In September 2020, I claimed that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s iconic character Sherlock Holmes has enjoyed a remarkable resurgence in popularity in the 21st century. My opinion hasn’t changed, and I can offer ample evidence to support that assertion. During the last few years, there have been many new adaptations, spin-offs and derivative works, including television series such as “Sherlock in Russia” (2020), “The Irregulars” (2021), “Shekhar Home” (2024), “Sherlock & Daughter” (2025), “Watson” (2025), and “Young Sherlock” (2026).
The last feature film revolving around the main characters was 2018’s mystery-comedy “Holmes & Watson” from Sony Pictures Releasing through its Columbia Pictures label. At least two low-budget indie productions have been produced since then, including “Sherlock Holmes: Mare of the Night” and “Sherlock Holmes and the Angels of Vengeance,” both from 2025. But wait — there’s more: Japan’s Production I.G. created “Moriarty the Patriot,” an anime television series based on the mystery manga series in 2020; and Afoot Games produced “The Beekeeper’s Picnic,” an indie point-and-click adventure game based on the Sherlock Holmes stories, in 2025.
And then there’s the Enola Holmes movie franchise, based upon the young adult fiction series The Enola Holmes Mysteries by Nancy Springer. Springer wrote 10 books in the series — along with one short story — starting with “The Case of the Missing Marquess,” published in 2006. According to the author’s website, “Enola Holmes and the Clanging Coffin,” published earlier this year, is the 10th and final book in the series.
“Enola Holmes 3,” directed by Philip Barantini, was released on July 1 on Netflix. The third installment in this franchise comes with a conspicuous downgrade in storytelling quality. Compared to the previous entries, this film falls flat, lacking both the effervescent charm of the main character and the bouncy energy that invigorated the earlier adventures. “Enola Holmes 3” is too comfortable and conventional to shake its own banality, leaving viewers with tedious, uninteresting characters and tired and predictable plot points.
The movie opens with a wedding in Malta — except, it doesn’t. Having already delayed her arrival at the ceremony due to pre-nuptial jitters, Enola (Millie Bobby Brown), dashes off in a carriage only to be impeded by the timely arrival of Dr. Watson (Himesh Patel), her brother’s friend, who reveals that Sherlock (Henry Cavill) has been abducted. All this information is conveyed through a series of awkward flashbacks and narration, with Enola frequently breaking the fourth wall to speak directly to the audience. Although this element was present in the previous movies, in “Enola 3” it becomes excessive and grating.
Meanwhile, poor Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge), Enola’s fiancé, is wandering about pouting because he thinks he’s been left at the altar. Later that night, Tewkesbury’s mother, Lady Tewkesbury (Hattie Morahan), is kidnapped and there is a fire at the Hotel Cornelisse where the wedding party had been staying.
Enola knows that Sherlock was working secretly on a case while attending the wedding in Malta. She discovers a few clues in Sherlock’s room and has an encounter with a dying Maltese soldier who mutters a single word. All these pointers soon lead her — almost accidentally — to Professor Moriarty (Sharon Duncan-Brewster). This tale’s version of Sherlock’s nemesis is scripted as a caricature villain, prone to melodramatic monologuing and fanatical machinations. Duncan-Brewster does a fine job with the role, but the way the story’s antagonist is written feels blatantly cartoonish.
Woven into the mystery is a background story about British colonialism and looted gold. Though the intention may have been honorable, here the subject matter is cumbersome. It is affixed to the main storyline in a most inelegant manner.
None of the characters are particularly pleasant. The romance between Enola and Tewkesbury feels shallow and spurious. The viewer will discern very little in the way of emotional stakes and character growth. The new movie adds nothing significant to the franchise, and in many ways the main character seems less responsible and capable than in prior films. Now may be a good time to point out that this film is not based on any of Springer’s tales — and that Enola never gets married in the book series.
Remember: Springer’s Enola Holmes Mysteries is marketed as a young adult fiction series of detective novels. This first film in the franchise targeted that same audience – particularly young women who can find an unconventional, intrepid hero in Enola. In the previous films, Brown depicted the character as someone who is willing to rebel against outdated societal mores. Enola rivals her genius brothers in intellect and ingenuity and she exhibits superior empathy and compassion. She is fiercely independent.
In “Enola Holmes 3,” the character is too eager to forfeit her independence.
“Enola Holmes 3” is tolerable escapist fare, and that’s fine — but it is a disappointment given the success of the previous films. It is regrettably unexceptional for a character that can deliver so much more, given a worthy script.
On the other hand, “Enola Holmes 3” is a splendid marketing campaign for a vacation in Malta. I’m already packing my bags.
Lee Clark Zumpe is entertainment editor at Tampa Bay Newspapers, a Tomatometer-Approved Critic, and an author of short fiction. He can be reached by email at lzumpe@TBNweekly.com.