OVERVIEW
Sherlock’s younger and far more charismatic sister is back! Enola (Millie Bobby Brown) is in Malta, minutes from marrying Lord Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge), still undecided about trading the Holmes name for the life of a lady, when she learns her brother has been kidnapped. Hours later, her mother-in-law is taken too, and the wedding is put on hold while Enola investigates once again, addressing the camera as always, as the case pulls her into the country’s complicated history and a cover-up that may reach back to Tewkesbury’s late father.
BACKGROUND
Like the second film, Enola Holmes 3 is not an adaptation of Nancy Springer’s young-adult Enola Holmes Mysteries novels and has most of the cast and writer returning. The major absence is director Harry Bradbeer, whose style, carried over from the series Fleabag, defined the franchise. Director duties were passed to Philip Barantini, who had just reached immense acclaim with the series Adolescence. He carries a reputation as the complete opposite of what the series was known for, always pushing single continuous takes and handheld cameras to their limits. Even he was surprised when he got the call, but ultimately embraced the opportunity, compelled to take the series into darker and more grown-up territory.
THE REVIEW
The previous two films worked particularly well due to their delightfully gleeful nature. Both of them had political themes and killings, but they knew what kind of movie they were and were smart about it, never trying to pretend to be anything more than fun adventures. At first glance, the third one follows the formula quite closely, with a lot of focus on the character dynamics rather than the mystery and the political elements behind it, and once these are revealed, they aren’t particularly deeper than what was in the two previous films.
Similarly, the franchise DNA returns, and for the most part, it is enough to make the film passable. Millie Bobby Brown reprises her best role yet (sorry, Eleven), with the same delightful attitude and earnestness. She remains watchable as she addresses the camera or walks us through the hints she has seen. Her relationship with Earnest (yes, that is his name) Tewkesbury remains the central glue of the franchise, and the moments that develop it are the film’s best, even if a pivotal moment uses a flashback to their earlier interactions in previous films rather than simply relying on new material. Aside from the romance, things are far less effective.
A problem this film has to combat from the start is that the first two films already feel like one completed arc. By the end of the second film, everything the first film established had its natural conclusion, and Enola had already beaten this universe’s take on Sherlock’s classic arch-nemesis, Moriarty. She had earned her brother’s respect, proven herself an equal (or better!), and both she and Tewkesbury had proclaimed their love for each other. For this third one to work, it had to increase the stakes and possibly be treated as a closer of a trilogy. As we know, this is a successful franchise for Netflix, and they don’t seem anxious about wrapping it up anytime soon, so even when there is development and plot closure, it doesn’t feel like the film is moving that much.
Worse still is the mystery, far less intriguing than the last two, and carrying no big surprise. The villain’s plan feels elaborate but never particularly intelligent or impressive; quite the contrary, it is unbelievably fragile and easy for Enola to figure out. She never feels like she is being challenged, more like simply going through the motions of a normal investigation, never committing one error in judgment. The worst part is the moment when, after the villain’s plan fails, they take Enola right where her brother is being kept. Isn’t the villain supposed to be clever?
Maybe the plan didn’t need to be the most challenging, but its consequences still needed to be felt, especially around Sherlock and Lady Tewkesbury’s kidnapping, which fails to heighten the urgency of the situation. Sherlock is especially mistreated by the script, which gives him an unjustifiable infantile and stubborn posture prior to his sister’s wedding, while also never revealing how he was beaten and kidnapped in the first place. Lastly, the whole history of Malta aspect, which could have been a great way to explore a country’s struggle with colonialism, comes off as artificial and unearned. We never get a true sense of the country’s exploitation and why Mikiel (Joe Azzopardi)’s fight for a free Malta is so important.
Occasional moments of humor are effective, a lot involving Himesh Patel’s Dr. Watson. Helena Bonham Carter is on autopilot, especially in her improvised wedding bits, but that already puts her miles ahead of Henry Cavill’s disinterested performance. At least his frustration at having nothing to do fit the character. Daniel Pemberton’s eclectic score is sorely missed, even if the new composers Aaron May and David Ridley occasionally hint his themes. When Pemberton’s themes are not being stated, it all sounds largely anonymous, a shame since the first score was anything but. As for Philip Barantini’s direction, it always feels out of his element, especially in action sequences, where frenetic editing is confusing and labored. There is not one thrilling chase sequence, nor a cleverly orchestrated sequence. Instead, distracting continuity errors, even in normal dialogue sequences, show that perhaps Barantini wasn’t ready yet to step off his long-takes mode.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Barantini wanted Enola Holmes 3 to be to the Enola franchise what Prisoner of Azkaban was to the Harry Potter franchise, but the result is far closer to the dull Order of the Phoenix. It feels more serious than the previous two without feeling more mature, just blander and less fun. The theatrical, graphic-novel style of the first two is back, along with most of its old traits, and having a style at all, even a recycled one, already puts the film ahead of most Netflix originals. Enola and Tewkesbury share some sweet moments, but even at its best, it feels like an unnecessary echo of what came before, muted and stripped of its charm.