The Sign of Four

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.