Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

ThiefHott Too much of everything

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Leofwine_draca THE SIGN OF FOUR, a Holmes adaptation featuring Ian Richardson as Conan Doyle's sleuth, is a follow up to the slightly disappointing TV production of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. THE SIGN OF FOUR is only slightly better, a perfectly atmospheric and well mounted production let down by a slightly stodgy script that's going to give more than a few viewers indigestion.Things get off to a good start, with some fine opening titles and a plummy Thorley Walters menaced by a one-legged man. Once Holmes is introduced into the storyline, though, it slows down completely and becomes more than a little boring. There's something about Richardson that I just didn't care for in his portrayal as Holmes; he's too mannered, slightly self-conscious, that you can't forget that he's acting. I had the same trouble with Peter Cushing in the part.Despite the presence of decent sets and costumes, the TV-movie atmosphere means that the scares and thrills are somewhat diluted. The characters are difficult to like, aside from Cherie Lunghi's damsel in distress, and there's something slightly silly about having a dwarf in blackface as one of the villains. THE SIGN OF FOUR isn't bad by any means, but it's distinctly average all the same. It may be that the written stories are just so good nobody will ever do them justice.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

klingon-attack 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.

helpless_dancer Holmes and Watson are called in to investigate a crime involving a year old murder and a box of priceless jewels. Holmes must deal with an ex-con and his murderous companion, who are bent on revenge and the retrieval of a large missing diamond. Another good Holmes adventure.