Enola Holmes 3 Finally Announced, Because Apparently We Need More Movies About A Teenager Who’s Smarter Than Everyone
Look, I get it. The world is on fire, the economy is a dumpster fire, and your 401(k) is basically a participation trophy at this point. So of course, the one thing that can save us all is a third installment of the Netflix franchise where a Victorian-era teenager solves crimes while breaking the fourth wall and reminding us that she’s, like, *really* woke for 1884. Netflix officially confirmed yesterday that “Enola Holmes 3” is in development, and I can already hear the collective groan of every person who’s ever had to sit through a family movie night where someone’s aunt insists on “just one more” because Millie Bobby Brown is “such a sweet girl.”
Let’s be real: the first movie was a pleasant surprise. It was a fun, fast-paced mystery with a charming lead and a Henry Cavill who looked like he was having the time of his life playing a Sherlock Holmes who actually has a personality. The second movie? Aka “Enola Holmes and the Case of the Forced Sequel That Forgot the Mystery Existed”? That was a hot mess of TikTok-era feminism, a romance subplot that felt like it was written by a Twitter bot, and a villain who was so cartoonishly evil I half-expected him to twirl a mustache and kick a puppy. But sure, let’s go for round three. What’s the worst that could happen? We get another movie where Enola solves a crime by literally *talking to the camera* for 90 minutes?
According to the official announcement, Millie Bobby Brown is back as the titular detective, Henry Cavill is somehow still contractually obligated to play Sherlock (even though his beard in the second movie looked like he was going through a breakup), and director Harry Bradbeer is returning to make sure every scene has at least one “girlboss” moment. The plot? Who knows. Probably something about a missing suffragette or a stolen corset. But here’s the thing: the Enola Holmes series is now in a weird spot. It’s not quite a kids’ movie (the body count is surprisingly high for a PG-13 flick), but it’s not exactly adult fare either. It’s that awkward middle ground where you’re watching a teenager outsmart literal Victorian-era detectives, and you’re supposed to clap because she’s a *girl*.
I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m saying it’s predictable. The formula is already set: Enola has a quirky hobby (like breaking into people’s houses), she meets a young man who’s either a love interest or a future victim, she has a “you don’t understand me” moment with her mom (played by Helena Bonham Carter, who is essentially playing herself at this point), and then she solves the crime by noticing something the audience definitely didn’t because the movie didn’t show it. Rinse and repeat. But hey, Netflix needs content. They’ve canceled everything else that was good (RIP “1899,” you were too weird for this world), so why not milk the one franchise that still gets people to click “play” on a Friday night?
The real question is: who is this movie for? Is it for the tweens who want to see a relatable protagonist who’s “not like other girls”? Is it for the parents who want a movie that’s not too violent but also not too boring? Or is it for the terminally online adults who still think “Sherlock” is the peak of television and will watch anything with a London fog filter? The answer is probably all of the above, which is why Netflix keeps greenlighting these things. They know that if you throw Millie Bobby Brown, some corsets, and a mystery that’s solved in the third act by a random bit of trivia, you’ll get a few million streams and a bunch of tweets saying “YAS QUEEN.”
But let’s not kid ourselves: the real star of these movies is Henry Cavill’s Sherlock. The man is giving us a version of the character that’s actually, you know, *likeable*. He’s not a brooding sociopath (looking at you, Cumberbatch) or a weirdo in a deerstalker (sorry, Downey). He’s just a guy who’s really good at noticing things and has a soft spot for his little sister. The second movie basically sidelined him for most of the plot, and the movie suffered for it. If “Enola Holmes 3” doesn’t give us more Sherlock, I’m going to assume the writers just don’t know what to do with a character who’s actually interesting.
Also, can we talk about the historical accuracy? The first movie had Enola solving a mystery about a missing lord. The second one had her taking on a matchstick factory and a suffragette plot. Both were fine, but neither really captured the gritty, chaotic energy of Victorian London. Where’s the cholera? Where’s the rampant classism? Where’s the fact that a teenage girl walking around London alone would have been immediately arrested or worse? Oh right, we don’t have time for that because Enola has to break the fourth wall and explain how feminism works to the audience. Because apparently, we can’t just *show* it; we have to have a character look directly into the camera and say, “And that’s why women should be able to vote.”
I’m not saying we need a gritty reboot. I’m just saying the movies have a habit of treating the Victorian era like a costume party rather than an actual historical period. It’s like the writers watched one episode of “Peaky Blinders” and thought, “Yeah, that’s good enough.” The result is a series that’s enjoyable in the moment but completely forgettable afterward. You watch it, you smile, you move on. It’s cinematic fast food—tasty but with zero nutritional value.
So what do we want from “En
Final Thoughts
Based on the latest developments, *Enola Holmes 3* feels like a gamble on charm over necessity—a sequel that risks treading water if it merely repeats the pattern of chasing its brother’s shadow. While Millie Bobby Brown’s magnetic presence and a sharpened focus on period feminism could still yield a sharper, more confident film, the franchise must now prove it has more to say than simply resurrecting a beloved, but exhausted, Victorian parlor trick. Ultimately, the real mystery isn’t who kidnapped whom, but whether a spin-off can evolve into a story with its own soul, rather than just a clever footnote to a legend.