MARIO GAUCI 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...

Paularoc 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.

james_oblivion 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.

jcholguin 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.