Customer Reviews

The Sign of Four [VHS]

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Sir Arthur Conan Boyle's The Sign of Four is a great novel, though this televised version was a bit of a disappointment.
In this mystery Sherlock Holmes has his hands full with an unusual assassination (made possible by an exotic poison) and a mysterious disappearance.

The major setbacks (as other reviewers have also pointed out) are:
1) The poor choice of actor for the leading role of Sherlock Holmes in Matt Frewer; obnoxious, conceded, and overall not likeable, his was a terrible performance indeed.
2) The ending which seems to be the result of someone's improvisation, and which deviates from the writer's original.

In short, it's an interesting plot, a great setting, and a mediocre cast.
Though far from being a masterpiece, by no means is it a bad movie, as it will provide for an evening's entertainment.

The newest incarnation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Sign of Four" is by far the best one to date. Although it deterrs a little from the original work, doing so only helps to improve it. The new ending is especially noteworthy. As for the actors, Kenneth Walsh is a formidable Watson. Some viewers might think that him just a tad too old, but his performance makes up for it. As for the 'controversial' casting of Matt Frewer, I feel that the harsh criticism I have heard from other avid Holmes fans regarding his interpretation is unnecessary. Though it's true that he is not English in nationality, I feel that he makes up for it as best he can. His accent at times was laid on a little too thick, however, and he was given at times to somewhat cartoonish voice fluctuations, but he definitely looks the part and is obviously warming up to the role. Sherlock Holmes is one of literature's most beloved creations, and as a result the actors who play him are faced with an enormous task. I think Frewer comes out just fine.

The second installment of Sherlock Holmes series of "Hallmark Entertaiment" is worse than its preceding one, "The Hound of Baskervilles," or "the canine mystery" as this irritating Holmes of this series might quip. The Max ... no, Matt Frewer Holmes interpretation still looks unconvincing besides Jeremy Brett (though I do not say the latter is perfect), and in this film you are in for another atrocious deed done to the beloved original.

That is the script, which starts promisingly. As you know, the story of the mysterious "Four Signs" originates in India, and the film starts there (no, not that real India, but in the soundstage) where a rich Indian merchant's tresure is violently stolen. Now, years later, a certain lady Miss Morstan visits Sherlock Holmes to consult about the enigmatic message and pearls sent to her from an anonimous source. So far, the film is faithful in contents and in spirit.

However, in the second half of the film, it commits an unforgiveable crime. The famous hair-raising chase scenes on the Themes which tesitifies the genius of Conan Doyle is replaced by a silly conclusion culled directly from the B Western movies. Add to that, the fate of Miss Morstan is also changed, as if the company wanted to torment poor Dr. Watson forever.

Only Kenneth Walsh's Watson looks like real, which qualifies the two stars I give here. When Miss Morstan, who should be a Victorian lady in distress, speaks like a modern American woman in the 20th century, you have nothing to recommend. And you see the exaggerated mannerism of the sleuth, which makes the entire film even worse. Stick to Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone.

I can't speak for actually seeing this movie. I bought it as a gift to complete the series of movies for my mother. She did enjoy The Hound of The Baskervilles, and I sought out the DVD of the movie, and found that there were 4 movies in all. This one was new and in VHS format, so I transferred it to DVD to complete the 4 DVD set. My mother did enjoy Matt Frewer's version, as she has a plethora of Sherlock Holmes movies on DVD ranging from the early 1930's to these movies.

The film begins in 1856 India where the British troops are fighting in the India Mutiny. Indian Prince Achmed carries a strong box into the fort for safekeeping. He is betrayed by a sergeant, who later claims no knowledge of the Prince or his disappearance. Then we see Watson discussing Holmes' paper decades later. Miss Morstan visits Holmes to solve a problem. Her father, a retired army Captain, had disappeared six years earlier. But every year she received a valuable pearl in the mail. This year it was a warning letter. Miss Morstan has a map from her father; what does it show? Holmes, Watson, and Miss Morstan visit Thaddeus Sholto in Lambeth. [Their speech has strange overtones.] Major John Sholto had been sending a pearl each year, but wanted to give half the treasure to Miss Morstan.

When they visit Bartholomew Sholto they find him murdered inside a locked room! The treasure has disappeared. The police are called. Holmes deduced how it happened. Inspector Jones uses the "facts" to solve the murder mystery. Later Holmes sends Watson to fetch Toby. Professor Morgan diagnoses the poison and its source. Holmes tracks the unknown visitors to a hired boat on the river Thames. [There is dramatic language between Holmes and Watson.] Smith's steam launch was found, plans are made to intercept it. But Inspector Jones has his own plans. There is a confrontation with the villains, and Holmes triumphs. The stolen treasure was lost, no one can claim it.

The ending to this film deviates from the original story. It is not an improvement over the original. The outdoor scenes show a bigger budget was used, but the changed story is a negative. The background to this story tells how India was looted to enrich some Englishmen. In those days people could keep and bear arms without any restrictions. One lesson from this film is to avoid treating assumptions as "facts". [Or was that a ruse?]

With this title there were two annoying points I would like to express: the first was the deviation from the original story and the second was the over dramatic Sherlock Holmes character. I can not claim to be a Sherlock Holmes Authority but I have recently read the ENTIRE 1122 page, The Complete Sherlock Holmes. Having done this I have developed my own "feel" of both Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. In this movie Dr. Watson was perfect. And it is for Kenneth Welsh's performance as Dr. Watson that I am giving this a 4-star rating instead of a 1-star rating. But Sherlock Holmes was mismatched with Matt Frewer. He has a certain acting style (his facial expression and his voice and his body movements) that are too excitable and too...dare I say...comical? I imagine holmes as a more calculated, quiet yet strong character whose brain is like a computer always calculating his next sentence and his next move. This character did NOT portray this to me and thus I was dissappointed. As for the plot, I didn't like the deviation this title took. Holmes was not enemies with the police as they portrayed it, in fact he was friendly with Mr. Athelney Jones of Scotland Yard. Watson did NOT get shot with a poison dart as they showed. Holmes did not coordinate the creation of an antidote as the movie showed. Tonga was supposed to be a little black cannibal with a grotesque face and enlarged head, not an asian ninja like person. The chase was supposed to take place in the river on boats not a shoot out on the docks. And ultimately it was Dr. Watson who was supposed to win Miss Mary Morstan and not the wimpy Mr. Thaddeus Sholto!!!

This production of " The Sign of the Four" is worse than the same team's "Hound of the Baskervilles." Two reasons: The obnoxious Matt Frewer has more screen time, and it's longer. The rest of the production closely follows the hideous blueprint of its predecessor. To begin with, the acting is atrocious. Aside from Frewer's horrendous performance (the less said about this, the better) we are treated to the worst Mary Morstan on film. This Canadian actress (her name is best forgotten) repeatedly drops her accent in mid-sentence, displays the polish of a truck driver, and acts with all the subtlety of a Public Access TV host.

I presume that the low budget explains the appalling technical problems: bad cutting, amateur lighting, plastic sets, and a scarcity of extras on the streets of London. It may also explain the idiotic reworking of the final sequence in which the showdown occurs on the docks, rather than on the water. Authentic steamboats cost money.

Only one thing rises above the carnage that used to be Doyle's "Sign of the Four-" the fine Dr. Watson of Kenneth Welsh.

I saw this, and I thought wow! Never have I seen a film so true to the book, the stars are excellent and never before have I seen Sherlock portrayed so well. Dr Watson is very good aswell. I think this is the best sherlock holmes fim ever!

I have never seen a Sherlock Holmes quite like this one! I had setled into my chair and prepared to take a long nap when BAM!
Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes grabbed me by the collar and took me along on an adventure! Mr Frewer is a 3-D Sherlock like no other! This may not be the truest version of the Sign of Four, but it is a vibrant adventure and Frewer's Holmes is so energetic he almost bounds off the screen. I shared this with my children and they adore Mr Frewer's performance. Try this one if you are a Sherlock Holmes fan and looking for a Holmes that will keep your kids highly entertained.