You speak as if you were there! From the first mouth... As a child, many of us reread all the works of the greatest master detective Arthur Conan Doyle, which in my case even influenced the choice of profession. So don’t be surprised that I now want to get acquainted with the cinematic “Sherlockiana”, especially since British television provides such a pleasant opportunity every week.
State your case!
Really, to the point. The British television film “The Sign of Four” (1987) by Granada Television is a film adaptation of the novel of the same name and is a logical continuation of the successful British TV series “The Return of Sherlock Holmes” (1986). The main feature is that the painting is classically canonical. Nothing superfluous, strictly according to the text of the source, in contrast to the well-known Soviet film “Treasures of Agra” directed and screenwriter Maslennikov.
Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science.
Of course, Holmes is right, the exact sciences underpin any successful investigation. What do we see in the movie? A thorough study and study of any issue. Clarity and order first. And we realize with Watson that Holmes, literally "as an automaton," is capable of accomplishing whatever he wants. Without weaving emotions into the process of observation and deduction. In cold blood, "positively inhuman ...at times."
A client to me is a mere unit, a factor of the problem.
Who's the customer this time? According to Watson, “a very attractive girl,” as we later learn, Mary Morsten, who excitedly asks Holmes to help solve a strange annual “event”: receiving one beautiful pearl and, if possible, finding her father, who disappeared ten years ago. In the role of Mary looks very impressive "guest star" Jenny Seagrove, who previously played Laura in the miniseries Woman in White (1982) and starred with Tommy Lee Jones in Nate and Hayes (1983).
Are you ready, Watson?
Watson's ready. He even checks the gun after Holmes. Are you ready to try to unravel the incomprehensible symbols in the note? Talk about the Indian War? This is the British cultural and historical heritage. We all have to know about this and much more. Of course, the atmosphere of the film is full of tension and suspense.
What in God's name does it mean?
- It means a murder!
Did the story seem to set you up for romantic adventures? It's not that simple! It turns out that we are waiting for ... yes! ... murder, a cruel and sophisticated, dashing chase over the Thames, a cute and intelligent dog Toby and a whole watag of "young a la Holmes", naturally in scarves. It should be noted that the famous scarf in the film is very accentuated.
Ah. I never make exceptions.
Holmes does not make any exceptions. Never. It's not his rules. I will. I want to highlight two things. Interesting camera work, first of all. I really liked the reception with reflections in the mirrors and even on the blade of the dagger. Secondly, a beautiful acting ensemble. For example, of the “guest stars” John Thaw, who previously played detectives, in particular Inspector Morse in the TV series of the same name, this time appears as the villain Jonathan Small. Calm, balanced Watson this time we see in the brilliant performance of Edward Hardwick. Most likely, like me, you will remember him for his roles in the series Poirot (1989-...) and the films Elizabeth (1998), Love Actually (2003).
And, of course, only Jeremy Brett’s Holmes game deserves admiration and every praise. The look is perceptive, tenacious. The laughter is peculiar, sharp. Characteristic gestures, gait... Unsurpassed skill and a unique hit in the image! Now it is clear why he did not act in Bond, although he received invitations twice.
...the splendour of the riches...
What about the treasure? And supposedly Watson's love? Would you like to find out for yourself? My advice to you: it is better to look in the original to get additional unsurpassed pleasure from the magnificent rich English in the classic version.
For loyalty to the best traditions:
10 out of 10