It’s always nice to be surprised by a movie.

Take 2020’s Netflix offering “Enola Holmes.” Based on the first in a series of YA novels by Nancy Springer, the film follows the titular girl – sister to the famed detective Sherlock Holmes – as she finds herself embroiled in a mystery she herself must solve. I went in expecting something passable, and instead was served a charming and wholesome cinematic treat. And I wasn’t alone in feeling that way – the film was well-received by critics and audiences alike.

So of course we were going to get a sequel.

“Enola Holmes 2” sees Millie Bobbie Brown return as the titular girl detective. Harry Bradbeer is back to direct, while Jack Thorne has returned to write the screenplay (though it should be noted that this new film is not a direct adaptation of any of the Springer novels). And while out heroine is a little older and a little wiser, the sense of fun that marked the pervious installment is still very much present.

Mixed in with that fun, however, is a nod to some of the very real circumstances of the time and place in which the film takes place. Now, this is a fairly glossy treatment of the bleakness endured by the lower socioeconomic classes in late 19th century London, but it does draw on real events as the core of the story it tells. A story told rather successfully, I might add.

Justice for the Justice League!

Specifically, for director Zack Snyder’s vision of the team – a vision that was undeniably disrupted by the circumstances surrounding 2017’s “Justice League.” When personal issues led to Snyder’s walking away from the project during post-production, replacement director Joss Whedon wound up putting his own very distinct stamp on the proceedings … for better or worse.

Mostly worse, as it turns out.

But now, in what is a first in the vast and varied world of big-budget superhero cinema, we’ve been given a chance to experience something far closer to Snyder’s original intent – a do-over. Thanks in no small part to massive internet outcry from fans, the powers that be at HBO gave the keys back to Snyder (as well as a hefty budget, around $70 million) to turn the film back toward his original intent, retrofitting and reshooting and ultimately restoring Snyder’s vision.

The end result is “Zack Snyder’s Justice League,” a four-hour extravaganza that far outshines the film that came before it. It’s better. A lot better. Now, if you want to argue that it’s bloated and unnecessary, I won’t fight you. Think a dangerous precedent has been sent regarding the power potential of dedicated fandoms, no matter how potentially toxic? Could be. None of that changes the fact that this new film, as overwrought and overproduced as it may be, is a significant improvement.

It’s got many of the usual issues that dog Snyder’s work – the washed-out color palette, the ubiquitous slo-mo, the jittery, hard-to-follow battle scenes – but even those concerns are lesser here than they’ve been in previous films. And the storytelling gains – particularly when it comes to certain character arcs – more than offset all of that.

For me, it boils down to this. I basically shrugged my shoulders at “Justice League” in 2017. I genuinely enjoyed “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” … and I really wasn’t sure that I would.

Few literary characters are as beloved as the famed detective Sherlock Holmes. From his beginnings in the tales spun by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to the multitude of stage and screen adaptations we’ve seen featuring the character over the ensuing decades, audiences have lone adored the eccentric crime-solver.

Of course, with a century’s worth of stories, it can be difficult to find new ways to bring the character to life. We’ve seen so many iterations – in what ways might one breathe new life into the Holmesian mythos?

Well … how about a sister?

“Enola Holmes,” newly streaming on Netflix, offers viewers a new path through this well-worn landscape. Based on the first book in a series of young adult novels by Nancy Springer, the film is directed by Harry Bradbeer from a script adapted by Jack Thorne. It introduces us to the titular Enola Holmes, a teenage girl whose intellectual talents are comparable to those of her far more famous older brothers.

There’s an undeniable charm to this film, a basic wholesomeness that is utterly appealing even as it occasionally veers into the realm of the cornball. It is goofy and fun, with a healthy sprinkling of empowerment and a top-notch collection of supporting talent, all in service of an absolute star turn from Millie Bobbie Brown, who plays the titular Enola and offers up a performance that is indicative of great things to come.

Come with me, won’t you? Come with me to a simpler time. To 1996, when sequels were considered mildly profitable punchlines and the idea of constructing massive cinematic franchises was largely contained to the Spielbergs and Lucases of the world.

That was the year we got “Mission: Impossible,” an adaptation of the 1960s television show of the same name. It was a Tom Cruise action vehicle that did well both commercially and critically and that could have been that. A pair of sequels that caught top-tier directorial talents either after their prime (John Woo for MI2 in 2000) or before it (J.J. Abrams for MI3 in 2006) made it seem like maybe we should stop.

Instead, the franchise has carried forward with three of the best action movies of the past decade. This unlikely wellspring has given us “Ghost Protocol,” “Rogue Nation” and the latest installment “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” … which might be the best one we’ve seen so far. It once again relies on coherent, well-executed action set pieces, a few moments of winking dialogue and – most importantly - Cruise’s complete willingness to hurl himself headlong into harm’s way if it might allow him to win our love.

DC’s top team arrives onscreen with “Justice League”

Man of Steel' a sadly unsatisfying misfire

We live in an entertainment age where everything old is new again. Iconic worlds and characters are constantly being revisited. Current trends often lead to reboots that attempt grittiness or edginess. Of course, those attempts have become ubiquitous, hence losing the very edge that they're searching for. And worst of all, sometimes you get edginess for the sake of edginess.