Presumably the Last of These Cases

I’m not going to lie, I really don’t know what I expected from this film. I watched the first Enola Holmes on a lark, because it was on NetflixOriginally started as a disc-by-mail service, Netflix has grown to be one of the largest media companies in the world (and one of the most valued internet companies as well). With a constant slate of new internet streaming-based programming that updates all the time, Netflix has redefined what it means to watch TV and films (as well as how to do it). and I had nothing better to do. “A film about Sherlock HolmesOften cited as the world's greatest (fictional) detective, this character was introduced in 1887 (in A Study in Scarlet) and has gone on to appear in hundreds of stories, films, shows, and more.’s younger sister? Well that sounds stupid, but I’m sure I’ve watched dumber.” It was watchable enough, with a light and fun story that worked in context. The film didn’t really stick with me though (likely because I wasn’t a teenage girl who had grown up reading the YA novels this film was based on) and, had there never been more films from the Enola Holmes series, I doubt I would have thought twice about it.

Instead, though, there were two. We got Enola Holmes 2 in 2022, and that film was a real travesty. Not based directly on any specific book, this was a sequel going off vibes, with writer Jack Thorne deciding to do their own Enola Holmes fan fiction. The worst part was the introduction of Moriarty, Sherlock’s nemesis, who is hamfistedly shoved in here so she can be Enola’s nemesis instead. The character doesn’t work, and the film falls apart as soon as she’s introduced.

Which made going into this third entry in the growing Enola Holmes franchise all the more worrying. Would we get something watchable, like the first film, or would we end up with another messy, slapped together film that barely feels like it knows what it’s doing while it writes Sherlock fan fiction? As it turns out, it can be both, as we get a very watchable first act that then quickly falls apart as the movie bends over backwards to turn Enola into her older brother, all while once again battling Moriarty because, clearly, that was such a good idea the first time. It’s just as bad as I feared, and I really don’t know why Netflix keeps making these movies.

This third Enola Holmes entry opens in Malta where Enola (once again played by Millie Bobby Brown) is about to get on a carriage and head off to her wedding to Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge). She’s having second thoughts, though, as she doesn’t want to have to give up her life as a consulting detective, getting into trouble and solving mysteries, all because she’s married into a noble family and took their name. Even her brother, Sherlock (a returning Henry Cavill) seems down on the idea, thinking she’s losing herself in this marriage.

Things take a turn, though, when Enola is forced to skip the wedding because her brother has been kidnapped. Somehow someone got the drop on him and Sherlock is now missing. Enola, though, finds some clues scattered around and realizes that Sherlock has been communicating with her, giving her what she needs to build a case and find his kidnapper. But she has to work quickly, especially after Tewkesbury’s mother is taken as well. Someone has a beef with both Enola and Tewkesbury, and the deeper she digs, the bigger this conspiracy becomes.

Enola Holmes 3 makes a number of mistakes during its runtime, but the first big one is moving its action out of London and into a country we know little about. The London we got in the last two films felt lived in, with Enola making a home of it there, alongside her brother and his own consulting detective work. Taking the character out of London and putting her into a city (and countryside) she doesn’t know only serves to make the character feel lost and unable to cope, which isn’t really what you want from a character who is described by the other characters in the film as “just as good as Sherlock”. Clearly she’s not.

Part of the issue also is the fact that this film, like the second one, isn’t based on any particular novel from the Enola Holmes series. The mystery for this three-quel was invented whole cloth, and we can just say now that screenwriter Jack Thorne (returning for this film) doesn’t really know how to write good mysteries. What he writes is a series of simple clues followed by big twists, none of which really work in context. He has to spoon feed the audience what is going on, while at the same time making a mystery that would be unsolvable to anyone not from Malta around the turn of the century. It’s not satisfying, it’s annoying.

Maybe this could work if Enola herself were fun to watch, but honestly her character is quite annoying this time around. Chalk some of this up to Millie Bobby Brown, who has always felt like a weird fit for this character. She seems perpetually shocked by big mysteries put to her character, while at the same time she lacks the self assurance to be able to carry a character who has to be as smart (if not smarter) than Sherlock Holmes. Brown tries desperately, and sometimes her natural charisma helps some scenes, but on the whole her performance here is not able to carry the film.

Not that there’s much to really carry here. This is another Moriarty tale, and frankly this take on Moriarty sucks. She’s supposed to be an equal to Sherlock (and Enola), but Sharon Duncan-Brewster's Moriarty is just awful. She’s not written like a genius, and the film has to twist itself into knots to justify any of her actions. Plus, Duncan-Brewster overplays every scene she gets as Moriarty, distractingly trying to chew scenery that doesn’t need to be chewed, sucking all the fun out of the character in the process.

The only times the film actually feels like it had its footing is when it ignores the mystery entirely and focuses on Enola and Tewkesbury. The two actors are good together, with natural chemistry that sells their love story. If this could have just been a romance, without all the messy mystery bits (that don’t work) and action sequences (that aren’t fun) it might have been an enjoyable time. But, then, it really wouldn’t be an Enola Holmes film at that point, would it.

The one thing I think that the film does actually nail is its production values. While I won’t speak towards how period accurate anything in the film is (as that’s not my specialty), I will say that the film looks great. The locations are well constructed and feel lived in, the landscapes are gorgeous, and the costumes are really well done. Even if the film isn’t period accurate it’s at least accurate within its own constructed world, and that world looks good. The film doesn’t appear cheap, but for what appears to be a $20 to $30 Mil film the crew did the most they could with their money.

It’s just a pity that the resulting film can’t match the designers’ ambitions. The film looks great but is otherwise empty, shallow, and insipid in equal measures. This is a bad film wearing a very nice looking skin, the kind of film you’ll put on to play in the background and then ignore for the most part until Enola, as is her way, turns to the screen to tell you exactly what you need to know. But then, that does explain why Netflix made the movie: this is the exact kind of brainless content slop that Netflix wants. It’s a film you put on and ignore, which is Netflix’s bread and butter.

Enola Holmes 3 is as vacant and terrible as you could expect, not only because this is what Netflix wants from their content, but also because this is a tired three-quel to a series of films that already weren’t very good. It was probably too much to expect this film to rise to the occasion and succeed where Enola Holmes and Enola Holmes 2 failed. I just didn’t expect it to be this bad. But then, why should I think it would be otherwise. That’s my mistake, really.