Warning: This article contains spoilers for Enola Holmes 3.

When Enola Holmes premiered on Netflix in September 2020, the project seemed like an unlikely gamble. Adapting Nancy Springer’s young adult book series was already a bold choice; building an entire franchise around Sherlock Holmes’ teenage sister seemed even riskier. Yet the success was immediate. At the height of the pandemic, Millie Bobby Brown — who also served as producer — turned Enola into one of the few new Netflix intellectual properties capable of generating sequels, fandom, and international recognition.

The first film worked because it knew exactly what it wanted to be. The story followed Enola as she investigated the disappearance of her mother, Eudoria Holmes (Helena Bonham Carter), while escaping the control of her brothers, Mycroft and Sherlock, and becoming entangled in a political conspiracy alongside the young Lord Tewkesbury. It was light, witty, visually inventive, and, above all, charming.

Enola Holmes 2, released in 2022, attempted to mature alongside its protagonist. The investigation into a missing factory worker evolved into a retelling of the historic Matchgirls’ Strike, introduced Moriarty, and allowed the relationship between Enola and Sherlock to become the emotional heart of the franchise.

Now, four years later, Enola Holmes 3 attempts to take another step toward adulthood. Perhaps too large a step.

The premise is excellent. Enola travels to Malta to marry Tewkesbury, only to discover that Sherlock has mysteriously disappeared. What should have been a romantic celebration quickly turns into an investigation involving stolen gold from British military campaigns in Afghanistan, imperial guilt, aristocratic corruption, and the return of Moriarty, now hiding under a new identity.

On paper, everything sounds more sophisticated. In practice, very little works.

The central problem with Enola Holmes 3 is that it mistakes complexity for depth. Jack Thorne’s screenplay piles on revelations, twists, political commentary, and family drama at such a relentless pace that the mystery itself ceases to be entertaining and simply becomes confusing. The rapid-fire editing — already a trademark of the franchise — here becomes a crutch. Characters appear and disappear, clues emerge and vanish, and the film constantly seems afraid to allow viewers enough time to process what they have just watched.

There is also an unavoidable problem: Millie Bobby Brown.

Not because she is bad. Quite the opposite. Brown remains technically accomplished and clearly committed to the character she helped create. But some of the spontaneity that made Enola so appealing in 2020 appears to have vanished. The fourth-wall breaks, once delightful, now feel mechanical. The youthful charm has given way to a more calculated performance, and ironically, Enola becomes less interesting precisely when the screenplay attempts to make her more adult.

And then Henry Cavill appears.

Or, more precisely, reappears as the franchise’s greatest structural problem: Henry Cavill is simply too good as Sherlock Holmes.

From the very beginning, Cavill crafted a surprisingly effective version of the detective. Less arrogant than Benedict Cumberbatch’s interpretation, less performative than Robert Downey Jr.’s, and more human than almost any recent adaptation, his Sherlock possesses a rare quality: he genuinely seems to like people. In Enola Holmes 3, even though he spends much of the film missing, he dominates the narrative. And whenever he shares the screen with Enola again, the film instantly gains energy, humor, and emotional weight.

It doesn’t help that Sherlock is by far the most compelling character in this story.

The revelation that Moriarty orchestrated not only Sherlock’s disappearance but also manipulated Enola’s wedding carries enormous dramatic potential. Likewise, the exploration of gold stolen during Britain’s imperial expansion could have provided the basis for an excellent historical adventure. But the film never manages to balance youthful entertainment with political commentary. By the end, everything feels simultaneously overstuffed and superficial.

And yet, there is something almost admirable about Enola Holmes 3. It insists on believing that its protagonist can grow up, get married, mature, and still remain an adventure heroine. The ending makes that clear.

Yes, the film absolutely leaves the door open for another sequel.

After defeating Moriarty, recovering the stolen gold, and finally marrying Tewkesbury — who renounces his aristocratic title — Enola chooses to retain her independence, her surname, and her career. But the final scene introduces a new mystery surrounding the sinking of a ship called The Wrath of Adeline, strongly suggesting that Moriarty may not be gone after all.

The question is whether we actually need Enola Holmes 4.

Because after three films, the franchise’s greatest irony remains unchanged: Enola Holmes was created to prove that Sherlock Holmes did not need to be the protagonist. Six years later, it continues to prove exactly the opposite.

Perhaps that is the real solution to the next mystery: admitting that Henry Cavill remains the most interesting case this franchise has ever produced.