It's interesting that two separate TV movies of 'The Sign Of Four' were made within four years of each other. The '83 version starring Ian Richardson as Sherlock Holmes and the '87 version (this one) with Jeremy Brett playing the lead role. Given the short time span in between it's fun to compare and contrast the two versions without having to caveat different eras of production.
The main reason I prefer the '83 version is because I like Ian Richardson's friendlier version of Holmes that operates with good humor versus Brett's more rude and snappy Holmes, although he does seem to lighten up a bit as the movie goes on. The character of Tonga is a mostly ridiculous 'wild man' trope in both but in '83 they just use makeup and false teeth while in '87 they use a full-on mask that seems obvious and anti-immersive.
The '87 seems to have a higher budget with some nice flashbacks to India as the final reveals are made, though it also drags on a bit in that section. Story-wise I've heard '87 is more true to the book which I've never read. '83 seems to make some accommodations for a bit happier ending which I enjoyed.
Either way this is a fun Sherlock Holmes story and both versions are worth the watch.
The main reason I prefer the '83 version is because I like Ian Richardson's friendlier version of Holmes that operates with good humor versus Brett's more rude and snappy Holmes, although he does seem to lighten up a bit as the movie goes on. The character of Tonga is a mostly ridiculous 'wild man' trope in both but in '83 they just use makeup and false teeth while in '87 they use a full-on mask that seems obvious and anti-immersive.
The '87 seems to have a higher budget with some nice flashbacks to India as the final reveals are made, though it also drags on a bit in that section. Story-wise I've heard '87 is more true to the book which I've never read. '83 seems to make some accommodations for a bit happier ending which I enjoyed.
Either way this is a fun Sherlock Holmes story and both versions are worth the watch.