Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Apulieus 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.

TigerShark 90 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.

Neil Doyle 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.

vandino1 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.