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
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