'Enola Holmes 2' movie review: Millie Bobbie Brown's mystery film is enjoyable with one caveat

Harry Bradbeer's 'Enola Holmes 2' brings back Millie Bobby Brown's titular heroine and the feisty younger sibling of Sherlock Holmes. The first film, scripted byJack Thorne (who returns for the sequel), was a supremely enjoyable romp across Victorian London through the eyes of its young protagonist, played with vivacious energy by Brown, who has in recent years cemented her place as one of the most watchable young actors in Hollywood right now. The first film established Enola as a fiercely independent girl not particularly fond of the constraints the British society of the late 19th century put on women. She also became an able detective in her own right, and a finder of lost people.

The sequel introduces a whole new mystery for Enola to solve, and new villains to fight. Enola is approached by a young girl whose sister is missing. She worked at a match factory where the women working have been dying in droves. The owners attribute the cause to typhus, but the real culprit might be something else. The women are not only poor but also, well, women. So not many pay heed to whatever concerns they might have. They are powerless to do anything about it either way.

The central mystery is just intricate enough to keep you interested, though not exactly a head-scratcher. The first film, too, was not a mystery that Agatha Christie would have been proud of, but like in the sequel, it got the job done: which was to provide a challenging puzzle for Enola to work out.

Brown essays Enola with unrelenting sass and energy. She is, once again, an absolute delight to watch. Her asides from the camera could have seemed forced, but her twinkling eyes and expressive face sell them.

This time, Henry Cavill's Sherlock Holmes gets a lot more screen time and character development. The dynamic between the two is also given more depth, with both tired of being on their lonesome. The original had a Sherlock we had not seen ever before -- gentle, sensitive, and even caring. Yes, he was indeed a far cry from the cool machine-like detective in Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, but who cares? The sequel exposes who Sherlock is beneath that calm exterior.

The search for the missing girl leads Enola on a merry chase across London and encounters powerful men in positions of power. Among them is David Thewlis's Superintendent Grail, with the actor again eerily embodying the sloven, unconscientious archetype he has perfected with projects like 'Fargo' (the TV series, that is) and 'The Sandman'. He just stops being a sinister, compelling villain due to the predictability and bluntness of his actions.

However, the film does pull off a surprise when it comes to the (real) villain. A certain arch-nemesis of Sherlock may be pulling strings from the shadows.

I really enjoyed 'Enola Holmes 2'. My only, slightly nitpicky complaint is the story appears to be following the same feminist throughline when it comes to Enola -- girls/women are as clever as boys/men. In the 22nd year of the 20th century, it should be obvious. In fact, it is, I presume, obvious for a majority of the film's audience. And yet, Enola, as good as she is as a heroine, is deprived of that nuance, that imperfectness, which made, for instance, Phoebe Waller-Bridge's 'Fleabag' (the standard for the fourth-wall-breaking heroine) that brilliant. She is written as just flawless, and her villains are bumbling fools.

Contrast this with Sherlock himself, who in Doyle's original stories could be dispassionate, disagreeable, and even cruel in his remarks. He was certainly brilliant, but those negative qualities brought him down from that pedestal.

That aside, 'Enola Holmes 2' is a lot of fun. If you liked the original, you cannot go wrong with this one.