Down 867 this week

Sherlock Holmes Returns (1993)

TV Movie  -   -  Mystery  -  12 September 1993 (USA)
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 5.8/10 from 204 users  
Reviews: 9 user | 1 critic

Sherlock Holmes (Anthony Higgins) is awakened in modern times with a tale that he had invented a method of suspended animation that he had utilized on himself. Awakened by an earthquake, he... See full summary »



, (creator)
0Check in

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

a list of 28 titles
created 19 May 2011
a list of 21 titles
created 30 May 2012
a list of 2566 titles
created 14 Oct 2012
a list of 31 titles
created 7 months ago
a list of 25 titles
created 6 months ago

Connect with IMDb

Share this Rating

Title: Sherlock Holmes Returns (TV Movie 1993)

Sherlock Holmes Returns (TV Movie 1993) on IMDb 5.8/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of Sherlock Holmes Returns.

User Polls

1 nomination. See more awards »


Cast overview, first billed only:
Amy Winslow
Zapper (as Mark Adair Rios)
Joy Coghill ...
Ken Pogue ...
Eli Gabay ...
Lt. Ortega
Lt. Civita
Kerry Sandomirsky ...
Mrs. Ortega
Frabricio Santin ...
Jorge Varas ...
Jason Diablo ...
Ronald Hunt
Resuscitation Nurse (as Catherine Lough)
Respiratory Therapist


Sherlock Holmes (Anthony Higgins) is awakened in modern times with a tale that he had invented a method of suspended animation that he had utilized on himself. Awakened by an earthquake, he is helped by Amy Winslow, who lives at 1994 Baker Street in San Francisco. There he is joined by a new group of Baker Street Irregulars led by Zapper. His battles lead him to the evil Moriarty clan led by James Moriarty Booth. Written by John Sacksteder <>

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis







Release Date:

12 September 1993 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

1994 Baker Street: Sherlock Holmes Returns  »

Company Credits

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs


Sound Mix:


Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1
See  »

Did You Know?


When explaining to Doctor Winslow that his famous fictional exploits were based on fact, Sherlock Holmes tells her that his cases were "...rendered into over-dramatic narrative by an Irishman, named Conan Doyle." Holmes author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was in fact Scottish. See more »


Sherlock Holmes: Elementary, my dear... Winslow.
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

A dumb movie that is just about enjoyable - but Holmes fans will not be able to believe what they are seeing
3 May 2004 | by (United Kingdom) – See all my reviews

Dr Amy Winslow (you heard me - Winslow) is visiting Mrs Hudson when she accidentally knocks off the power in her house. This causes Mrs Hudson's secret to be revealed - that a man lies in a suspended state in her basement. The man wakes up and Sherlock Holmes is delighted to find that his formula for allowing suspended animation has worked! After readjusting to his new surroundings Holmes teams up with Dr Winslow (you heard me), who he detects has a sharp mind similar to his own, and immediately picks up an interest in a couple of unusual murders involving wild animals.

I tuned into this film fearing the absolute worst - I consider myself a fan of Holmes and the only film versions I will consistently come back to are those of Rathbone and Bruce. I was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed the film even if I couldn't not avoid just how silly it all was. I can understand why it was given the pilot treatment - each week a new case driven forward by fast detection, some fighting, fish out of water jokes and, dare I say it, possible romance with Winslow (you heard me). However I can also see why it wasn't picked up - it is silly, the plot is daft and it is difficult to see the humour being taken anywhere from here. Likewise the characters are pretty one-dimensional and look to have no real room to develop; sure you can see what they will do but their characters will not grow - only follow the well worn `will they, won't they' cliché.

What surprised me was the fact that it was actually rather enjoyable. The humour is what makes it work - jokes about misunderstanding over modern things could have been done rather clumsily but the script uses them well occasionally here. The best example is how the film has Holmes show off his deduction skills but gets it wrong by misunderstanding the significance of modern items around the room (thinking a policeman is kind to `short people' on the basis of an award from his Little League!), also a good joke about his sexuality. Of course this is not enough to make it a good film but it makes this less painful and a little bit of fun to watch. Generally of course it is all very weak and is easily one of the worst film versions of Holmes that I have seen for quite a while. Conan-Doyle will be spinning in his grave of course and purists (hell, even many vague fans) will be staring open-mouthed in disbelief. It is not just the updating of the Holmes' character to modern times (they even did that idea in the 1940's versions) but the fact that it turns Holmes into a jokey character that is to be used as a weekly bit of standard romantic/comedy/drama.

Higgins is hardly a good Holmes but he is an enjoyable lead. He holds himself up to ridicule well and it is only where he is required to deliver a more serious side to his character that he falls down and looks like he is unable to do it. Farentino is nice enough but the fate of her character is so obvious that it put me off (I'll wager a tenner that it would have been `will they, won't they' all round); there is no other reason to turn Dr Watson into the female Dr Winslow - they may even have toyed with the idea of having her be a Watson but they were worried of the confusion it may cause viewers - either that or they took the view that it was bad enough to desecrate a tomb without digging up the body and p*ssing on it as well! The support cast is OK but never really get above the TVM standard - Adair-Rios is OK (clearly hoping for a good sidekick role) and Pogue is an acceptable Moriarty despite the material given to him to work with.

Overall this is not a good film but it is reasonably enjoyable in a temporary, silly manner. It is a terrible Holmes film and it is no mystery why it was never picked up for a series, but it has a reasonable touch of humour that can just above cover the weaknesses for most of the time. I enjoyed it but it is a poor film and fans of Conan-Doyle's original work will feel like they are looking at a car crash but unable to look away.

13 of 20 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Recent Posts
Anthony Higgins “Sherlock Holmes Returns” HELP? slimbacchus
Discuss Sherlock Holmes Returns (1993) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for: