The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case (1932)

Boring

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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

I like Arthur Wontner's portrayal of the great detective Sherlock Holmes. He is not as flamboyant and arrogant as Basil Rathbone's Sherlock but Wontner is still fun to watch - just not nearly as fun as Rathbone.This movie starts out with a backstory where we what happened years before the current time the film is set in. We witness a death and robbery of treasure, then we fast-forward a few years to see what the past has lead to and Sherlock Holmes being called in on the case. Due to this, quite a bit of the mystery is taken away from the story because the viewer knows quite a bit already but not all of the mystery is completely taken out of the story so we are still left with a fun Sherlock Holmes film to view.Overall I was entertained by the film, I found myself giggling as some of Holmes' subtle jokes and the bumbling police.8/10

Until Jeremy Brett came along to give the consummate portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, the character of Watson has been mired in buffoonery. In this early movie, it continues. Not only is he totally incompetent, he is seen as a wolfish thirties guy on the make. Of course, in the original story, Mary Marston does eventually marry Watson, but other than his sincerity and kindness, he doesn't seem so obvious. She is also seen as a bit too bold. The movie itself has some content to recommend it, but overall, it's made to be a bit silly. Holmes has none of the idiosyncrasies that make him so interesting. He's kind of a "normal guy," a bit boring. He takes none of the cynical delight in one upping Watson, although he talks about it. Obviously, this was done on a low budget, but stands up reasonably well for the the 1930's. The plot is a good one. I always wonder why, if you have a good story, written by an accomplished writer, why it is necessary to make such wholesale changes. The movie is set in the period of the 1930's with cars and outboard motors. This isn't as anachronous as some of the Rathbone Holmes movies which took place in the 40's. If you want to see another take on the Holmes persona, give this a look.

I recently saw this film simply because it was in a multi-pack of "B" mystery movies. I was very dubious since I had eagerly watched the Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone and didn't expect this film to best his performance. I was wrong. Arthur Wontner was able to convey Holmes' intelligence without the superciliousness that often mars other actors' portrayals. The Holmes/Watson relationship was one of equals instead of Super Genius/Amiable Bumbler. It was a refreshing take on a relationship that can grate as portrayed in the Rathbone films. There are drawbacks to this film, however. The sound quality is not first-rate--at least not on the DVD. The audience is not introduced to Holmes and Watson until 15 to 30 minutes into the film and the main villain's thick Cockney (?) accent made his dialogue heavy slogging--at least to these American ears. Is the print perfect? No. Can the pace be slow? Yes. Don't be deterred. See a wonderful Holmes, an intelligent and rakish Watson. It's a welcome eye-opener for those who have only seen the Rathbone films or the Brett television versions. Don't get me wrong--I think the above-mentioned actors are marvelous and had fine takes on Sherlock Holmes. I just prefer Wontner's ability to portray a wry braininess and the rapport he shared with Ian Fleming's superb Watson.