murder scene shockingly graphic


I have watched this movie several times (fortunately I was able to buy the CD 2 years ago) and it is among my favorites. However--watching it the other night I was shocked and upset at the scene where the blood splatters on the five-year-old Sherlock. This graphic and unexpected sequence was--in my opinion-- gratuitously violent.

I think for a movie that is overall light-hearted and witty, that Meyer went a little too over-the-top with this.

Opinions? Comments?

reply

A movie whose primary plot deals with recovery from cocaine dependency and whose secondary plot is a kidnapping and forced addiction, could hardly be described as light-hearted in my book. And there was no more wit than commonly encountered in normal life as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding your other point, Freud determined that the trauma Holmes experienced as a child was the reason he became a detective, began using cocaine, mistrusted women, and hated Moriarty. All of this is understandable considering what was portrayed on screen. It was a powerful scene in my opinion. Just as powerful as the earlier scene of the nun lying there with her throat cut from ear to ear. Hardly a light-hearted moment.

reply

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, and I haven't read the book in a while, but I am relatively sure that in the original book, Holmes' mother was having an affair, and the husband did kill her, AND her lover, (then himself, I think) but her lover was not James Moriarty, but instead some unknown man, and poor Moriarty was the one who had to break the news to Holmes, who was away at school.

The events still freaked out both Sherlock and Mycroft, but the reason Moriarty became "Evil" in Holmes's cocaine induced visions was a simple "blame the messenger" syndrome. There's even a line in the book (before they find this out) where Holmes' says the only time the Professor was an evil genius was when it took him three weeks to teach Holmes some mathametic theory in calculus, or something like that.

Admittedly, the movie ending was a bit more dramatic, but I kind of wish they had kept the original one.

reply

Interesting point.

reply

Murder IS usually shockingly graphic, especially when a firearm is involved. No use in letting people think it is a bloodless crime.

reply

Yeah, but for a PG movie these days, they would tend to minimize blood, and use camera angles that don't show all the graphic details.

reply

...Meyer went a little too over-the-top with this.
I think Ross wanted to stress the psychological impact the murder had on the boy. Thus the blood spray which I thought it was understandable in the circumstances.

reply

You're right that it didn't match the tone of the rest of the film. It wasn't that it was graphic, just a departure from the way earlier killings had been depicted in the movie.

It struck me at the time that it was a mistake, but it's the memory of a murder witnessed by a young boy--the murder of his mother by his father, no less--so perhaps it should shock the audience too.

reply

I just watched the film and I'd gone through the murder sequence frame by frame since it happens in about three extremely quick shots... you see the mom sitting up in bed (completely clothed lol) screaming; the father with a shotgun (cool shot with blue windows in the background) and his gun fires; the third shot is blood splattering on pillows.

Then they show the young Sherlock, but I don't recall seeing any blood hitting him. He wasn't exactly standing in the middle of the room.

But it was definitely a surprise gorefest there for about one second lol

reply

I was actually quite surprised by the scene.

reply