The Sign of Four (1987 TV Movie) User Reviews

My personal favourite Sherlock Holmes mystery

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 10 February 2009]

Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant crime series, and has a brilliant star in the name of Jeremy Brett, who was without doubt the best Sherlock Holmes.

What is excellent about this adaptation, is the closeness to the book, and of course the acting of Brett and Hardwicke. And the fine camera work and period detail. Jenny Seagrove and Ronald Lacey did very well in their roles.

But for me, the highlight was the boat on the river chase, and the introduction of Jonathan Small(the flashback sequences were very interesting and beautifully played too), who was brilliantly played by the late John Thaw. He was the best actor in the adaptation, apart from Brett. It must be really uncomfortable with a wooden leg though. Great music too, very haunting at the beginning especially.

This is really good, if a little creepy, Tonga was very scary. The Ian Richardson version is also good, but not as effective. 9/10 Bethany cox

Could this be the best Sherlock Holmes film?

[Revelator_ · 8/10 · 27 February 2018]

This version of "The Sign of Four" is the closest anyone has come to transferring the spirit and letter of Doyle's stories to film. And it stars what might be the best Holmes and Watson to ever appear onscreen, Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke. "The Sign of Four" is a very close adaptation of Conan Doyle's novel, but that would count for nothing if it wasn't stylishly directed, sumptuously produced, and perfectly acted.

It was also made at the right time, when the Granada Sherlock Holmes TV series had proven a success and received the go-ahead and financial backing to expand its format. "The Sign of Four" was filmed in 35mm with a lavish (for TV) budget and presents a convincing vision of Holmes's world, from the cluttered Victorian furnishings to a steam launch chase down the Thames. Jeremy Brett was at the peak of his powers, before manic depression and heart failure permanently wrecked his health. His mercurial Holmes lives only for detection--without a case he's twitchy and irritable; on the trail he suave and scintillating. Hardwicke's Watson is grizzled paragon of common sense and decency. The other players (Jenny Seagrove, John Thaw, Ronald Lacey) are a perfectly cast assortment of eccentrics.

Director Peter Hammond is over-fond of compositions involving mirrors, but he keeps the eye (and the actors) occupied. At its best the film is a catalogue of quintessential Sherlockiana: London fog, hidden treasure, the Baker Street Irregulars, and Holmes's outlandish disguises, violin playing, and elaborate deductions. The plot is classically Holmesian, involving Imperial misdeeds coming home to haunt their perpetrators. Some have criticized the film for the lengthy flashback near the end, but this is the emotional heart of the film, the why-done-it that comes after the criminal's apprehension and gives a tragic coloring to his crimes. It gives the literal Sign of Four an ethical resonance.

Like all of the Granada Holmes productions, "The Sign of Four" has been remastered and released on Blu-Ray. It looks great but whoever handled the color correction eliminated the day-for-night effects so many scenes are brighter then they should be.

The Best of All Sherlock Holmes Granada Feature Films

[ericksonsam60 · 8/10 · 18 July 2011]

Out of all feature films with the great Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes this is by far the best. It has great elements in it such as Imperialist India, Missing Treasure, Baker Street Irregulars, and a Dog named Toby. What is not to like? The story is complex, colorful, and intricate and as it progresses in words of Watson "it grows darker than clearer" but the solution to the case is clever and quite powerful. It is faithful to the original story and it is beautifully crafted and realized. Like many Granada Adaptations it creates a marvelous atmosphere. Edward Hardwicke is superb as Dr. Watson with Ronald Lacey, Jenny Seagrove, and John Thaw (best known for playing Colin Dexter's grouchy and very cultured Inspector Morse) providing fine support as well. The production values, music, and photography are excellent. The only complaint is that it slogs a little bit towards the end but it is only a minor complaint. In my opinion, this two hour adaptation of the classic Sherlock Holmes novella is one of Granada's finest hours.

Excellent adaptation

[james_oblivion · 15 February 2006]

One of Conan Doyle's best Holmes stories is adapted to perfection in this, the first feature length Holmes adventure from Granada Television. Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke are fantastic (as always) and the supporting cast are quite good, not to mention appropriately quirky (especially important in this adventure).

The adaptation itself is, as was typical with the Granada series (and at least the first two feature length outings), quite faithful to the original story. It's well crafted and beautifully directed, with all the twists and turns of the Conan Doyle original (one of his most remarkable tales).

In short, this version of The Sign of Four manages to outshine all previous adaptations, and hasn't been rivaled since. The 1983 television version with Ian Richardson was certainly passable, but doesn't come close to this. Once again, Granada prove that their Holmes is without equal.

Shows How Great Stories Can Be Told Without Tampering

[Hitchcoc · 10/10 · 26 April 2006]

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.

Possibly the best of the lot.

[jackstupidjack · 10/10 · 2 August 2016]

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....

An exquisite production.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 10/10 · 19 April 2020]

The Sign of Four is one of the best of Conan Doyle's texts, and this exquisite adaptation brings the story to life.

It looks amazing, the production values are terrific, even the effects used to create the Canal bank and India look very good. It's a complex mystery, but it's made such a way that it's easy to follow, you're never left scratching your head. The sets and buildings are glorious, so decadent. As I watch I can't help but want to get hold of a Mason's teapot.

I love the eccentricity of the characters, the brothers are excellent, how he manages to remain so still is beyond me. Great to see the irregulars.

Jenny Seagrove and John Thaw are both fantastic, you wait long enough for the latter to appear, but when he does he's terrific.

I can't find a single flaw, 10/10.

Excellent adaptation of a classic Sherlock Holmes mystery

[grantss · 10/10 · 10 December 2022]

A young woman, Mary Morstan, comes to Holmes with a strange case. Her father, Captain Morstan, disappeared 10 years ago and has not been seen since. Starting four years after his disappearance she has received a valuable pearl each year from an anonymous benefactor. Now someone wants to meet her, saying that she has been wronged.

A movie length episode in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series. The extra time is justified in this case as the episode is quite complex. The Sign of Four is also one of the best and most well-known Sherlock Holmes mysteries, further justifying the longer running time.

Given that great source material, writer John Hawkesworth and director Peter Hammond construct an excellent adaptation of the classic mystery. Highly intriguing, engaging and action-filled.

As always, Jeremy Brett is superb as Holmes. Solid work from Edward Hardwicke as Dr Watson. The cast also includes John Thaw, of Sweeney and Inspector Morse fame.

Intricate Sherlock Holmes story gets the luxury of a two-hour TV treatment...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 5 January 2010]

JEREMY BRETT and EDWARD HARDWICKE head the cast of an excellent version of THE SIGN OF THE FOUR, given fine support by JENNY SEAGROVE, RONALD LACEY and JOHN THAW.

The intricate story begins with a young woman (Jenny Seagrove) coming to Holmes with a story involving the mysterious disappearance of her father. Several years after his death she began receiving yearly presents of priceless pearls, one by one each year. The story becomes more and more complex as more of the characters involved in her father's disappearance come to the fore. Among them, RONALD LACEY, who gives a quirky performance as twin brothers whose father wanted them to receive his inheritance. JENNY SEAGROVE and JOHN THAW are particularly interesting in well-defined supporting roles.

All the Victorian atmosphere is here along with elaborate settings and fine color photography. The two hours go by swiftly, since there's so much story to tell. Well worth watching with only a few scenes toward the end that seem to go on too long.

One of the best adaptations of the original story

[pfr1685 · 9/10 · 31 March 2022]

This is one of the versions that is closest to the original. There are a few pieces left out due to time considerations, but they are minor and do not affect the plot. Strong supporting performances by Ronald Lacey and John Thaw carry the day.

Queer Street.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 12 April 2010]

Conan-Doyle wrote four novellas that featured Holmes and Watson. The most familiar, and by far the most often filmed, is "The Hound of the Baskervilles," and for good reasons. (1) It's long enough to be a feature film without being padded, (2) Holmes is a fully blown character, and (3) the story isn't just an intellectual challenge or adventure -- it's positively eerie, with hints of the demonic.

Of the others -- "A Study in Scarlet" and "The Valley of Fear" -- it can be said of the first that when we're introduced, little by little, to the young Holmes, he's really an oddball and has mental and behavioral habits that never appear elsewhere in the canon, as Watson himself does. For instance, Holmes learns for the first time that the planets revolve around the sun and immediately tries to forget it because he doesn't want his storage capacity challenged. Watson keeps a bull pup, which is never mentioned again.

"The Valley of Fear", to my knowledge, hasn't ever provided the framework for a popular feature film. It appears late, and Conan-Doyle seemed to be grinding out the stories to make a living. Holmes has no quirks, no affinity for dope, shows no penetrating insight or feats of deduction, and some of his inferences are plain silly. The hero is dull.

In "The Sign of Four", Holmes is fully blown, is driven by boredom to use his seven-percent solution, and rips off some apothegms from Edgar Allan Poe's August Dupin. The story is full of delightful characters too, including eccentrics from India and a murderous cannibal dwarf. The Baker Street Irregulars make a prominent appearance. The movie gets it all down, with monster hookahs being used, mounted tiger heads, and a shivery performance by Ronald Lacey as an anxiety neurotic and a frozen, smiling corpse. There's an exciting launch chase on the Thames near the end.

The story has what I'd consider a weakness that it shares with "A Study in Scarlet" and "The Valley of Fear." There's a long, involved back story explaining the experiences of the villain that led to his criminal act. It's as if the author was just itching all over to put his most famous creation behind him and get on to more ambitious literary things but the poor guy was stuck with Holmes and Watson.

Yet, in the long run, grinding out his detective fiction didn't do either Conan-Doyle or Holmes much good. Towards the end of the canon, in the Memoirs and the Case Book, the stories are becoming benumbed, as are the characters -- with some notable exceptions. I guess it's possible for an author to just plain write himself out.

As a feature, this film is quite good. The heavy is played by John Thaw, "Inspector Morse," buried under a lot of make up and accompanied by a native of the Andaman Islands who is given a bad rap by Conan-Doyle. The Andamanese were an outlier of the British empire, flung off the Indian coast and seldom visited except by anthropologists and second-rate colonial officers. The islands were hit by the tsunami of 2004 but were so isolated that nobody knew or cared much about the damage. (The anthropologist's name was A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, if anyone wants to look it up.) I can chew over the villain's experiences in India because the rest of the story is so colorful and intrinsically interesting. It includes one of those "locked room murders" that so fascinate mystery writers.

And it goes without saying that, whatever Conan-Doyle might have thought of Holmes and Watson, Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke do justice to the characters.

Intricate mystery with Holmes and Watson and more than a touch of "Endeavour"

[standardmetal · 9/10 · 4 July 2017]

I didn't previously understand why the scene where Holmes discussed his cocaine use and the famous 7 percent solution wasn't filmed in this episode as in the Holmes canon but it became clear that it was because it was included in the first installment of the Granada series ("A Scandal in Bohemia").

Looming large in the denouement of this installment is the actor John Thaw (1942-2002) who was famous for playing Inspector (Endeavour) Morse in the original series and that explains my summary above.

It must also be mentioned that in the original Doyle story, Holmes reacts very badly to the news of Watson's impending marriage to Mary Morstan and, at the very end, he further reacts by reaching for his cocaine bottle but this is left unmentioned in the Grenada production.

Another scene, better done in the Doyle original, has to do with another appearance by Holmes in a surprising disguise which fools all people present but which is here rather abridged and also abridges the effectiveness of the scene.

This is also the episode where Holmes sends Watson to get his favorite dog Toby to help him in solving the mystery and also where he enlists the aid of his "Baker Street Irregulars" who actually seem more helpful, in the long run, than Toby, although they certainly upset Mrs. Hudson (As always Rosalie Williams) by invading their Baker Street household.

Top-notch Victorian sleuth Holmes-Jeremy Brett and well accompanied by Watson-Edward Hardwicke

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 14 March 2019]

While uncanny Sherlock Holmes and the ever-faithful Watson encounter into 221 Baker Street are visited by a beautiful young woman and they're hired to investigate why has been anonymously sent a precious stone . Holmes (Jeremy Brett) and Watson (Edward Hardwicke , the perfect counterpoint to Sherlock) are involved in killing , poison darts , a fortune in Indian jewels original from luxurious palace of Agra and much suspect behavior by strange characters (Ronald Lacey , John Thaw).

The film packs suspense , intrigue , unanswered mysteries , thrills and excellent set decoration . This is a good Holmes mystery with gripping London setting and including first-range nasties . One of the most charming Holmes television pictures and long runtime . Intriguing blending of suspense , thriller , detective story and fun . Well cast by the best TV Holmes , Jeremy Brett , along with Peter Cushing who starred the series in the 60s and in 1984 played ¨Sherlock Holmes and the masks of death¨ . Jeremy Brett as Holmes plays in a clever , broody and impetuous manner . Brett , Cushing in TV and Basil Rathbone in the cinema are the history's best Holmes . Brett (he married Anna Massey and died in 1995) had an aristocratic beautifully modulated voice and he was usually a prestigious secondary actor (Medusa touch , My fair lady , War and Peace ) , but achieved fame and fortune with ¨ Adventures of Holmes , The Return , The Case-Book and Memories Sherlock Holmes¨ series and four long time films . This story was nicely adapted by John Hakesworth and professionally directed by Peter Hammond , both of whom series' ordinaries . Rating : Better than average , 7/10 . Well worth watching .

Other adaptations about this Arthur Conan Doyle's novel are the following ones : ¨Sing of Four¨ (1968) by William Sterling with Peter Cushing and Nigel Stock from Sherlock Holmes Tv series . ¨The Sign of Four¨ realized by Desmond Davis (1984) with Ian Richardson . Another rendition filmed by Rodney Gibbons (2001) with Matt Frewer and a Sui Generis version by Fraser C. Heston titled ¨Crucifer of blood¨ and played by his father Charlton Heston as Holmes.

Great Story, Average Film

[michaelarmer · 5/10 · 8 December 2019]

The Sign of Four is a great story, but not that long, so to turn it into a near 2 hour movie was always going to be problematic. They tried here and it worked to an extent but moved too slowly and was dreary.

The film used dream/memory sequences to fill the time, but it only made it more boring. It would have been better if they started the film from when Jonathan Small was first approached by the Indians to steal the treasure in the first place, with ensuing events up to Major Sholto taking it to England, then go forward to Sherlock Holmes being recruited by Miss Marston, they could have used John Thaw more, longer scenes with him in, that would have improved it, but alas they wasted that talent at the very end of the film.

I am not fond of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes, he is not quite right, too dreary and depressed and too thick in body, Holmes was supposed to be a thin gaunt bloke, but at least he was the right height. To be fair to Jeremy, he made this just after his wife had died so you would not expect him to look happy, and he had Bi-polar disease, so why they used him is beyond me ? Despite that he is a better fit than many other of the actors that have played Sherlock (Robert Downey Jnr. although a good actor was an extremely unlikely Holmes), but there are several good actors who could have fitted the role perfectly who did not have personal problems. I know he did the TV series but they were never the best Sherlock Holmes anyway.

The plot was missing a few bits as well, Miss Morstan originally came to Holmes to find her father, she never did, she found out how and when he died but not where he is buried ! They never found the treasure or where it was, just some hint from Jonathan Small that he dumped it in the river? They did not recover Tonga from the river. what happened to Jonathan Small's 3 Indian partners ? were they still in prison ? or had they died since ? it was not mentioned either way. So quite a bit missing, making the screenplay poor, thereby ruining the story.

The actors were not great either, apart from a depressed Jeremy Brett, the others seemed to be going through the motions, the best actor there, John Thaw brightened it up at the end, but only got a short time on screen, Jenny Seagrove was flat, Edward Hardwicke was a good Watson but did not do much with the role, Ronald Lacey, a good actor, had a double cameo, but slightly overplayed his eccentricity, Emrys James as Inspector Athelney Jones did allright but was a bit like a "rabbit caught in the headlights" all the others only got brief glimpses, the best role was Toby the dog.

The direction was poor, the music was dreary and dreadful, editing was awful. the 19th century London scenes were passable but they made goofs which included modern items in the picture. All in all a poor effort, they should have made it another time with other actors and director and with more money for better facilities.

Why a quite a few people gave this a high rating is beyond me, I gave it a 5 for the original story and a brief John Thaw

faithful, but....

[vandino1 · 27 August 2006]

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.

"jewels at not less than half a million sterling"

[zafrom · 8/10 · 18 November 2013]

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."

The Best Version of the Story

[aramis-112-804880 · 8/10 · 3 November 2022]

"The Sign of the Four" was the second Holmes story in publication order and a great yarn involving treasure and wronged women, bizarre characters and murder. And a woman who wins Watson's heart, so he marries her and has his own medical practice while Holmes, growing in success, has Baker street to himself and they no longer have to share digs like poor students.

For some reason they sneaked the story later in the series. The first Dr. Watson, David Burke, by rights should have played the part and gotten married; but Edward Hardwicke makes a fine older Watson.

Also in the cast are Indiana Jones' own resident Nazi, Ronald Lacey, giving an ideal performance as Thaddeus Sholto. Jenny Seagrove is perhaps a curious choice for Mary but she's more the type to interest an older, wiser Watson than, say, Ann Bell, who essayed the role in the Peter Cushing version. Watson was a lady's man but he knew a good thing when he saw it. One caveat about Seagrove's performance: the story came out in 1887 or thereabouts and whatever her strength or pride a Victorian lady would have used a handkerchief.

Jeremy Brett is, as usual, is Holmes himself. I did not have him in mind when I started reading Holmes stories in middle school back in the 1970s (sorry to day, I'd never heard of the bloke), but his performance as Holmes turned me around completely. He's word perfect.

Gordon Gostelow (he had to appear in the series at some point) is amusing as the animal man and Toby is scruffily cute.

The only flaw in this otherwise superb recreation of Doyle is Doyle's own. When John Thaw as Jonathan Small starts in on his tale, it gets dull fast.

Apart from the minor flaws mentioned, this is the perfect Holmes movie. I only wish they'd married Watson off.

Surprising ending

[guildwayne · 8/10 · 11 February 2022]

Performances from Brett and Hardwicke are to be applauded as the definitive twosome. Thaw's rendition as Small was good as was the activities of , collectively the Baker Street Irregulars. Toby ,to be noted was worthy of the airtime that he received. I could ,ceaselessly commend the performances of Seagrove and Lacey but , perhaps the readers already have gleaned the polished nature of the acting staff. In the main the scriptwriters adhered faithfully to the original text -WITH A NOTABLE EXCEPTION. In the book, Watson proposes to Ms Morston and she reciprocates his devotion. No such happening appeared on-screen with the real consequence that the movie ending felt flat. The unexpected book ending seals its position as a masterful piece of fiction. The movie rendition fails to deliver that same climatic effect . A real pity. What can the scriptwriters have been thinking?

"Mrs Hudson, your dreadfully underfoot"

[vitoscotti · 8/10 · 21 October 2020]

The little person, a lunatics sniffing dog, deadpan Jenny Seagrove. This one was way over the top. Again, Jeremy Brett is absolutely brilliant. Many memorable moments he shines. I like when Holmes actually stands up leaning against the exhaust on the rickety boat while racing on water. Lots of unanswered parts of the story, though. Beautiful Jenny Seagrove is a cardboard cutout expressionless. David Burke would of nailed the Watson part more in this story. Fun couple of hours.

The Sign of Four

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 22 January 2020]

A young woman Mary Morstan (Jenny Seagrove) visits a snappy Holmes with a story of her father's disappearance some years earlier and how she later started receiving a precious jewel each year.

This leads to an encounter with the quirky nervous Thaddeus Sholto (Ronald Lacey) whose father served in India with Mary's father. He tells Mary that her father did die in an accident.

As Holmes and Watson are taken to see Thaddeus's twin brother Bartholomew regarding a box of treasure that has been found. The brother has been slain and the box containing he treasure is missing.

Holmes looks for clues and reckons a poisoned dart was used to kill the Bartholomew in a room that looks impossible to scale from the outside.

Before long Holmes and Watson are hot on the heel of Jonathan Small (John Thaw) and ex soldier who served in India, now a one legged man who is taking revenge in those who cheated him and his fellow convicts.

This was the first feature length movie of the Granada Sherlock Holmes series. It does look beautiful with some filming taking place in Malta which doubles for India. There is also a wonderful chase scene in the river. Norfolk being used to double for the River Thames.

John Thaw enter the proceedings rather late in the day, initially with a dart blowing pygmy by his side played by the legendary Kiran Shah. As in the book, A Study in Scarlet. Small tells his story in flashbacks and giving reasons why he is out for revenge. It is a strong intimidating performance from Thaw.

This was also the best of the feature length adaptations in the Brett series.

Good Adaptation

[jack_o_hasanov_imdb · 8/10 · 28 August 2021]

I love Sherlock Books.

Jeremy Brett did a great job.

I like this movie, it's a good adaptation.

Prefer the '83 Version

[Hughmanity · 7/10 · 27 September 2023]

It's interesting that two separate TV movies of 'The Sign Of Four' were made within four years of each other. The '83 version starring Ian Richardson as Sherlock Holmes and the '87 version (this one) with Jeremy Brett playing the lead role. Given the short time span in between it's fun to compare and contrast the two versions without having to caveat different eras of production.

The main reason I prefer the '83 version is because I like Ian Richardson's friendlier version of Holmes that operates with good humor versus Brett's more rude and snappy Holmes, although he does seem to lighten up a bit as the movie goes on. The character of Tonga is a mostly ridiculous 'wild man' trope in both but in '83 they just use makeup and false teeth while in '87 they use a full-on mask that seems obvious and anti-immersive.

The '87 seems to have a higher budget with some nice flashbacks to India as the final reveals are made, though it also drags on a bit in that section. Story-wise I've heard '87 is more true to the book which I've never read. '83 seems to make some accommodations for a bit happier ending which I enjoyed.

Either way this is a fun Sherlock Holmes story and both versions are worth the watch.

Conan Doyle and his moral tall tale of India

[clanciai · 9/10 · 21 October 2023]

As one of the most complex Sherlock Holmes mysteries, it is not easy to make a film of it, while Granada actually succeeded in bringing out an excellent version, surpassing all others. Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes is still rather fresh in his role and makes more than the best of it, visibly enjoying it, while Edward Hardwicke as Watson presents a more human approach to the mystery and its characters. The film is slightly Dickensian in its excellent concentration on environments of the dirtiest London with its shabbiest figures, one of them being Sherlock Holmes himself in an overly convincing disguise. The film is true to the book, which is its greatest advantage, and it is just as difficult to follow as it is in the book. It is difficult to label it as an entertainment or thriller, but the Dickensian trait actually makes it something of a literary film, including a strong performance by John Thaw and the wonderful dog Toby. Conan Doyle would have liked it and only found negligible details to object against.