Netflix’s Enola Holmes is undoubtedly one of the streaming giant's most reliable original film franchises. At a time when several of the platform’s big-budget blockbusters have struggled to establish lasting cultural impact, the adventures of Sherlock Holmes’ younger sister have consistently drawn audiences.

Following the success of 2020’s Enola Holmes and its well-received 2022 sequel, the third instalment returns with familiar faces, a new director, and a fresh mystery set against the sun-soaked backdrop of Malta. However, the latest chapter largely sticks to the winning formula that made the previous films popular.

Philip Barantini, best known for Adolescence, takes over directing duties from Harry Bradbeer, with Jack Thorne once again penning the screenplay based on Nancy Springer’s young adult novels.

This time, Enola (Millie Bobby Brown) finds herself balancing two life-changing developments. She is preparing to marry Lord Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge) in Malta, but the celebrations are abruptly interrupted when Sherlock (Henry Caville) disappears under mysterious circumstances. His disappearance sends Enola on another globe-trotting investigation, while confronting difficult questions about her future.

One of the strongest aspects of Enola Holmes 3 continues to be Brown's energetic screen presence. She portrays an older, more confident Enola who has firmly established herself as a detective in her own right. Her trademark fourth-wall-breaking narration remains intact, lending the film the playful charm that has distinguished the franchise from more traditional Sherlock Holmes adaptations.

Brown also shares an increasingly natural chemistry with Partridge. Their romance, which has slowly developed over the course of the trilogy, finally takes centre stage as Enola wrestles with the implications of marriage in Victorian England. The emotional conflict is more layered than it initially appears, with Enola questioning whether becoming Lady Tewkesbury might come at the expense of her identity as a Holmes and her career as an independent detective.

Cavill's Sherlock, while absent for much of the film because of the central kidnapping plot, still brings authority whenever he appears. Meanwhile, Himesh Patel's expanded role as Dr. Watson is refreshing. The dynamic between Watson and Enola is enjoyable as they join forces to solve the mystery.

Helena Bonham Carter also returns with her trademark eccentric energy as Eudoria Holmes, while Sharon Duncan-Brewster delivers another commanding performance as Moriarty, even if the screenplay doesn't always fully utilise the character's potential.

The biggest change this time is the setting. Moving away from Victorian London's familiar streets to colonial Malta gives the franchise a welcome visual refresh. Carnival celebrations, Mediterranean coastlines and grand colonial architecture provide a striking backdrop for the investigation, making the film feel distinct from its predecessors despite following a similar narrative structure.

Perhaps the most surprising element of the film is its willingness to engage with Britain's colonial past. While the previous instalment incorporated the real-life Matchgirls’ Strike into its story, Enola Holmes 3 shifts its attention to British imperial rule over Malta, while also touching upon the Anglo-Afghan Wars and the legacy of the British Raj. Through Watson, local Maltese characters and Enola's own evolving perspective, the film acknowledges the inequalities and consequences of empire without turning the adventure into a history lesson.

That said, the film isn't without its shortcomings. The mystery itself never reaches the complexity or emotional payoff of Enola Holmes 2. Although the investigation contains its share of clues, twists and action sequences, the central puzzle is relatively straightforward, making the eventual revelations easier to anticipate than previous cases.

The franchise is beginning to repeat familiar beats. The balance between detective work, witty narration, family drama and elaborate action sequences remains largely unchanged, leading to a sense of diminishing returns. While the shorter runtime — under 100 minutes compared to the previous films’ two-hour-plus durations — helps maintain momentum, it also leaves some plot threads and character arcs feeling underdeveloped.

Barantini’s direction retains many of the visual flourishes introduced in earlier entries, including animated illustrations and stylised clue visualisations, but his approach lacks the distinctive personality that Harry Bradbeer brought to the first two films.