Not one of the better Holmes As a huge SH fan,I've seen nearly every film about the Great Detective,good,bad,and indifferent. And I've seen a gamut of actors take on the role of Holmes,from the great(Jeremy Brett,Basil Rathbone,Christopher Plummer)to the good(Peter Cushing,Eli Norwood)to the so-so(Nicol Williamson,Ronald Howard)to the pits(Roger Moore,Jack Palance,Tom Baker,Matt Frewer). It's hard to define where Rupert Everett stacks up. He has the height,the cold clinical nature,the drug use down pat. But he is simply too young for this role. In 1902,when this story is set,Holmes would be in his late 40's,according to the Canon. This Holmes doesn't look to be a day over 30! And Ian Hart is totally miscast as Watson-he is too small and scrawny,tho he is shown to be a competent and forceful presence when need be. The plot itself is interesting-a tag team of identical twin psycho-sexual killers,and the London of 1902 is presented well-foggy streets,the chasm between the classes,and Scotland Yard's gradual acceptance of the SH method in their own work,tho it is surprising to see Lestrade,tho still an imbecile in his field,as a "ready to beat a confession out of you" thug. The notion of a woman shrink,especially one well versed in the mysteries of sexual perversion(and who smokes,also),would have been unthinkable to the stuffy Edwardians of that day. All in all,tho,not a bad effort.