This was stage actor Ian Richardson's second stab at playing master sleuth Sherlock Holmes in the same year; while quite fine in the role, he does occasionally resort to hamminess. Both films were sourced from two of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's more popular stories and, in fact, I also own the 1932 movie and 1968 TV versions of it (but have yet to watch either and will need to wait for a subsequent Holmes marathon!); the latter stars horror icon Peter Cushing and, for what it is worth, here we get genre regular Thorley Walters in a brief but pivotal role. The central mystery – involving loot, a map, betrayal, and a peg-legged villain – owes something to R.L. Stevenson's "Treasure Island", yet also incorporating a welcome macabre element in the presence throughout of a cannibalistic pygmy! Similarly unexpected, though, is the incongruity of having Dr. Watson smitten with the detectives' latest client (played here by Cherie Lunghi); however, an obtuse Scotland Yard Inspector – basically a given in any Holmes case – is on hand to counter with logical (and, by intimation, comical) reasoning the intelligent (and, obviously, correct) deduction supplied by the famed occupant of 221B Baker Street. For the record, the 1991 TV- movie THE CRUCIFER OF BLOOD (with Charlton Heston and Richard Johnson as Holmes and Watson respectively) is an alternate retelling of the tale which I also have yet to catch up with, despite having been regularly shown on that medium in my neck of the woods...

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.

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.

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.