The Sign of Four (1987)

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Blistering performances.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Among the best of all the excellent Granada/Brett Holmes portrayals. Careful use of locations, bold casting and holding firm to the original Conan Doyle story all combine to make for an excellent production, along with Brett and Hardwicke's ever brilliant representations of Holmes and Watson respectively.The production and direction pace the tale superbly well as Conan Doyle intended. The only negative (no fault of the production team) is that in the riverside scenes, the gentrification of London's riverside and disappearance of the riverside historical locations is apparent. All in all, if you are new to Brett/Granada's Holmes shows, or indeed to the Holmes stories in general, you could do worse than to start here with this excellent production. Ronald Lacey lets a sly, dry fart slip out at 19.03 too as he smokes his shisha and gives the back story to Holmes/Watson and Miss Morstan, just as an amusing asides....

Granada Television made a solid 1987 TV movie of Conan Doyle's justly popular adventure novel, of 4 men who believed that they were in the right place at the right time. I very much enjoyed this version, including the back-story during the last part. As other reviewers have noted, Granada did not include all of Holmes's habits, the descriptions of some foreigners, and the romance between Dr Watson and Mary.What surprised me though, because Granada's script took many sentences verbatim from the 1890 novel, were the many errors in the subtitles in the US 2003 DVD version. The actors did enunciate clearly for me, so I wonder if a machine -- or someone ignorant of various English phrases -- actually compiled the subtitles. For example the subtitles have "my besetting thing" for the actual "my besetting sin". Also: "inaudible" for "Mind there, mind there, for he bites something wicious." "Awe the energetic Jones the ubiquitous reporter" for "Ah, the energetic Jones and the ubiquitous reporter". "3 bob and a tenner" for "3 bob and a tanner". "If our man had an easy task just as ours ought to be." for "If ever a man had an easy task, this of ours ought to be." "2 stout men" for "2 staunch men". "Cease you." for "Heave to!" "you'll be court marshaled" for "you'll be court-martialed". "a nice cushy villa" for "a nice cushy billet". "I had a pretty nasty face in myself" for "I've had a pretty nasty facer myself." "pilgrims from Malay bound for Gito" for "pilgrims from Malay bound for Jiddah". And many more.Not to worry, though. If you're hard of hearing or a non-native speaker, the novel is of course readily available online. And, as both Shakespeare and Doyle noted, "The game is afoot."

This is an extremely faithful adaptation of the original Doyle novel, and for purists, it can hardly be objected to (although the novel does start and end with Holmes' drug usage -- but is clearly eliminated in this adaptation, apparently by Jeremy Brett who thoroughly objected to that aspect of Doyle's character). As for the uninitiated, or general viewer, it's a bit of a slog. Brett is snappish and somewhat rude at times, unlike the Holmes of the stories, but otherwise excellent, with a gritty baritone that is quite commanding. Ronald Lacey almost steals the show as the Sholto brothers (and it's sad that he would die only a few years later). The real problem with this film is the slack editing and low key direction. Many scenes provide opportunity for dramatic punch but are handled matter-of-factly, with no help from an equally low-key music score. Also, the series of requisite backstories presented in the novel is too much for the film, getting to a point where we're even given a flashback-within-a-flashback. And to top it off, the climax of the story is yet another backstory flashback. It IS Doyle and it IS faithful, so you can't complain that the filmmakers took liberties and fouled things up... but the weakness of the novel as film material is also exposed. Purists though, should be delighted.

Of all the Granada Sherlock Holmes presentations, I believe this to be the best. It has an intricate plot with an amazing story behind it. It is full of unforgettable characters. It has action. It has the Baker Street Irregulars. It has a dog named Toby. Mostly, it is full of life. Jeremy Brett is never better than in this presentation. The British imperialists in India must have been an interesting lot. There's that whole thing with entitlement through domination and power. The four men who become embroiled in the plot are dedicated to each other, even unto death. The two brothers, whose father turns out to be the fly in the ointment, are incredible, both physically and in terms of character. What is the revenge about? It's betrayal, but what is it based on? Where is the treasure? What is the treasure? Where did those strange footprints come from? It all unfolds with hardly a wasted moment in the almost two hour feature. There's also the romantic intentions of Watson who marries the young woman later, if you read the books. This is the young woman he leaves behind constantly as he and Holmes run off on their adventures. If you have an opportunity, see this.