I enjoyed watching the new film ‘Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows’ at the cinema, but I also had the sense that, somewhere close by, there was a much better film. Not a different film but a better execution of this one.

The most striking sequence in the film is a chase through the woods as Holmes and his party make their escape from the armaments factory. In slow motion, so the people are just moving and we can track the path of the bullets, it could be a scene from a wuxia movie, a greyed out northern forest replacing the bamboo groves of China. The scenes where Holmes and Moriarty anticipate the moves they will make in combat could have come from the same movie.

And it’s not that this is not an authentic Holmes. There is plenty of warrant in the original stories for the disguises, the theatricality, the hyper-activity and instability. Is there a deliberate echo of Heath Ledger’s Joker in Downey’s smudged make-up at the end of the fight on the train?

The problem, I think, is that the film is structured as a loose sequence of set pieces, without anything to hold them together. There is no geography or timeline. The characters do not pursue coherent strategies based on their objectives, the information they have available to them and their resources.  Events happen without any lead in and are then forgotten. The conception is that this is a game of shadows, but the characters do everything to draw attention. There are no consequences, and as a result, there is no emotional weight. We don’t care about the outcome because all the participants, including Holmes, are in the end just extras in a series of stunts.

So what might be this much better film? There would be three objectives: create a coherent background to support the set pieces; ensure that actions have consequences for the characters so that they are principals rather than extras; and follow through the conception of the movie in the action and character.

How might this go? Working backwards, the denouement at Reichenbach happens the wrong way round in the film. Moriarty’s plot is foiled and his wealth is confiscated before his final confrontation with Holmes. Nullifying the public consequences before the private duel is fought considerably reduces the stakes. The problem is; what is now the motive? Holmes has no need to put himself in this position because Moriarty is already defeated.

I would switch the sequence. I would drop the idea that Holmes steals Moriarty’s notebook at the armaments factory. It seems entirely implausible that there is time for the notebook to be sent to England from Germany and for Moriarty’s assets to be seized and yet no time for him to notice the switch. Better to leave the attack at the armaments factory a failed attempt from which Holmes and Watson narrowly escape. With the public outcome still in the balance and Holmes, injured, at a disadvantage, the struggle on the parapet and Holmes’ actions now make sense.

I would keep some set pieces such as Watson’s wedding and the horse ride with the gypsies across the borders, but drop the comic elements. These are opportunities to show what is at stake. Holmes’ visit to Moriarty to try to secure Watson’s safety serves the same purpose.

I would drop altogether the extended action sequences which take up valuable screen time in the first half. These noisy public brawls also undermine the film’s conception, a game of shadows. In their private duel, Moriarty has every reason to avoid theatrics. His strategy is to avoid publicity. He can play the long game. Moran’s air-gun would be the weapon. Holmes, on the other hand, has every reason to try to change the game and create a noise because he cannot otherwise get what he knows into the public domain. Yet in this first half we see Moriarty on offense, killing people noisily in public places, and Holmes on defense.

In their place I would add exposition to show how Moriarty has built his position and how Holmes has uncovered it. Both must have networks of informers and accomplices. We also need to understand why there isn’t enough to go public. Short set pieces, perhaps featuring these associates, to demonstrate Holmes’ skills and Moriarty’s character can easily be envisaged. I would drop Irene Adler. She is only here for name familiarity.