IMDb > "Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century" (1999)

"Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century" (1999) More at IMDbPro »TV series 1999-2001

Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century: :  -- A defrosted Holmes teams with a robotic Watson and a female Inspector Lestrade to stop the criminal rampage of Moriarty's clone.


User Rating:
7.5/10   264 votes »
Your Rating:
Saving vote...
Deleting vote...
/10   (delete | history)
Sorry, there was a problem
MOVIEmeter: ?
Up 12% in popularity this week. See why on IMDbPro.
View company contact information for Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century on IMDbPro.
1 | 2
Release Date:
18 September 1999 (USA) See more »
A defrosted Holmes teams with a robotic Watson and a female Inspector Lestrade to stop the criminal rampage of Moriarty's clone.
1 nomination See more »
User Reviews:
Definitely okay, but didn't really grab me See more (16 total) »


 (Series Cast Summary - 4 of 10)

Michael Dobson ... Additional Voices / ... (26 episodes, 1999-2001)

Jason Gray-Stanford ... Sherlock Holmes (17 episodes, 1999-2000)
John Payne ... Dr. John Watson (17 episodes, 1999-2000)
Akiko Morison ... Inspector Beth Lestrade (17 episodes, 1999-2000)

Series Directed by
Robert Brousseau (25 episodes, 1999-2001)
Scott Heming (10 episodes, 1999-2001)

Paul Quinn (unknown episodes, 2000-2001)
Series Writing credits
Robert Askin (4 episodes, 1999-2001)
Ken Pontac (3 episodes, 1999-2001)
Phil Harnage (2 episodes, 1999-2001)
Martha Moran (2 episodes, 1999)
Reed Shelly (2 episodes, 2001)
Sandy Ross (1 episode, 1999-2001)
Eleanor Burian-Mohr (1 episode, 2001)
Terence Taylor (1 episode, 2001)

Arthur Conan Doyle (unknown episodes)

Series Produced by
Andy Heyward .... executive producer (1 episode, 1999-2001)
Robby London .... executive producer (1 episode, 1999-2001)
Michael Maliani .... executive producer (1 episode, 1999-2001)
Elizabeth Partyka .... executive producer (1 episode, 1999-2001)
Judith Reilly .... coordinating producer (1 episode, 1999-2001)
Series Original Music by
Eric Allaman (26 episodes, 1999-2002)
Series Film Editing by
Gayle M. Grech (unknown episodes)
Su Van Slyke (unknown episodes)
Series Production Management
Stacey Gallishaw .... executive in charge of production (1 episode, 1999)
Emily Wensel .... production supervisor (1 episode, 1999)
Series Art Department
Stan Gadziola .... storyboard artist (3 episodes, 1999-2000)

Norm Ryang .... property designer (unknown episodes)
Series Sound Department
Mark Lanza .... supervising sound editor (unknown episodes)
Rick Sanchez .... foley artist (unknown episodes)
Debby VanPoucke .... sound editor (unknown episodes)
Series Visual Effects by
Dean Jackson .... visual effects artist (26 episodes, 1999-2001)
Series Animation Department
Theron Smith .... character designer (17 episodes, 1999-2000)
Series Other crew
Phil Harnage .... executive story consultant (1 episode, 1999)
Donald F. Roberts .... educational consultant (1 episode, 1999)
William C. Turner .... production coordinator (1 episode, 1999)

DistributorsOther Companies

Additional Details

USA:30 min (26 episodes)
Sound Mix:

Did You Know?

Chief Inspector Grayson:Er, listen Lestrade, not a word of this to the Commisioner, eh?
Inspector Beth Lestrade:Oh, of course not, about that submersible I requested?
See more »
Movie Connections:


This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.
Definitely okay, but didn't really grab me, 3 July 2015
Author: StoryMaker

I certainly wouldn't say this show is "bad", and I can see where some of the appeal lies, but it kind of underwhelmed me. I watched a few episodes, and thought it seemed kind of fun, but it just didn't do enough for me for me to persist.

The thing about the show is that the concept seems so fun. Sherlock Holmes' extremely well-preserved-in-honey corpse is reanimated 200 years later and he resumes being a detective, this time with a female Inspector Lestrade and a robotic Watson by his side. The thing just feels like the show doesn't really "have fun" with its goofy premise. It seems to take itself way too seriously - not that it's dark or anything, just that it plays everything very straight, almost like it's acting like there's nothing weird about the situation when there obviously is. And this just doesn't work for me. It's a show with a ludicrous and yet very charming premise, but it's very unwilling to "let loose" and really have fun with it. I'm not saying this show has to be completely jokey or silly or anything, but at least have the characters react the tiniest bit realistically to the extremely odd fact that a 200-year-old detective is alive again.

Another big problem is Sherlock Holmes himself. He's from 200 years ago, and yet all he has to do is listen to a few teaching CD things to "get him up to speed", and then he's COMPLETELY comfortable in the 22nd century and capable of solving crimes involving technology he couldn't have even dreamed up before. I'm sorry, but People will accept absolutely absurd things if it leads to a more interesting story, but in this case it makes things LESS interesting. Imagine - the great super-amazing detective Sherlock Holmes has been brought back to deal with crime, but is disabled by being a "fish out of water" and can't really help until he relearns everything he'd ever known. Talk about character development! And wouldn't it be interesting if, despite being taken down a MAJOR peg, Sherlock still manages to use his amazing observational and deductive skills to "save the day"? But now, instead of being the veritable god of detective work, he's someone who has to put in a lot of effort and often rely on help from his friends to succeed. Wouldn't that be extremely interesting? But no, this show doesn't do that, and as a result it feels like HUGE wasted potential. Basically, this show is asking you to believe something ridiculous, but it's not so you can have a more interesting story, it's so you can have an exponentially LESS interesting story.

While this show DOES have merits and can certainly be entertaining, it's hard for me to overlook what it COULD'VE been if it could have just followed up all the way on its premise. I understand that may have been "beyond the scope" of what the show was trying to be (basically a sci-fi adaption of Sherlock Holmes stories for kids), but if they had wanted to do that, why not just make Sherlock be BORN in the 22nd century? Having him be from the past adds almost nothing in this show aside from a huge feeling of wasted potential.

Basically, it's not a bad show, but they shouldn't have created such an interesting premise if they weren't going to follow up on it all the way. It's good enough, but it's SO far from being as good as it could be that I just can't get into it. Just my two cents tho'. Check it out if you think it sounds interesting.

(By the way, the traditional animation in this show is fine, but the badly incorporated CGI for buildings, cars, etc. is really cheesy and bad.)

Was the above review useful to you?
See more (16 total) »

Message Boards

Discuss this movie with other users on IMDb message board for "Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century" (1999)
Recent Posts (updated daily)User
Mill Creek to release series on DVD on February 21st! Hooray! tkettler
Different Victorian adventures? si-ga-sahab
they should release the show on dvd tony909ca
How many episodes? Bullz2384
See more »


If you enjoyed this title, our database also recommends:
- - - - -
The Seven-Per-Cent Solution Sherlock The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes The Woman in Green Terror by Night
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
Show more recommendations

Related Links

Episode guide Full cast and crew Company credits
External reviews News articles IMDb TV section
IMDb Animation section IMDb USA section

You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update. Clicking the 'Edit page' button will take you through a step-by-step process.

You may add a new episode for this TV series by clicking the 'add episode' button