Enola Holmes: Film Review
By: Swahbir Nyunga
Tags: Henry Cavill, Millie Bobby Brown, Enola Holmes, Sherlock Holmes, Film Reviews

Millie Bobby Brown has a refreshing talent for acting. She’s one of the few reasons I found Stranger Things to be somewhat interesting. Unfortunately, her talent isn’t enough to save this clichéd, dumpster fire of a movie.

(This review is spoiler free)

I was very much looking forward to watching Enola Holmes. It had everything going for it — a brilliantly talented lead actress, a well-established fan-base, and Henry Cavill. Seriously, Cavill was horribly underused. But, as it turns out, good acting is no substitute for poor direction and scriptwriting.

Look, I’m not bashing Enola Holmes because it had a female protagonist. I’m all for strong female leads. But choosing to be ‘woke’ or diverse over developing an engaging story is a deadly mistake, and one this film makes.

I’ll be blunt: Millie Bobby Brown is the saving grace of this film. Her remarkable grasp of her craft is the only thing stopping this film from being a complete failure. She’s brilliant. Honestly. There’s actors thrice her age who have nowhere near the sheer volume of charisma and talent that she has. Every line was delivered with the utmost care and efficiency. But that’s the problem — her performance is pretty much the only good thing about this movie.

And the producers knew this as well. They kept her on-screen for as long as possible because, without her, this is no more than a poorly thrown together crime ‘thriller’. And that brings me on to another thing — why was Sherlock Holmes a part of this film?

I utterly hate this version of Holmes. He’s not the same cold, calculating detective he’s always been. And I’m not blaming Cavill for this. I love Henry Cavill. I’m blaming the writers for creating this imposter and naming him Sherlock Holmes. He’s lost his passion for detective work, the fervour with which he investigated, the lust for a crime to solve.

There’s none of the enjoyment that we got from the former Sherlocks. No more looking at someone and telling what they had for dinner the night before. No more walking into a room of people and knowing what type of coffee they had that morning. We’ve lost the arrogant, yet profoundly intelligent showman that Sherlock used to be. No more complex deductions or elaborate observations. Just loving chats and heartfelt conversations.

The thing is, we didn’t need Holmes to have a sister. The film could’ve been about an Enola Smith and it wouldn’t have changed a thing. In fact, it probably would’ve made the film more of a success. Making stories about relatives of popular characters typically doesn’t end well. Look at Boruto, the anime about Naruto’s son. Most fans of Naruto hate Boruto, and it’s basically the same story with Enola Holmes.

But I digress. This film is about Enola, so I should refrain from complaining about Sherlock.

I still can’t remember what the film was truly supposed to be about. Obviously, finding Enola’s mother, but there were several other side-plots: her mother’s revolution, the attempted murder, the murder case. There’s a cacophony of things going on, but none of it is terribly interesting. The storyline is muddled and murky. Enola’s unnecessary — and often distractingly irritating — 4th wall monologues add nothing of interest to the already incoherent story.

Rating: 3/10

Recommendation: Boring, incoherent and cliched. Avoid at all costs.