. Doyle stays firmly in Watson's mind throughout the novel; there's no switch, as in A Study in Scarlet. As we delve deeper into London's underworld, there's some honestly creepy imagery; Bartholomew is murdered in a locked room and, at one point, Watson visits a very strange menagerie in order to procure a bloodhound. The atmosphere is certainly improving over the much more straightforward A Study in Scarlet. The plot, as it is, is quite complex; I wish we'd learned some of it outside of the villain's infodump of a monologue-it's a short portion of the novel that feels longer, because all of the ground it covered. As Mary's father is involved, I wish she'd produced a letter or told Holmes and Watson a story about what happened to him; but, alas, it does not happen. As I'm about to embark on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, I look forward to seeing if Doyle manages this better in short story format over the novel format of the first two Holmes books.

Bottom line: The Sign of the Four has its problems-it's quite racist! But this is also the novel where Holmes becomes more aloof and wonderfully odd, acquainted with half the underworld, to the chagrin of Watson, who has fallen in love with the wonderful Mary Morstan. (Their calm, determined relationship is very sweet.) It's got great atmosphere, but nearly all of the plot is revealed solely through the villain's monologue, which makes the pace awkward. It would be a respectable entry in the Holmes canon if not for the racism.

Ian Richardson stars as Sherlock Holmes, David Healy as Dr. Watson, and Cherie Lunghi as Mary Morstan in Arthur Conan Doyle's second tale of the Great Detective. It's full of the stuff of penny novels, witha. Beautiful and virtuous heroine, a fantastic treasure, a savage dwarf, and vengeful villain, and all that good stuff like that.

Although the Holmes canon contained vivid and outre elements throughout their writing, the real wonder was the clearing away of the supernatural and the explanation of the mysteries in a logical and realistic manner. The earlier works had more exotic elements, usually with a long discourse showing some foreign locale. When the series of short stories began in The Strand magazine, the length of such excursions was curtailed, and so we got shorter details of the world as the British knew it then; instead of Mormons in Utah, we got the Cornish moors.

Great care was taken to make sure that it looked like 1890 in this movie; if it all looks a little cleaner and more freshly painted than it actually was at the time, well, this is not the first movie to do that. Some alteration to the story's structure has been made, making it less a mystery and more a tale of suspense. If the tale is familiar to me from more than half a century's acquaintance, it's still a pleasure to watch Holmes & Watson, in whatever form, working as well as they did more than a century ago.

A lesser known sherlock holmes story, with ian richardson and david healy. When old man sholto is on his deathbed, he instructs his sons to share the treasure hidden in the attic with mary morstan. But when one of the sons gets bumped off, holmes must solve the mystery, and find the treasure. And just who is the one legged man? As usual, holmes has some fun in his disguises. And a chase through the fun house at the fair. Holmes even does a fair amount of physical fighting in this one! It must be a good story... it's been remade numerous times! Directed by desmond davis, who also filmed several agatha christie mysteries. Richardson won a bafta for "house of cards", and was nominated for three others!

Having been a long time fan of both Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett in their portrayal of the world famous detective Sherlock Holmes, I always measure anyone playing the detective against these two. Ian Richardson has one very distinctive feature on his face, his nose, which was also the part I first noticed on Rathbone and Brett. So Richardson had the nose but could he be a Holmes? My answer is yes. The Sign of Four was an enjoyable film. The characters Jonathan Small and little Tonga were also very well cast. I know the story well and this film was very close to the story. Revenge, murder and the chase were all featured as well as the Bakersteet Irregulars. So if you like Holmes, give this feature a look.

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.

In London, an older man named Sholto, is having dinner with his 2 adult sons. Once a Major in the British Army, John Sholto was stationed in India's Andaman islands. Outside his house in the rain we see a wooden legged man approached the house. There's a knock. The servant brings in a letter but reports no one was at the door. After Sholto opens the envelope, he goes into a frenzy of fear, taking to his bed. Later, he is found murdered but not before telling the sons the secret of the letter. It involves a massive treasure. After finding a box of fabulous gems in an attic hiding place, one of the Sholto sons is also murdered. Shortly after, a sweet pretty young woman named Miss Morstan visits Sherlock Holmes ( Ian Richardson ). Dr Watson ( David Healy ) is there, too. She has received a strange package with a very valuable jewel and a summons to meet near a theater. Since her missing father was a close friend of Major Sholto, the invitation to meet may also involve the Treasure. Can our hero Sherlock unravel the mystery, find the treasure and stop the killings ? This is a fine adaption of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fabulous novella of the same name. Richardson is most impressive as the brilliant Holmes and Healy compliments him well as Doc Watson. Most of Doyles elements are intact which will please fans. A nice twist at the end will also find fans. If you know nothing or everything about this most renowned fictional detective, you will like this movie.

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...

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.

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.