Skip to main content

The best place to hide a needle is not in a haystack, but among a lot of other needles.

The Sign of Four
(1983)

(SPOILERS) The first of two TV movies featuring Ian Richardson as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest creation, and a very upbeat, personable Sherlock Holmes he makes too, making for an effective contrast with the more burdened Jeremy Brett incarnation of a few years later. The Sign of Four is lightweight but efficient, its biggest stumble being the manner in which it reframes the plot so as to present most of the salient facts upfront and as a consequence impinge on the mystery and sleuth's deductions.

               
A huge contretemps surrounded the production of this and The Hound of the Baskervilles regarding laying claim to the detective's cases. Producer Sy Weintraub, who had previously focussed on Edgar Rice Burroughs, including Ron "Doc Savage" Elly as a TV Tarzan in the '60s, had bought the rights only to discover they were about to expire in England, with Granada poised to make their (often definitive) adaptations. A subsequent out-of-court settlement saw Weintraub walking away with his costs on the truncated project covered and a profit too.


Something of a shame, as while no one is likely to claim a protracted stint in the role would have been anywhere near as essential as Brett's take, Richardson's performance goes a long way to embolden an otherwise competent but unremarkable production. Weintraub is reported to have planned a series of twenty-two two-hour (with ads) adaptations, and besides the two that got made (Richardson said he signed for six), Charles Edward Pogue also penned The Prince/Napoleon of Crime (featuring Moriarty). This later became the "rather awful" (Poe’s wordsHands of a Murderer starring Edward Woodward. The writer's intervening '80s saw an array of prolific projects, meanwhile, including Psycho IIIThe Fly remake (heavily rewritten by Cronenberg) and the underrated D.O.A. remake. 


Whatever Pogue’s virtues elsewhere (and The Hound of the Baskervilles fares much better), his decision to divest The Sign of Four of its investigative flair rather cripples any narrative tension. It doesn't drag exactly, but neither does it grip. Director Desmond Davis (Ray Harryhausen's Clash of the Titans) does a serviceable job, with a nod towards a gothic, Hammer tone at times, but his most notable decision is to perma-flood the exterior (and sometimes interior) locations with authentic period fog.


WatsonWhat a very attractive woman.
HolmesIs she?

David Healy offers an amiable enough Watson (Richardson much preferred working with him to Donald Churchill in Hound; Healy was unavailable due to appearing on stage in Guys and Dolls), although Cherie Lunghi’s Mary Morstan is so far out of his league, it’s ridiculous. This may be the reason that, while Watson is evidently smitten ("That’s a rather liberal dosage. For Miss Morstan’s benefit I presume" notes Holmes of his partner's cologne), there’s nary a hint of reciprocation or anything further transpiring between them. 


Holmes is amused by his friend's behaviour, but while he's clearly unswayed by the opposite sex, it's in a jolly rather than dismissive way ("Watson, the most winning lady I ever knew was hanged for poisoning her three small children for their insurance money"). Also in terms of regulars is Terence Rigby's Inspector Layton… Well, kind of. He was evidently playing Lestrade (the character's name is dubbed), but this was changed when Ronald Lacey was cast as the character in Hound. Layton's very much in the mould of idiots of the Yard.


LaytonOne legged man and a short savage? It’s straight out of some penny novel.

Comparisons with the Brett adaptation four years later, one of the best of that series, then firing on all cylinders, are inevitable. It had the considerable boon of John Thaw guesting as Jonathan Small; not that Joe Melia isn't very good here, but he doesn't bring the air of menace Thaw does. The Brett version also managed to avoid causing offence with its depiction of Tonga, casting Kiran Shah rather than treating us to John Pedrick (an Ewok in Return of the Jedi) in black face. It doesn't help any that this Tonga is also a savage pigmy (probable) cannibal. Richardson is delivered a nice bit of pre-Downey Jr action when he rushes in to save Mary from Tonga's clutches, wrestling with him and all but throwing him out of an upstairs window. Later, he manfully tussles with a knife-wielding Small and emerges victorious.


HolmesI never guess. It is destructive to logic.

There's much to relish in Richardson's portrayal. His brio is infectious, be it lacing his conversation with innuendos when speaking to a boat-owner's wife while disguised or winding up an oblivious Watson when he returns to 221B, the latter scoffing food and demanding he wait until Holmes returns ("If you’re going to force me to stay Watson, you might at least offer me a muffin"). He's generous of nature and spirit, be it towards the Baker Street Irregulars ("You'll make a first-class Scotland Yard Inspector one day" he tells Wiggins) or the bloodhound they enlist to track down the source of creosote ("Good old, Toby" he exclaims enthusiastically). Davis includes a nice visual conceit here, cutting progressively through modes of transport as Holmes and Watson converse; from walking, to riding in a rag-and-bone cart, on bicycles, and in the back of a coal truck.


HolmesOhhh, I'm drawn to these sordid affairs like a magnet.

Also of note is the presence of Radio 4's illustrious Holmes Clive Merrison as Bartholomew Sholto. And that, if Mary Morstan is spared a fate worse than Watson, she is compensated with part of the prize Agra treasure (the Great Mogul) by Holmes. The rest doesn't end up on the bottom of the Thames, since Holmes locates it in Small's peg leg. Will he do the honours and fence the Mogul for her? A solid Sherlock Holmes tale, then, but mostly for Richardson's exuberant take on the role. Be warned however, if tempted by the Blu-ray release; despite a 4K restoration, Second Sight have seen fit to cut the top and bottom of the picture to render it in widescreen. The dolts.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.