Enola Holmes

 

DIRECTED BY-: 
Harry Bradbeer

STARRING-: 

Millie Bobby Brown 

Henry Cavill 

Sam Claflin

YEAR OF RELEASE-: 

2020

PREMISE-: 

When Enola Holmes-Sherlock's teen sister-discovers her mother missing, she sets off to find her, becoming a super-sleuth in her own right as she outwits her famous brother and unravels a dangerous conspiracy around a mysterious young Lord.

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I have always been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes. I've read almost all of his stories, I loved the BBC TV show and I even enjoyed Guy Ritchie's films. However, ‘Enola Holmes’ did nothing for me as a fan. This could probably be because Enola Holmes didn’t even exist as a character in Arthur Conan Doyle’s original novels. She’s been invented and forced into the Holmes’ family in recent years after a series of Young-Adult novels. 

Some questions really bugged me regarding the existence of this film, like - if the creators really wanted to tell the story of a woman protagonist in this universe, then why didn’t they choose Irene Adler, a tough anti-hero who has outsmarted Sherlock on many occasions and is perhaps the only woman in the world Sherlock has genuinely loved? Was it really necessary to create a new character altogether and build the world around her, rather than making the character fit in an already developed world?  

I suppose the points above and the ones I am about to make won't bother you as much if you're just a casual viewer. But as a passionate fan of the world of Sherlock Holmes, this movie often came across as insincere, hollow and entirely surface level to me.

But first, let me get the positives out of the way. The fast paced screenplay, the aesthetic, and the performances prevent the film from feeling boring. With the runtime being under 2 hours, the film doesn’t overstay it's welcome or feel bloated. The film will most likely prove to be an entertaining watch if you’re just looking for something to scratch your ‘adventurous’ itch. 

Now,

The Problems-:

• The grit and bleakness of an industrial and polluted 19th century London is absent. The set pieces feel too polished and embellished. London here is more resemblant of modern London than it is to London in the 1800s. There is no atmosphere or world building that would give us the sense of how high the crime rates have gotten. Several set pieces (like vehicles) are also historically inaccurate.  

• There is not one moment where the 4th wall breaking by Enola is actually funny or required. It feels cringe and pretentious. Its sole purpose is exposition dumps which could have been done in a thousand different and better ways. 

• Traditionally, Sherlock Holmes is really good at his detective work but he struggles at relationships, handling his drug problems, and he is often rude to people. He is a lanky fellow who's very hard to put up with or work with (which Benedict Cumberbatch embodied perfectly). Therefore, I just couldn't take buff Henry Cavill as Sherlock seriously because Sherlock Holmes was never meant to be charismatic, muscular, or a gentleman to everyone. Similarly, Mycroft Holmes was never a complete arsehole either. He was more uptight and was certainly more authoritative than Sherlock but he was never someone you wanted to punch in the face. At the end of the day, you knew that Mycroft was a good and sympathetic man. He just presented more pragmatic solutions to things. But here, maybe because the writers didn't have the creativity to come up with an original antagonist on their own, Enola Holmes has to deal with Mycroft, who is presented as a misogynist, sexist and an uncaring person, which is severe character assassination. Meanwhile, Sherlock is reduced to a background entity who doesn’t really take any actions integral to the plot, which was very disappointing to watch. 

• The screenplay starts off excitingly well and wastes no time in introducing characters and storylines but then it reaches a point where illogical things start to occur and our characters meet accidentally (the two main characters are coincidentally meet in the same compartment of the same train) or get immensely lucky (both characters jump off of the speeding train and don’t procure a single scratch). Enola goes from one highly secured place to another and isn't questioned or stopped. It is highly doubtful that a regular 16 year old girl in 19th century England had this much liberty or authority to enter royal palaces without having her background verified.

• Speaking of more historical inaccuracies, we are also introduced to Edith, a black woman who runs a public Jiujitsu training facility. Sherlock visits her place to politely ask her about the whereabouts of Eudoria and Enola. At the end of this scene, He has the option of forcing answers out of her by blackmailing her over the banned books she has in her shop. But, he chooses not to do so. However, even after seeing his amicable approach, Edith belittles him, insults his intelligence and says that because he isn’t interested in politics, he wouldn’t be able to even comprehend the issues of society. This scene is VERY incongruous to say the least and doesn’t achieve anything from a story point of view. 

• According to Eudoria, the reason she left Enola without informing her about her cause was because ‘’It wasn’t safe’’. But this doesn’t make sense because-

1. In the starting of the film, we are shown that Eudoria has made many efforts to make Enola strong, capable, fearless and independent. Then Did Eudoria seriously think that her daughter, who has become street-smart and adventurous, was going to sit idle and NOT search for the person who was closest to her? Does Eudoria not know the characteristics of her own daughter? And if Eudoria KNEW that Enola was instinctively going to search for her, then how is allowing Enola to wander alone in England not putting her in MORE danger than before? 
2. Why didn’t Eudoria tell Sherlock and Mycroft her plan to fight for the reform bill and order them to take care of Enola? Even if we disregard ''Misogynistic'' Mycroft, I am pretty sure that Sherlock would have no problem babysitting his own sister. So couldn’t Eudoria and Sherlock have conjured up some story to tell Enola about how her mother has some work in the city and will be back in a few days?  

• The film very often backs away from making Enola Holmes face consequences for her actions. For example, at one point, a character gets shot in the chest because of a decision Enola makes. But, a few seconds later, we learn that he was wearing a protective layer beneath his clothes that saved his life. Remember when Sherlock's actions caused the death of Mary (John Watson's wife) and he was completely ostracized by his best friend John which led to him turning to drugs? Yes, he faced CONSEQUENCES. Now, i'm not suggesting the film should've gone THAT dark of a route but based on the amount of life-jeopardizing decisions she makes throughout the film, she faces almost zero repercussions for the same. In fact, the film frequently rewards her stupid decisions with accomplishments. Because of this, among many other things, Enola doesn't really seem to grow as a character or learn a lesson by the end of the film. Her character ''journey'' starts with wanting to find her mother and escaping Mycroft, and ends with finally finding her mother, escaping Mycroft, helping the Women's suffrage moment AND saving a young man's life. Enola affects the world and characters around her but the world and characters NEVER seem to have an impact on HER. There is no internal conflict or turmoil within her, just a lot of harmless, surmountable and lazy external conflict which she easily overcomes. After a while, this becomes extremely frustrating to watch. 

• The thing that makes mystery films or detective stories gripping and compelling are the unfolding of the mysteries themselves. More often than not, the clues to the larger puzzle are in front of the audience’s eyes but we habitually overlook them or don’t pay attention to them. When the protagonist joins the clues together and solves the enigma, we are spellbound because we are reminded of our own inabilities to be attentive or pedantic enough to notice something which exists in front of us. In 'Enola Holmes' however, the catalyst which carries the plot from one clue to another is the scrambling and unscrambling of letters and words. This works in solidifying a connection between Enola and her mother but it also works as a disadvantage for the film. Since this ability is present only among the Holmes household, the audience has no insight whatsoever regarding the clues or the functioning of those clues in solving the mystery. This not only alienates the audience from figuring out the plot but also makes the story feel incredibly lazy, since the writers could basically introduce ANYTHING in the story through the excuse of scrambling letters, and the audience would have no basis or reference to question it.

RATING -: 3/10