TheLittleSongbird 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

petermurrell 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.

tavm 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...

classicsoncall I always go into a Sherlock Holmes film expecting the best, but fearing the worst. With "The Sign of Four", my fears for the worst were unfortunately realized. Poor production values and a largely unintelligible sound quality contributed to my difficulty in following the story. But where I really lost it was when Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Wontner) was able to determine that a note sent to florist Mary Morstan (Isla Bevan) was written by an amputee, because the letters STAND UP on their own legs! With that line, the film immediately made it to my Top Ten Worst list without Passing Go, with the dubious distinction of joining my previously worst ever film - "The Beast of Yucca Flats". At least with The Beast, there's a lot to ridicule. Here, one doesn't know what's to be taken seriously and what's to be taken in good clean fun.With "The Sign of Four", nothing is "Elementary My Dear Watson", especially in Ian Hunter's portrayal of the acclaimed detective's accomplice. Watson fancies himself a romantic, and quite literally gets the girl at the end of the film. By that time my interest in the movie was gone, although I was jolted at inopportune moments by the appearance of a tattooed man and a black man with a snake around his neck. By the time they got to the speedboat chase, I was glad I had a bottle of brandy beside me.I'll admit the mystery started reasonably enough before getting bogged down in unbearable boredom. To be fair, I probably should give the film a second viewing, but it will be a long while before it comes to that. Until then, "The Sign of Four" doesn't even hit that numerical equivalent on my radar screen, and they don't allow negatives here. So for now, it's just a +.