TheLittleSongbird Love Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, the best of which among the masterworks of the crime fiction genre. Have always had a soft spot for 'The Sign of Four', not just for the iconic characters and duo of Holmes and Watson and the compelling story but also for the ingenious denouement, one of Conan Doyle's most fascinating antagonists and one of his greatest climaxes. Didn't care for the first Sherlock Holmes Hallmark film featuring Matt Frewer 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'. Like their adaptation of 'The Sign of Four' even less. And no, it's not only because Frewer has more screen time and the film is longer, those are the least of its problems. It really doesn't do this fabulous story justice and is a strong contender for the worst adaptation of 'The Sign of Four', which hasn't been adapted as much as 'The Hound of Baskervilles' but the Jeremy Brett Granada adaptation is especially great, actually one of my personal favourites of the Brett Sherlock Holmes adaptations. 'The Sign of Four' is not without its good spot. The best thing about it is Kenneth Welsh, whose Watson is the more faithful loyal, sympathetic and intelligent one rather than the buffoon that has been seen in other Watsons. Marcel Jeannin's suitably eccentric Thaddeus Sholto is the only other good performance. It starts fairly promisingly. Also found some of the locations suitably atmospheric, if perhaps not authentic, and the adaptation shot competently enough.Sadly, that is it for the good things. Other than Welsh and Jeannin, the acting, as has been said (there is not much new that hasn't been said already), is awful. Not just from Matt Frewer's far too arrogant, manic and too over-reliant on hammy humour Holmes, but even worse were Sophie Lorain's all over the place Mary Mortstan and Michel Perrin's over-acted Jones. It has been noted that the accents are atrocious, with Lorain and Perrin's accents being a mishmash of at least three different accents apiece and all done badly.For such a good story, 'The Sign of Four' is poorly adapted here. It's dull thanks to the lack of terror, tension or suspense (all completely absent after the promising beginning) and the pedestrian direction. Once again, the costumes are cheap. The editing is sometimes choppy and the music strives for authenticity but comes over as contrived and often unnecessary, especially in the flashbacks. The dialogue is stilted, over-emphasises the humour to hamminess and fails to bring intrigue and life to something as good as 'The Sign of Four'. The story is generally dull here and told in a vague manner at times. Never thought it would be possible to foul up 'The Sign of Four's' ingenious denouement, the antagonist's back story that while difficult to adapt and often criticised for being overlong (don't agree personally) shows brilliantly how he came to be that way and the ruthlessness, the suspenseful climax and the fascinating character of Jonathan Small. Believe it or not, this adaptation fouls up all the above. The denouement couldn't been less tense and more dull than it is. The back-story actually suffers and worse for what it's criticised for in the story and feels anti-climactic. The climactic scene that is one of the highlights of the story is rushed and staged in a way that even a B-movie western would reject, absolutely no need or excuse for straying so drastically from something so perfect and doing so so amateurishly. Jonathan Small is very underdeveloped and there is very little of his menacing ruthlessness or the slight sympathy one feels when it is revealed how he came to be the way he does, here he is a caricature and Edward Yankie not only comes over as not very charismatic he plays the character too broadly, none of the nuances seen in John Thaw's brilliant portrayal (by far the best Jonathan Small of all the adaptations) in the Brett version. Tonga is not scary at all here either. Overall, very disappointing. 3/10 Bethany Cox

royl666-1 I only caught the last 40 minutes or so of it on TV thank goodness. The accents are appalling, the acting wooden and artistic license has meant that the plot deviates from the original book in too many ways. I doubt very strongly that there was a dialogue coach - but if there was then he was taking money under false pretences.Matt Frewer was an awful choice for Holmes - it's almost as though he plays the part for laughs. The best actor who has played the part was Jeremy Brett - he was a manic-depressive and so fitted the part quite well.So far as I'm concerned this insult to a good story should never have been released and quietly burnt!

lotsafun The four Sherlock Holmes movies by Hallmark are just good fun versions for kids. Don't even try to take 'em seriously folks. Don't expect them to be artistic masterpieces based on literary classics. These TV movies were made for a family audience and there's plenty of comedy for kids in these things. Frewer's Holmes must be seen to be believed! He's a hoot! He's the most eccentric Holmes EVER! Kids will love this guy! Kenneth Welsh is much more traditional in his role and he makes a very fine Watson. These Frewer Holmes flicks are sure to entertain the kids and will hopefully encourage them to read more about The Master Detective. They certainly wont get bored watching any of these with the ultra-intense and comedic Frewer on the screen.

Gordy Wright This was the worst Holmes film I have ever seen, and I see there are more of the same to come.The Main players, with the exception of Thaddeus Sholto were badly miscast, Frewer, who I quite like, and who was excellent as the Trash Cam Man in The Stand, borough a silly zany quality to Holmes that just shouldn't be there.Watson, who is about the same age as Holmes, appeared old enough to be his father.THe accents were somewhere between poor and awful, especially inspector Athenly Jones, he seemed to be a cross between English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish Jewish and Red Indian, it was awful.In all, a wasted Exercise, and down there with 'The evil beneath Loch Ness' in the really crappy film stakes.