Lack of good storyline.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

This television movie is a fair adaption of the Sherlock Holmes short novel 'The Sign of the Four.' While the basic storyline of the search for a treasure brought back to England from India is here as are all the characters from the original story, there are also a number of changes - some of which are minor and insignificant but a few of which are major changes. The biggest change is in the ending, a change that seems unnecessary and certainly does not improve the story. There is also some pointless padding to the story such as the carousel scene and the emphasis on Tonga. However, Ian Richardson's portrayal of Holmes is so wonderful that all else can be forgiven. Richardson portrays Holmes as "a man who has an extraordinary genius for small details," and is aloof without being cold, is confident without being arrogant and has an occasional sense of humor. Holmes' interaction with Inspector Layton at the Sholto house murder scene is so good that it's worth watching the movie just for that one scene.

Ian Richardson as Holmes takes a little getting used to if you're carrying around the images of Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone. Richardson has the requisite look but his voice is a little high and piping, and he moves more slowly than either of the other notables.The story is recognizable. It's Conan-Doyle's alright. There is Jonathan Small and his curious little companion. There's the Agra treasure stolen by Major Sholto. There's the puzzled Mary Morstan receiving a gem in the post. There are the Baker Street Irregulars, the dumb Scotland Yard detective, the locked room mystery, Toby the hound, and a chase down what is identifiably the Thames. Holmes deconstructs the character of Watson's poor brother, based solely on an examination of his watch. But instead of Holmes and Watson stumbling onto the murder of young Sholto and unraveling it on the spot, the murder is enacted for us, which robs the mystery of its mystery.There are also all sorts of interpolations. The most jarring takes place at a shabby outdoor fair. Holmes, alone, chases Small and the dwarf on a merry-go-round and then through a ghost ride and a crazy mirror house out of "The Lady From Shanghai" but thoroughly pedestrian. The police launch not only catches up with Mordecai Smith's "Aurora" but Holmes takes off his jacket, leaps aboard the fleeing launch, and he and Small tumble into the river, turning Sherlock Holmes into a kind of small-time action figure.The direction lacks imagination. Holmes is always in his cape and deerstalker hat and whenever the dwarf blows a poison dart, the act is accompanied by shrieking violins stolen from "Psycho." The acting is professional enough. Mary Morstan is winsome. But it strikes me that Watson displays too overtly his attraction to her. Of course she IS now the owner of "the second largest diamond in the world" but still -- Watson, reeking of cologne, practically salivates over her. Naked greed, that's what I call it. It's how this whole sorry affair got started.

Although in some parts not too faithful to the original story this is a good Holmes adaptation. Everyone involved is making a good effort and the the finished product is solid enough.One thing I did definitely not like is the way Tonga was presented. I am aware that he was portrayed as "so deeply marked with all bestiality and cruelty (and that) his small eyes glowed and burned with a sombre light, and his thick lips were writhed back from his teeth, which grinned and chattered at us with half animal fury" (quote from the original story). I'm sure I can't apply 21st century political correctness to a 19th century story but the scenes where Small fed his companion with raw meat in an earth hole were definitely not necessary in a 1983 production.Still, this being the only thing that bothers me a bit, this is a great movie. Ian Richardson comes close to my idea of Holmes and is second in line for my favourite Holmes, Brett AND Rathbone being in the fist place.

Ian Richardson is probably better known to Sherlock Holmes fans these days for playing Arthur Conan Doyle's mentor and apparent inspiration for his famous character, Dr Joseph Bell, in the BBC's justly-lauded Murder Rooms series around the turn of the 21st century. He is sadly less well remembered for actually having taken on the role of the great detective himself in a short series of television movies in the early 1980s, which is a shame as he is excellent in the part, as displayed here in one of that very series.Richardson brings much of the literary Holmes to the fore, with the sense of self-assuredness coupled with a wry sense of humour and a mysterious, enigmatic quality. Richardson's portrayal exudes charisma – his Holmes may be arrogant and single-minded, but he is so watchable you can barely take your eyes off him. It's a real shame Richardson never got a longer run at the part in a perhaps more polished production, as he could well have gone down as one of the very finest actors ever to have handled the role.One of the reasons why his stint in Baker Street is not so well remembered is because just a few short years after his productions were made, Granada Television came along with their famous series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes, which has pretty much remained the last word in Holmes on the small screen ever since. Granada's own version of The Sign of Four in particular is commonly regarded as seeing their series at the very height of its powers, just as Doyle's original version is perhaps one of the best loved of all his Holmes stories. Thus this particular version both had a lot to live up to already and has been subsequently somewhat overshadowed, leaving it more of an interesting curio than a definitive version.Nonetheless, taken on its own merits it is a more than entertaining film – Richardson's performance alone assures that much, but the script has been assembled with a little more care than some television movie hack jobs. The direction is also very accomplished on the whole – the shots using famous London landmarks such as Tower Bridge without getting any 1980s architecture in frame are particularly well-achieved, and indeed the entire boat chase sequence is made to seem fast-paced and exciting despite the boats themselves lacking the speed of the car chases which were to later succeed them in crime fiction.Despite some minor changes to the details of the story that often seem pointless – why have Small hide the diamonds in his wooden leg rather than dispose of them in the river as in the original text? – the script remains largely faithful to Doyle's novel until towards the end, when for some unknown reason a lot of tedious padding set in a fairground is inserted for no real benefit to the story. Perhaps the film was running short – it's based on quite a short novella, after all – but they could perhaps have found something rather more interesting to fill the time with.Nonetheless, the only change that really grates is the fact that once again, as in just about every other adaptation of the story, Watson fails to get the girl and have a happy ending with Mary Morstan as his wife. Morstan does at least get to keep some share of the treasure in this version, and on reflection the producers probably realised that to have her fall in love with their version of Watson would be pushing the audience's suspension of disbelief just a little too far.This is because sadly, as with many Sherlock Holmes adaptations, the depiction of Doctor Watson is not quite that of the brave, intelligent man who narrates Doyle's tales on the printed page. While not as bad in the bumbling idiot stakes as the infamous Nigel Bruce, David Healy does suffer here from being somewhat miscast in the role of Holmes's sidekick. For one thing, I know nothing of Healy's background but he sounded less like the Victorian English gentleman than an Irishman struggling badly to put on an English accent – although given the number of times English actors have done the reverse in film and television history, I don't suppose there's much ground for complaint on that score.It's perhaps ironic that given Healy's failings there is another Doctor Watson present in the cast. The actor here playing Inspector Layton – Terence Rigby, who coincidentally also co-starred with Ian Richardson in the BBC's 1979 adaptation of John Le Carre's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – played Watson in the BBC 'classic serial' strand's contemporaneous adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles, although that particular production and its star, Tom Baker, are not particularly highly regarded in terms of depictions of the Holmes stories on the small screen.Overall then this is a fair adaptation, and while not on a par with the best of the Granada versions or perhaps the 1960s BBC Peter Cushing series, this is certainly well-done and enjoyable, and definitely worth making an effort to watch if and when you should spot it in your television listings.