Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Love Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, the best of which among the masterworks of the crime fiction genre. Have always had a soft spot for 'The Sign of Four', not just for the iconic characters and duo of Holmes and Watson and the compelling story but also for the ingenious denouement, one of Conan Doyle's most fascinating antagonists and one of his greatest climaxes. Didn't care for the first Sherlock Holmes Hallmark film featuring Matt Frewer 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'. Like their adaptation of 'The Sign of Four' even less. And no, it's not only because Frewer has more screen time and the film is longer, those are the least of its problems. It really doesn't do this fabulous story justice and is a strong contender for the worst adaptation of 'The Sign of Four', which hasn't been adapted as much as 'The Hound of Baskervilles' but the Jeremy Brett Granada adaptation is especially great, actually one of my personal favourites of the Brett Sherlock Holmes adaptations. 'The Sign of Four' is not without its good spot. The best thing about it is Kenneth Welsh, whose Watson is the more faithful loyal, sympathetic and intelligent one rather than the buffoon that has been seen in other Watsons. Marcel Jeannin's suitably eccentric Thaddeus Sholto is the only other good performance. It starts fairly promisingly. Also found some of the locations suitably atmospheric, if perhaps not authentic, and the adaptation shot competently enough.Sadly, that is it for the good things. Other than Welsh and Jeannin, the acting, as has been said (there is not much new that hasn't been said already), is awful. Not just from Matt Frewer's far too arrogant, manic and too over-reliant on hammy humour Holmes, but even worse were Sophie Lorain's all over the place Mary Mortstan and Michel Perrin's over-acted Jones. It has been noted that the accents are atrocious, with Lorain and Perrin's accents being a mishmash of at least three different accents apiece and all done badly.For such a good story, 'The Sign of Four' is poorly adapted here. It's dull thanks to the lack of terror, tension or suspense (all completely absent after the promising beginning) and the pedestrian direction. Once again, the costumes are cheap. The editing is sometimes choppy and the music strives for authenticity but comes over as contrived and often unnecessary, especially in the flashbacks. The dialogue is stilted, over-emphasises the humour to hamminess and fails to bring intrigue and life to something as good as 'The Sign of Four'. The story is generally dull here and told in a vague manner at times. Never thought it would be possible to foul up 'The Sign of Four's' ingenious denouement, the antagonist's back story that while difficult to adapt and often criticised for being overlong (don't agree personally) shows brilliantly how he came to be that way and the ruthlessness, the suspenseful climax and the fascinating character of Jonathan Small. Believe it or not, this adaptation fouls up all the above. The denouement couldn't been less tense and more dull than it is. The back-story actually suffers and worse for what it's criticised for in the story and feels anti-climactic. The climactic scene that is one of the highlights of the story is rushed and staged in a way that even a B-movie western would reject, absolutely no need or excuse for straying so drastically from something so perfect and doing so so amateurishly. Jonathan Small is very underdeveloped and there is very little of his menacing ruthlessness or the slight sympathy one feels when it is revealed how he came to be the way he does, here he is a caricature and Edward Yankie not only comes over as not very charismatic he plays the character too broadly, none of the nuances seen in John Thaw's brilliant portrayal (by far the best Jonathan Small of all the adaptations) in the Brett version. Tonga is not scary at all here either. Overall, very disappointing. 3/10 Bethany Cox

There is no other word to describe this debacle than absolutely shocking! And yet another remake/adaptation for the why bother bin? It seems to me that remakes are getting worse all the time.Sherlock Holmes is like Shakespeare - done well it's brilliant, done badly it's as bad as it gets and this one really is as bad as it gets.It's also one of those - do the Americans really believe the British all either talk either like the Queen or Dick Van Dyke?Anyone with any appreciation of film at all would be well-advised to stay well clear of this turkey, it's a real stinker.Ignore this advice at your peril and don't say I didn't tell you so.

The Sign of the Four was wonderfully filmed and excellently acted. Matthew Frewer has a new, fresh take on Holmes that is different from Jermey Bret's serious almost depressed character of Holmes. Frewer's Holmes knows he's smart and has a bit of fun with it. He makes jokes about other characters without them even knowing about it and he has a fun sense of "Yes I know I'm brilliant .... I'm Sherlock Holmes" to his acting. The character of Holmes is kept true to the original stories and the film has you intrigued with this Holmes character until the credits role. wonderful I would recommend the series to any one who enjoys Sherlock Holmes. Superb.

A lightweight adaptation, but humorous and engaging. Watson appears to enjoy anyone getting "one up" on Holmes, an enjoyment viewed with cynicism by an irrate Matt Frewer. The last half hour was engaging and illuminating. A worthy effort.