Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.
'The Sign of Four' is one of my favourite Sherlock Holmes stories, due to the ingenious climax and denouement (one of Conan Doyle's best), great story and one of Conan Doyle's most fascinating antagonists. Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations as possible of the story sparked my interest in seeing this 1932 film adaptation, as part of the series of films with Arthur Wontner.
While it is not as good as the Jeremy Brett Granada version, to me the definitive version of the story, this is a worthy effort in its own right and anybody wanting to see early versions of Sherlock Holmes will get a kick out of it. The basic structure generally is intact, although there are alterations and Small's role is expanded (nice enough but considering the character was fascinating already it was perhaps not needed).
For me, 'The Sign of Four' is not perfect. The sound is quite severely wanting and there is a slightly primitive look to the production values, although there is some evocative and handsome period detail.
Also felt that some elements of the mystery are revealed too early in favour of expanding some of the characters and that, even for a character that never was the brightest bulb on the block, Jones is far too much of an idiot. Isla Bevan's performance sometimes descends into melodrama, though it is a better performance than the Mary Morstan of the Matt Frewer adaptation.
However, the mystery and suspense of this riveting story are intact and handled very well. The climax is tensely staged. As said, the period detail is quite good.
Writing is thought-provoking and the film is never dull and easy to follow. Excepting Bevan and Gilbert Davis (rather too buffoonish), the acting is not bad at all. Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Hunter is a charming and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner. Roy Emerton, Graham Soutten and Miles Malleson are particularly good in support.
In conclusion, good. 7/10 Bethany Cox
'The Sign of Four' is one of my favourite Sherlock Holmes stories, due to the ingenious climax and denouement (one of Conan Doyle's best), great story and one of Conan Doyle's most fascinating antagonists. Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations as possible of the story sparked my interest in seeing this 1932 film adaptation, as part of the series of films with Arthur Wontner.
While it is not as good as the Jeremy Brett Granada version, to me the definitive version of the story, this is a worthy effort in its own right and anybody wanting to see early versions of Sherlock Holmes will get a kick out of it. The basic structure generally is intact, although there are alterations and Small's role is expanded (nice enough but considering the character was fascinating already it was perhaps not needed).
For me, 'The Sign of Four' is not perfect. The sound is quite severely wanting and there is a slightly primitive look to the production values, although there is some evocative and handsome period detail.
Also felt that some elements of the mystery are revealed too early in favour of expanding some of the characters and that, even for a character that never was the brightest bulb on the block, Jones is far too much of an idiot. Isla Bevan's performance sometimes descends into melodrama, though it is a better performance than the Mary Morstan of the Matt Frewer adaptation.
However, the mystery and suspense of this riveting story are intact and handled very well. The climax is tensely staged. As said, the period detail is quite good.
Writing is thought-provoking and the film is never dull and easy to follow. Excepting Bevan and Gilbert Davis (rather too buffoonish), the acting is not bad at all. Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Hunter is a charming and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner. Roy Emerton, Graham Soutten and Miles Malleson are particularly good in support.
In conclusion, good. 7/10 Bethany Cox