robert-temple-1 The process of dragging the Victorian character Sherlock Holmes into modern times had commenced already by 1931, when Arthur Wontner played Holmes for the first time in SHERLOCK HOLMES' FATAL HOUR. Between then and 1937, he made four more Holmes films, this being the third film of the total of five. The setting is firmly contemporary. Dr. Watson (played feebly by Ian Hunter) makes a phone call from a public telephone box, and when he and the girl (played by Isla Bevan with one of those ridiculous wobbly voices, in between ludicrous fainting fits) visit a circus or fun fair in the dangerous area 'behind Kings Cross' in London, we see kiddies driving electric dodgem cars. However, the atmosphere of the film is firmly Edwardian, verging on Victorian, and the stuffy manners of all the characters are from such a distant past that even Conan Doyle might have been embarrassed by them. Despite all of these factors, this is a charming glimpse of a lost era of incomprehensible manners and pathetic flirtations, of drooping victim girls and pompous oaf police chiefs. Arthur Wontner plays Holmes with an arch and knowing air. He is convincing enough to make the films watchable. This is a film for people who like watching vintage Sherlock Holmes films, and there are plenty of such folk, amongst whom I from time to time may also be numbered. The villains of the film are perhaps the best cast, such as Roy Emerton with his wonky eyes and deadpan crook's manner. This was only the second feature film in which he appeared, but already he was a born classic character actor. He appeared again with Wontner as an arch villain in THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES in 1935. Emerton died in 1944 at the early age of 51. He had been a soldier in World War I, and variously also a stevedore, a cowboy, a fireman, a railroad worker, and a miner. They don't train character actors like that anymore! He appeared in 34 films and added authenticity to them all, I am sure. Perhaps his most unlikely part was as Octavius in Josef von Sternberg's I, CLAUDIUS (1937), which I have not seen.

mgconlan-1 I've seen all four extant films with Arthur Wontner playing Sherlock Holmes (the others are "The Sleeping Cardinal," "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and "Silver Blaze"), and this one is definitely the best. Associated Talking Pictures clearly had better facilities than Twickenham (the company that made the others), and the multiple producers (including Rowland V. Lee and Basil Dean, who had previously directed a Holmes film himself) picked a story with lots of action and hired a capable director, Graham Cutts. Cutts usually gets dismissed patronizingly in biographies of Alfred Hitchcock (Cutts directed a number of films in Britain in the early 1920's on which Hitchcock assisted, including "The Rat" and "The Triumph of the Rat" with Ivor Novello) as a mediocre director who drank and womanized his way out of a major career. Judging by his work here, Hitchcock fans should probably be looking at Cutts as an influence on the Master; this film MOVES (most of the other Wontner Holmes films are boring and plodding), it's clearly staged with a sense of pace, it makes good use of unusual camera angles (including a surprising number of overhead shots), and the final fight scene (though obviously done with a stunt double for Wontner) is a genuinely exciting action highlight. Cutts also gets a marvelous villain performance out of Graham Soutten, and effectively uses the sound of his peg leg at a time when the art of suggesting off-screen action with sound effects was common in the U.S. but relatively unknown in Britain. He also makes Wontner a more convincing Holmes than in his other films in the role — Wontner even LOOKS younger here than he did in "The Sleeping Cardinal," made two years earlier — and Ian Hunter is a more effective Watson than usual even though it's a bit jarring to see a Watson who's clearly taller than his Holmes. As someone who'd watched the other Wontner Holmes films wondering what all the fuss was about — he's always seemed overrated in the role to me — this one has raised my opinion of Wontner as Holmes considerably. Isla Bevan is a striking leading lady with an interesting resemblance to Ginger Rogers — later one of the cinematographers on this film, Robert de Grasse, became Ginger Rogers' favorite cameraman at RKO.

Hitchcoc Until Jeremy Brett came along to give the consummate portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, the character of Watson has been mired in buffoonery. In this early movie, it continues. Not only is he totally incompetent, he is seen as a wolfish thirties guy on the make. Of course, in the original story, Mary Marston does eventually marry Watson, but other than his sincerity and kindness, he doesn't seem so obvious. She is also seen as a bit too bold. The movie itself has some content to recommend it, but overall, it's made to be a bit silly. Holmes has none of the idiosyncrasies that make him so interesting. He's kind of a "normal guy," a bit boring. He takes none of the cynical delight in one upping Watson, although he talks about it. Obviously, this was done on a low budget, but stands up reasonably well for the the 1930's. The plot is a good one. I always wonder why, if you have a good story, written by an accomplished writer, why it is necessary to make such wholesale changes. The movie is set in the period of the 1930's with cars and outboard motors. This isn't as anachronous as some of the Rathbone Holmes movies which took place in the 40's. If you want to see another take on the Holmes persona, give this a look.

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 +.