Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

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

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

tedg The form — at least as established in the Holmes stories and subsequent early detective fiction, has the reader experience things in the order the detective does. In the best, there is some tension as we know the detective is ahead of us in deducing the truth from the same information we have. If you deviate from this, there should be some value because the cost is relatively high.Now here we have one of the earliest experiments with detective talkies and they went directly to Holmes. What they did here was break the rule in an odd and experimental way. All the history that we are supposed to discover is presented before we even meet Holmes. That is, the story is presented in the historical order of events instead of the order of discovery. I cannot know the effect this had on the audience when it was new. This film is far closer to when the Holmes stories appeared than it is to me here now. But my guess is that it failed. There is another experiment, and pretty interesting. Two scenes are shot from high. One of these has an established human perspective: Holmes climbs up a ladder and when he comes down, the camera stays there looking down. Later, when the big chase/fight climax is going on, we again have the camera at this angle — a little further away. The effect must have been striking to the contemporary audience.These two decisions are at least consistent: we don't *see* things the way our detective does.

allan-broadfield Arthur Wontner was for many years considered 'the critics choice' as Sherlock Holmes, in England at least. Although Basil Rathbone et al had not yet appeared this claim was not unchallenged, as previous nominees for the top position in this part had also been considered pretty weighty; in the silent era Eille Norwood had made over forty films as the great detective in Britain, John Barrymore followed, Clive Brooke and Raymond Massey appeared in early talkie versions of the character and William Gillete was wowing audiences with his stage version, personally OK'd by Sir Arthur himself. Being a Londoner I could understand the cockney accents,unlike some of the reviewers though these were seldom portrayed correctly even in British films; in those days characters were either 'posh' or 'common', with little in between. I like the quiet scenes in 221b Baker street rather more than the action sequences in 'Holmes' films, though the chase across the Thames was good in this film, and the fight a little less inspiring as it had been sped up in the manner of some films of the time. Yes, there were some brilliant portrayals of Holmes in later years but I still have a soft spot for Arthur Wontner, who incidentally probably looked more like the original Sidney Paget drawings in the Strand magazine than anyone else. It's a pity that this particular series of films is so badly represented in these dire copies, several generations away from the original. I can assure the manufacturers of the 'Wontner' DVD's that there are decent prints of these films out there if you can be bothered to look.

mobile707 The review above said this movie made good use of its resources, and I agree with that. The boat-chase-scene was very ambitious for 1932, and the early fight-scene between Sholto and Morstan seems more intense and realistic than similar efforts from that time-period.Having watched the DVD version just last night, I am sorry to say that understanding the audio-- at least in certain scenes-- takes a good deal of effort. Perhaps British audiences can pick up some of the words more clearly, but the recording technology was just so primitive compared to our time... oh, well. Let's just say I've never felt a keener need for sub-titles with an English-language movie.Compared to Doyle's novel, there are some important plot-changes. Also, when you consider how closely identified the Holmes/Watson duo is with the late-Victorian era, it really is a bit jarring to see them in a 1932 setting.

classicsoncall I always go into a Sherlock Holmes film expecting the best, but fearing the worst. With "The Sign of Four", my fears for the worst were unfortunately realized. Poor production values and a largely unintelligible sound quality contributed to my difficulty in following the story. But where I really lost it was when Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Wontner) was able to determine that a note sent to florist Mary Morstan (Isla Bevan) was written by an amputee, because the letters STAND UP on their own legs! With that line, the film immediately made it to my Top Ten Worst list without Passing Go, with the dubious distinction of joining my previously worst ever film - "The Beast of Yucca Flats". At least with The Beast, there's a lot to ridicule. Here, one doesn't know what's to be taken seriously and what's to be taken in good clean fun.With "The Sign of Four", nothing is "Elementary My Dear Watson", especially in Ian Hunter's portrayal of the acclaimed detective's accomplice. Watson fancies himself a romantic, and quite literally gets the girl at the end of the film. By that time my interest in the movie was gone, although I was jolted at inopportune moments by the appearance of a tattooed man and a black man with a snake around his neck. By the time they got to the speedboat chase, I was glad I had a bottle of brandy beside me.I'll admit the mystery started reasonably enough before getting bogged down in unbearable boredom. To be fair, I probably should give the film a second viewing, but it will be a long while before it comes to that. Until then, "The Sign of Four" doesn't even hit that numerical equivalent on my radar screen, and they don't allow negatives here. So for now, it's just a +.