The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case (1932)

 "In such embarrassing matters as fainting women, I must defer to you!"

Let's just come out and say it: this is a truly terrible film. Stilted direction, awful acting all round (except for the ever-reliable Miles Malleson), no incidental music, an action-filled final act that manages to be desperately dull.

Homes and Watson don't even appear until more than twenty minutes into what is only a seventy-three minute film. The first twenty-odd minutes give us Jonathan Small's backstory, the tale of the treasure, the Sholtos and why Mary Morstan is the rightful heiress... why?! This completely removes all elements of mystery and the deductive process from the film, which is sort of the key selling point for Sherlock Holmes, surely?

And yet, it's a fascinating time capsule. It's 1932, and no attempt is made to set the film in the past. But I suppose this makes sense. In 1932, the time of Conan Doyle's original stories was not yet "period": it was within living memory, the novel of The Sign of the Four being barely forty years old. Plot-wise, India was still under British rule, so the story just about works.

Then there's all the moments that remind us how long ago 1932 was. The reference to tiger hunting. Mary fainting. Mary telling Watson that "I think I'll have a good cry." But no... these things still don't make this awful film worth watching. Today, this blog is performing a public service: I've endured this film so you don't have to. And never again...