The most memorable MOVIE MURDER SCENES

Kill, how easy it is to say. Certainly easier than writing a list about it. Killing is an everyday thing on screen. This is a topic for many publications and even film literature. And always with this type of selection some important scene will be missed. Creating a description of the most suggestive sequences, where one person takes the life of another or a third, aimed at creating an impression of horror and shock, often also moving, means a difficult choice. There is a certain simplification of the task: it does not say that the more brutal and gory the scene, the better the emotional result on the part of the viewer. One moment of murder can have more impact and meaning than mass murders in a typical slasher, gore movie or ordinary “stock” where the corpse is too dense and the mother’s head (sometimes literally) served on a plate.

Much depends on the dramaturgy and climate, context, convention, meaning or justification of a given murder. The performance of the actors and the work of the director also play a significant role in building the effect. Sometimes such scenes can also have a negative impact on the viewer. Fascination with the crime shown may be born. After all, there have been cases of murder inspired by a film record, and the cinematic matter also draws from authentic killings. Below is a subjective list of the most interesting and memorable on-screen kills. In some descriptions, references were made to other scenes that could not be included in the general list due to their volume. The sequence of the scenes listed is random.

WARNING: MANY DETAILED SPOILERS!

No Country for Old Men (2007)

The Prologue to the Coen Brothers’ Film: An Introduction by Anton Chigurh. The character with the face of Javier Bardem kills two people at the beginning almost at the same time, which gives the viewer an idea of what kind of individual he will be dealing with during the screening. First, Anton is stopped by a policeman and taken to jail. At the station, the officer reports the arrest over the phone, not seeing that Anton has moved the handcuffs between his legs. He comes from behind the oblivious and inattentive policeman and starts strangling him with handcuffs. Both bodies fall to the floor, the strangled cop fights for his life, he struggles with all his might, but to no avail. The killer beneath him doesn’t stand a chance; grinning, he obviously enjoys taking the young officer’s life. Chigurh breathes a sigh of relief when it’s all over, as if he’s only sweating a little from a rather strenuous but enjoyable job. 

The second notable killing scene occurs when Chigurh, while hunting Moss, meets Carson (Woody Harrelson), who also wants a suitcase full of money. Carson, a hustler and small-time gangster, knows what kind of person Anton is, but despite this, he allows himself to be surprised by the murderer in the hotel. His confidence and nonchalance suddenly evaporate like the air from a flat tire; he knows his days are numbered. But he’s still trying to save his own skin, clumsily trying to bargain with the killer who holds him at gunpoint. Chigurh dismisses the arguments with mocking retorts – he is the master of the situation, he is in charge, he decides. No matter what attitude Carson took towards his opponent, he would not come out unscathed. When Moss calls to talk to Carson, Anton makes use of his peculiar weapon again.

Carson’s blood runs down the floor, the killer, taking Moss’s call, keeps his shoes from getting dirty. In the above-mentioned scenes, we see that killing for Anton Chigurh seems like a routine, an ordinary job to be done, like the morning toilet. Killing a human comes to him as easily and naturally as washing his hands or closing the lock on the door, so sometimes he makes it more pleasant and spices up by breaking his own code. When necessary, he will take the life of an innocent person who stands in his way, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a law enforcement officer or an ordinary truck driver. Anton is simply a very skilled killer, acting emotionlessly, methodically, following only his own rules, which he adapts to the occasion.

Irreversible (2002)

Seven (1995)

David Fincher’s painting is all about styling the killings after they’ve been committed. We see John Doe’s victims, and we hear about the way he took their lives in conversations. The deeds of a mysterious killer are characterized by gruesome sophistication. Interestingly, the final murder is shown, seemingly typical, but in very extraordinary circumstances. The killer provokes the policeman to lynch. He had a plan, a perfect crime plan. It is a kind of warped morality play and, at the same time, a precise film device. In the last scene, three acting styles meet, which created different attitudes of the characters – Kevin Spacey’s inhuman calmness (Doe only gets upset when he counterargues that he killed innocent people), the experience and burnout of Morgan Freeman (Sommerset) and Brad Pitt’s rhetoric and buffoonery (Mills). . The scene would not be so significant if not for the acting trio, the ingenuity of the screenwriter and the professionalism of the director. The mysterious John Doe kills people of his choosing who he believes are guilty of one of the seven deadly sins. A monstrously obese man was driven to death from overeating. Criminals’ lawyer, before he bled out, had to decide what part of the body should be cut off. Dealer and drug addict vegetated for a year tied to a bed. A prostitute was forcibly penetrated with a blade by a client. The model ended up dead with a cut face. Two kills left. Unexpectedly, the perpetrator turns himself in to the police. He promises to lead Mills and Sommerset to the two bodies that are supposed to be in the desert outside the city. During the journey to the scene, two police officers engage in a discussion with the killer about the motive for his crime and the categorization of good and evil. Mills does not hide his contempt for John Doe, he is convinced that the criminal is an ordinary psychopath looking for media applause.

Sommerset, on the other hand, senses that they are dealing with someone else and the killer is playing his game all the time, which involves both cops. He’s not wrong. Doe reveals his latest crime. The score conducted by Howard Shore intensifies the climate of panic. A courier arrives with a package addressed to Mills, who is left alone with the murderer while Sommerset decides to open the package. Inside is the head of the young detective’s wife. Doe reveals to Mills what he did to his wife. He states that he envies his life, explaining that he is a sinner himself, so because of jealousy he must die at the hand of a policeman. David falls into despair, he does not want to believe the killer’s words, he wants Sommerset to contradict them. However, the senior detective knows what he saw and only wants to stop his partner from lynching. The maniac meticulously pursues his intention, revealing that the woman was expecting a child. He is convinced that after this information, a completely broken Mills will reject all life ideals, including those regarding his approach to police service.

Fighting with himself, he shoots John Doe, paradoxically leading to his victory.The murderer died for the sin of jealousy, and in the process “killed” Mills’ soul for his sin anger. The method of killing in this case is in the background. What counts are the facts that led to it, and they shape this murder. As has been described many times, the background of the final events is also significant. For the duration of these scenes, the gameplay moves to a desert bathed in sunlight, without rain and other elements of an urban metropolis. It also means that everything has become clear and visible, the cards have been revealed, there is nothing left to hide. It is not without reason that the climax of Seven is one of the most depressing in the history of cinema.

Leon the Professional (1994)

For starters, there is a scene in which Norman Stansfield (the great Gary Oldman) ruthlessly kills the debtor’s family along with himself. A corrupt and drug addicted DEA agent suspects that a small dealer on his “leash” has appropriated some of the goods. It must be returned by noon the next day. The next day at the same time, Stansfield shows up armed with his industry colleagues. Under the influence of intoxicating capsules, he breaks into the debtor’s apartment and kills his family. When he tries to defend himself and sneak away, he is “riddled” with bullets by the psychopathic cop, who even shoots the dead man until his magazine is empty. That’s right, Stansfield is a madman with a badge who shoots innocent citizens with passion the way he listens to Beethoven with inspiration. He’s really crazy, but he’s certainly not stupid, as evidenced by the second fragment that touched many viewers’ hearts – Leon’s death at the hands of an unpredictable antagonist.  

We hope that Leon and Matilda will escape Stansfield’s manhunt. The hitman understood that the girl was the most important to him and that it was thanks to her that he felt the taste of life. He efficiently eliminates the opponent’s people, enables Matylda to escape from the building, and cleverly impersonates one of the officers. Unfortunately. Stansfield unmasks the title character and wants to get him without witnesses. When Leon, on the verge of breaking out of the trap, heads towards salvation, we are convinced that he has outsmarted the enemy. But when the cunning Stansfield suddenly appears behind his back, follows him, with a perfidious smile, pulls out a pistol … it is already known that Leon will not see Matilda, and it was so close to succeeding.

Eric Sierra’s moody music paints the sadness in this scene. Again, we get a seemingly template murder, because a shot from a gun (admittedly in the back), but the atmosphere, the actors’ performances and the film’s extraordinary plot make this moment both suspenseful, touching and irritating. The hero, who despite his profession won genuine sympathy, against the wishes of the viewers did not survive, even though the chance was at hand. It is true that Stansfield also dies, blown up by the dying Leon, but the feeling of inconsolation and even regret remains in the viewer until the end of the projection and long after it.

Blade Runner (1982)

Deckard (Harrison Ford) is tasked with eliminating the replicants, which means he’ll also have to kill female models as well. The scene in which the hunter eliminates Zhora is one of the most memorable sequences in Ridley Scott’s work. Deckard discovers that Zhora, pretending to be human, works as a stripper at the club. Posing as a stuttering controller, he gets into her dressing room. The replicant realizes who he really is, attacks him and runs away. Deckard gives a street chase. Zhora tries to blend in with the crowd but fails to lose it. As she runs, Deckard shoots her twice in the back, the bullet reaching the replicant, which crashes into the glass-fronted storefronts, shattering them. At this point, the scene slows down, and Vangelis’ music underlining it suggests that killing a replicant is no different than shooting a human woman. The “executor” himself, who has long doubted the moral validity of his profession, is aware of this. The fact that the feelings of replicants are more human than those of humans can be seen during the death of Pris, also shot by Deckard. I mean Roy Batty’s (Rutger Hauer) reaction to seeing his beloved dead. However, the darkest scene in the entire film, highlighting the total futuristic decadence, is Roy’s killing of Tyrell. The leader of the replicants appears in this sequence somewhat as an angel of death, which was bound to appear sooner or later.

With the forced help of engineer J.F. Sebastian gets to the headquarters of Tyrell, the creator of rogue androids. The key here is the chess game between the subordinate and Tyrell. Roy’s hints decide Sebastian’s victory, which results in permission to enter. Nexus-6 demands an extension of its creator’s life, and dialogue reveals the replicant’s superior intelligence, almost on par with Tyrell himself. When his hopes are dashed, Batty shows his killer instinct. In front of Sebastian he pushes Tyrell’s eye sockets into his skull with his fingers (the same way Leon tried to kill Deckard). The “son” kills the “father”. In the background, an artificial owl, candles in the dark and Sebastian running away, who will also share the fate of the titan of genetics. An enigmatic expression appears on Roy’s face in the elevator. In the special version of the film with additional scenes, you can see the replicant’s behavior after the murder of Tyrell and Sebastian in full scope. As Roy starts the elevator, he feels doubt bordering on fear at what he has done. Only when he looks at the starry sky does he seem to be reconciled to the fact that he killed his creator and his employee.                

Scarface (1983)

Tony Montana (the sensational Al Pacino) is something of a gangster Macbeth. He walks over the dead to his goal: power and wealth. “On the dead” in the literal sense. Many people will also die so that Montana can keep its conquered empire. An emigrant from Cuba rises higher and higher in the criminal world, but takes over the power he desires, liquidating his employer, mafia boss Frank Lopez. The conflict also becomes a woman, whom Montana tries to steal from Frank, which leads to a split not only in the sphere of interests. Lopez orders the murder of a competitor who manages to survive the assassination attempt and now intends to talk to his former boss. As a rule, executions as a result of gangster feuds are lightning fast: shooting, a bullet in the head or a bomb in a car, and the immediate disappearance of the attackers. It’s different here. Montana decides to deal with Lopez and Bernstein, a corrupt DEA agent, openly, face to face. First, he makes sure that Lopez is behind the assassination, then breaks his character, causing his former employer to beg him for clemency. However, Montana is sure of his intention, so there is no question of concessions.

He orders his friend Manny Ribera to shoot Frank. Now it’s Bernstein’s turn. However, he does not show remorse like Frank. Tony repays him handsomely for attempting costly blackmail with a tacit arrangement with Lopez. The second equally groundbreaking murder scene in this film is Manny’s death at the hands of Montana. As the Cuban empire crumbles, his paranoia grows stronger. Tony learns from his mother that his sister Gina is living with a stranger with whom he is having an affair. Possessive, cocaine driven Montana arrives at the house indicated. The door is opened for him by Manny, who does not hide his joy at the sight of his friend. But when Montana spots Gina in a bathrobe, he pulls the trigger in a fit of anger, dropping Ribera dead without any chance of explanation. It turns out that Gina and Manolo fell in love and got married secretly. Killing a friend seals Montana’s downfall on just about every level. This is a testimony to a complete loss of control over a situation straight from ancient tragedies. Of similar memorable moments in gangster cinema, it is worth mentioning the scene where Tommy DeVito suddenly shoots a young waiter in Goodfellas.

The House That Jack Built (2018)

Quite a fresh proposition, but definitely worth noting in this list. The titular Jack (Matt Dillon in a life role) creates himself as an artist by murdering people. He goes further and further in this, wanting to cross further boundaries. A particularly shocking moment that caused the Cannes audience to leave the cinema en masse occurs halfway through the film. Von Trier’s antihero takes his partner and her two sons on a trip to the forest. He explains the origins of animal hunting, teaches how to shoot a hunting rifle, and, like a good father, passes on important values and skills. It soon turns out that Jack, under the pretext of a family trip, wanted to commit an exceptionally creative murder. He shoots the boys like prey, then forces their mother to have a picnic with the dead sons. He’s not going to spare her either. The woman is shocked, she does not understand what happened. Jack’s taunting her is the height of bad taste, and the killer’s cynicism reaches heights when he tells the woman to pick any number. He begins to count down, implying that the mother will follow in her sons’ footsteps. And so it becomes. In the uncensored version, we see the details of the entire crime. The merits: proud of himself, Jack arranges a pot of three bodies as if on display in an art gallery.

He translated his tales of the principles and types of hunting into deed. He does not hesitate to brag about his achievements during the polemic with Verge, who stands in opposition to Jacek’s actions, according to whom the elaborate killing of a mother with her sons can be compared with an outstanding artistic composition. Up to this scene, Lars Von Trier’s film seemed to be a self-deprecating play on the serial killer thriller formula, but during it there was a shift to a different key that changed the viewer’s perception. This scene is pure provocation, designed to jeopardize the viewer’s comfort, shock play on his feelings, sting his sensitivity, and above all, what is often found in the case of the controversial Dane’s paintings: emotional blackmail. However, it is difficult to ignore it, because art, in Von Trier’s opinion, should also touch the less comfortable chords of the recipient, he can afford audacity and insolence in his convention, and after all, Lars has been a leader in this context for a long time. The scene of the murder of a child (out of frame) in Funny Games or the primitive murder of a family in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer has a similar effect on the viewer’s nerves.

Platoon (1986)

Sergeant Barnes kills Elias. Oliver Stone’s painting shows the Vietnam War honestly and honestly. We see a division among American soldiers, the main catalyst of which is the conflict of two commanders, diametrically opposed in their approach to war. Sergeant Elias is characterized by nobility and integrity, which cannot be said about Barnes (the most important role in Tom Berenger’s output), who brutally pacifies a village of Vietnamese civilians. Elias exposes himself to Barnes by preventing him from killing a girl. From now on, the unsentimental sergeant will wait for an opportunity to settle the score. When the platoon is ambushed by the Viet Cong, Elias’ experience and courage put him out of trouble. When he returns to the unit after a successful crusade against enemy forces, he stumbles upon Barnes. The latter in cold blood shoots his comrade-in-arms as if he belonged to the Vietnamese camp. In the helicopter during the evacuation, it turns out that Elias managed to survive, he was shot and left on the battlefield. But it’s too late to be saved. Elias dies a heroic death that Barnes contributed to. War takes away scruples and moral principles.

Some of its participants become anesthetized because they have seen too much, they cannot distinguish what is wicked from what is right. Values can wait, it’s mostly about survival, the rest is a pipe dream, you have to kill to survive. In war, the same laws do not apply as in normal life. Certainly this was the motto of Barnes, a commander lacking in sensitivity and not adhering to the honorable rules of war. His killing of Elias is unprecedented. It is no longer a fight against a foreign enemy, but a fight against an ally. This is not a court-martial, Barnes takes Elias’s intervention as a personal insult. Barnes establishes his own law of war, recognizing himself as the true and only commander of this platoon. In the final phase of the film, after a fierce, bloody clash of the Vietnamese with the Americans, one of the survivors is Chris, who takes revenge on Barnes not only on behalf of the killed sergeant, but in the name of general principles, which were expressed by Elias. From similar scenes from films similar in genre and theme, one can also mention the murder of a Vietnamese girl in De Palma’s Casualties of War.

The Hitcher (1986)

The included murder scene in Robert Harmon’s film is steeped in such tension that few sequences, not only of this kind, can match it in this respect. And again, the recently deceased Rutger Hauer appears as the culprit, in his second classic incarnation after Blade Runner. His John Ryder is a dangerous psychopath who kills stopped drivers, being a combination of the two previously mentioned on-screen killers: John Doe and Anton Chigurh. Ryder was in the movie before them and could be a clear signpost. The scene where the hitchhiker kills Nash, the girl supporting the bullied boy, is a prime example of a defining moment in a thriller. Ryder abducts Nash from a roadside hotel and Jim Halsey rushes to the rescue. The ominous atmosphere grows. The boy falls into the hands of the police who pursued him, suspecting the murders committed by his stalker. Law enforcement asks Jim to intervene when Ryder threatens to kill a girl he tied to two trucks. The police are helpless in this situation, so only Halsey is able to convince the killer to spare her life. Ryder allows the conversation, expects the fear-stricken boy to shoot him. Halsey can’t do it, he knows the girl will die. A disappointed Ryder releases his foot from the clutch and Nash suffers a cruel death. John Ryder wanted to put Jim to the test.

At the moment when the boy, despite the knife to his throat, escaped the killer in the car, the hitchhiker appointed him as his slayer. Halsey didn’t let himself be murdered, he managed to survive Ryder’s traps. The murderer, stalking his victim, tested her and at the same time wanted to be stopped by her. The final stage of the exam came at the time of Nash’s abduction. Ryder wanted Jim to end his life even at the cost of the girl’s life, but in the eyes of the psychopath he failed this test. The boy wasn’t ready for this step yet, fear or and weakness took over him. Only in the final confrontation, Jim, motivated by revenge for Nash’s death, no longer hesitates to do what Ryder has been waiting for a long time. Rutger Hauer, as the embodiment of the devil incarnate, evokes genuine fear in this scene, while magnetizing the viewer. He is cold as steel and immovable as stone. It’s hard to believe that he had serious moral reservations about taking part in this sequence and that the crew had to persuade him to return to the set. In the new version, the same fragment shows the moment of tearing apart (this time by Jim Halsey), but there is no denying that it has been stripped of the dark atmosphere that characterized the original.

Dead Ringers (1988)

The story of the obsessive community of two twin brothers was inspired by David Cronenberg not only with a literary novel, but also with facts. It’s about the case of the Marcus brothers, who were found dead and cuddled up together. The cause of death has not been fully clarified, but it has been hypothesized that the twins overdosed on drugs. In the idea of the Canadian, the Mantle brothers (Jeremy Irons) gradually lose each other, and the climax are the final scenes, where they decide to “separate” under the influence of intoxicants. I have to admit that this fragment is really poignant and causes a feeling of mental burden. It is closer to a psychological drama than a horror or thriller. It seems that the brothers are not fully aware of what they are doing. It is more like a dream or a figment of the imagination than reality. Beverly euthanizes Elliot with special medical tools. In the morning he realizes that it wasn’t a dream or an accident. He really killed his brother. Beverly tries to push her act out of her mind. He leaves the apartment to make a phone call to the woman who unwittingly led to the breakdown of both brothers’ bond. Beverly gives up the conversation and, devastated, returns to the apartment where his dead brother lies.

.. What was the cause of such an ending? Cronenberg showed the disintegration of the twins’ personalities. Elliot and Beverly Mantle were connected like Siamese brothers, only in the psychic realm. They differed in character, but a separate existence in their case was completely out of the question. So when Beverly plunged into drug addiction, his brother tried to save him, which meant the collapse not only of his career, but also of his mental health. In the end, both of them, stuffed with narcotic drugs, decided to go on a “detox”. In other words, Elliot wanted to free his brother from himself so that he could stay with his love. So he let him kill himself in this peculiar, stifling, disturbing scene. Jeremy Irons showed his acting skills throughout the film, but especially at this point, subtly balancing the madness and differences in behavior between the brothers. David Cronenberg, on the other hand, proved not only his directorial maturity, but also the ability to analyze cases in a thorough, scientific and even clinical way, which did not seem so obvious in the film genre he represented.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Top serial killer thrillers, you know. And surprisingly, there is also one direct murder scene in this film, as in, for example, Jonathan Demme’s worthy successor: Fincher’s Seven. Buffalo Bill kills women, but we don’t see the crimes themselves, only the victims’ bodies in photographs and autopsies. It’s about the spectator’s guesses, not putting coffee on the bench. Only the escape of Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins’ iconic role) from the confinement is preceded by the bloody murder of two guards. Lecter from the beginning of the film is presented as the personification of total evil, a cannibal killer with a brilliant mind. When he remains imprisoned, we learn about his crimes from stories and dialogues outlining his psychological profile. This is no ordinary psychopath. Lecter doesn’t even have to kill, because in this film he already has his own legend, it’s enough that we watch and listen to him, giving us faith in what he was capable of and what he could do next. On the other hand, he charms with his devilish erudition and insight. The scene in question follows a frank conversation with Clarice, who opens up to Lecter to give her one final tip about the Buffalo Bill investigation. The viewer loses his vigilance along with the guards, getting the wrong impression that if Dr. Lecter listens to classical music, sketches beautiful drawings, helps Agent Starling (whom he felt something for), it means that he has a lot of sensitivity.

And he is not such a terrible devil as he is painted. The guards bring him food, forgetting about special precautions. The deceptively calm Hannibal breaks free, proving what he is capable of and what his nature really is. His astonishing escape costs the lives of two guards. After the crime, with his mouth stained with blood, he calms down with classical music. A special police team arrives to capture Lecter. They see one guard adorned and hung from the cell. second l He lives on the ground with his face flayed, but he shows signs of life. The pursuit team believes Lecter is hiding in the elevator shaft. Here comes an unusual twist, one of the best of its kind: in the ambulance it is revealed that the fugitive has disguised himself as a wounded guard.

Hannibal Lecter proves that the opinions circulating all the time about his criminal genius are not made up. I think this scene can be compared to a situation in which we have a dangerous animal locked up behind bars, which makes a nice and harmless impression. The animal is calm, it looks nice, so what’s stopping you from feeding or even petting it? It doesn’t matter that there is a warning on the fence prohibiting such gestures. Disregard and lack of common sense can end up the same way as in the case of two guards who became “fodder” for the most famous on-screen killer.

The Shining (1980)

The maddened Jack Torrance (the excellent Jack Nicholson) managed to kill “only” one person in Kubrick’s work. There have been many murders in the haunted hotel, which is symbolized by ghosts and visions of a flood of blood. However, Kubrick rightly bet on the eerie suspense and shot only one moment in which we actually see the killing. Only one, but what! Dick Hallorann comes to the rescue of a family threatened by Jack. His arrival distracts the writer just in time before he murders his wife, Wendy. The cook enters the hotel, crosses the lobby, unaware that Torrance has hidden behind a column. At some point, the writer emerges and kills Hallorann with a strong ax blow. This scene can also be classified as a kind of so-called jump scare, and even one of the best in the history of cinema (which was described in the topic of the best jump scares), although since then many sequences of this type have appeared in horror movies. However, this part of the murder is not trivial for other reasons as well. Meanwhile, when Jack hits the cook with an axe, the writer’s hidden son, Danny, who, like Hallorann, can communicate by telepathy, screams.

This reminds the viewer that the boy had the same vision before arriving at the hotel. His scream was shown when Danny saw blood cascading from the elevator. The boy’s scream is also information in the form of “shining” – Danny, despite being hidden in the kitchen cupboard, saw the death of the cook killed by his father. It is also worth mentioning the shot of Nicholson’s devilish smile, who heard his son’s scream after killing Hallorann. In the case of another director, another film, perhaps this scene would have been ordinary – just a madman stuck an ax into the body of the unfortunate, a little blood, a scream and that’s it. But here behind the camera was Stanley Kubrick, known for his persistent pursuit of perfection in almost every bit. And this is clearly visible even after the passage of time. In Stephen King’s novel, Dick Hallorann escapes with his life, but I can’t imagine that one of the best horror movies of all time could not lack a single, expressive murder scene.

Psycho (1960)

It could not be missing from the list of this legendary scene in the shower, about which almost everything has been written, so it does not make sense to disassemble it into prime factors. Probably no movie murder is so often quoted and reproduced. No wonder, because since Hitchcock’s film set a new framework for the thriller, it had to include at least one scene that is a showcase of the story. It was surprising at the time that the main character dies in the middle of the film and is replaced by other leading characters. Of course, in fact, the main character is Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins, unforgettable in this role), but the viewer is convinced that he is not behind the murder. The scene caused real “shower phobia” for a long time. Interestingly, it is not shown at all that the knife touches the body. We have a classic scream of the victim, a nervous score with a thrill plays in the background, we see the perpetrator’s shadow, a body with a curtain falling down, water flowing with blood into the drain. It was enough to save this moment as a milestone of cinema, to which numerous artists refer, and the number of references is difficult to count.

Don't Look Now (1973)

It’s still one of the most thrilling endings in more than just horror movies, even though the movie has aged as a whole. There is some kind of inevitable fatalism in this culmination. Donald Sutherland’s father follows the figure in the red cloak, thinking it’s his dead child. The man, unlike his wife, did not believe the warnings of the two sisters who acted as mediums. The figure lures Baxter into the dark corners of an abandoned cathedral. When she hits a dead end, she pretends to cry and the man addresses her as his daughter. The figure turns around, it is revealed that he is a dwarf armed with a knife (razor?), and Baxter and the sight stands speechless and motionless. The moment the dwarf shows his deranged old woman face, we shudder because both Baxter and the viewer had the innocent, childlike face of a girl in their minds. Lilliput cuts his throat, the man dies in convulsions, blood oozes from his neck, the last events of his life flash before his eyes. Questions arise about the mystery of this scene. All indications are that John Baxter was a medium himself, saw things related to his death, more or less clear warning signs that he could not read properly.

The warnings came not only from the haunted sisters, but were also sent by the city itself, Venice. The dwarf was a marauding killer, and his clothes were deceptively similar to the red coat in which Baxter’s daughter had drowned. Already at the time of the unfortunate accident, before leaving for Venice, my father received a sign while working on a project to renovate a historic church. The moment his daughter drowned, blood flooded the photo seen under close-up. For a fraction of a second, there is a figure of a dwarf in the church. Baxter had not foreseen his destiny, and his daughter’s death foreshadowed his own nemesis. Perhaps if a new version of Nicolas Roeg’s film is made, these shivering theories will be much more developed. Scenes of a similar nature include the one in Carrie De Palma, when the title character is killed by her mother, but she still manages to kill her using her telekinetic abilities.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

“You have the right to kill me, but you have no right to judge me” – these words of Colonel Walter Kurtz perfectly reflect the scene in which Captain Willard kills a senior officer at his own request. Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now based on Joseph Conrad’s book is a mystical journey through the madness and absurdity of the Vietnam War seen through the eyes of Captain Willard chosen for a very risky task. Command recognizes that one of their best men, a colonel close to being made general, with an almost exemplary service record, has lost his mind and is out of control. Kurtz has become the lord and ruler at the edge of the war-torn world, he has created his own kingdom, where the natives serve him as subjects. Willard is supposed to find him and remove him from power, that is, kill him. The captain, sailing down the river towards Kurtz, to the place where the devil says goodnight, is an eyewitness to the horrors and nonsense of war. What’s more, he is increasingly aware of the hypocrisy and falsehood represented by his command. After meeting Kurtz, he only confirms this. The found colonel is a god of war with a broken soul. Powerful and enigmatic, Kurtz is somewhere between good and evil, madness and normality. He opposed the hypocrisy of the outside world and its representatives, so he built his own “state”, where he exercises very bloody power at times. Kurtz could easily kill Willard if he deemed him unworthy of his death sentence. Meanwhile, the colonel, who had been through the horrors of war, had seen too much and no longer saw the point of living any longer, was waiting for someone like Willard who sincerely understood his intentions.

The captain, knowing that Kurtz wants to die like a soldier and not like a coward and a liar, attacks him at night just as the colonel is finishing his notes. Willard machetes Kurtz, who does not try to defend himself, which coincides with the ritual killing of a buffalo by the natives, which is a kind of sacrificial mystery. Kurtz’s last words, “horror… horror…” match the colonel’s last recorded sentence for Willard to convey to the authorities: “Drop the bombs, kill ’em all!” It’s a kind of testament. Why did Kurtz want to doom his kingdom and his “children” to destruction? Perhaps he was sure that without him the whole settlement had no reason to exist and it was he who wanted to decide about its further fate on the basis of “God gave, God took away”.

The long, dark and heavy scene is not easy to read, but it gives food for thought, which makes Coppola’s picture much more than a war drama. It can be safely treated as a philosophical treatise adapted from the time and place of the action of Heart of Darkness to Vietnamese conditions. In the original version of Coppola’s work with the end credits, we see Kurtz’s wish fulfilled, his jungle asylum is completely bombarded, and the flames of the fire in the middle of the night convey the beauty and horror of the apocalypse as the absolute fulfillment of the colonel’s last will just after his death.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

The canon of Miloš Forman’s cinema with the fantastic Jack Nicholson will always remain one of the best outlined films about the struggle of an individual against a system that breaks his will. The action of the story takes place in a psychiatric hospital, which is kept in check by Sister Ratched. For her, the observance of order and regulations is a sacred thing. McMurphy, a thug who feigns mental illness to avoid prison, is brought into the facility. It increasingly disrupts the order so beloved and guarded by Ratched. Rebelling other patients, he sees in them divergent personalities, not a set of identical features. It introduces the spirit of freedom and freedom, wanting to liberate a closed group from the rigid, imposed framework of the hospital system, where individual needs, spontaneity, the desire to explore new spheres of life, discover previously unknown sensations or the ability to make your own decisions are stifled by orders and prohibitions. Ratched fails to tame a troublesome patient. But McMurphy pays the ultimate price for his coup. First, there is a tragedy within the walls of the facility due to Ratched’s excessive pragmatism. The facility manager catches the patients at a party McMurphy organized while the staff was away, celebrating her last day at the hospital.

Thanks to Randle’s friend, a complex Billy experienced sexual initiation, but Ratched intends to draw the consequences, which pushes the boy to commit suicide. McMurphy has an opportunity to flee, but rage prevails. The man throws himself at the woman and, choking her, nearly kills her. Punishment is the worst possible for him. Brain-lobotomized McMurphy is stripped of everything he expressed and wanted to instill in his colleagues at the hospital. Chief Bromden decides to do him a favor, knowing full well that his friend would not want to live trapped in his own body, limited to the maximum, vegetating like a human vegetable, practically remaining dead while alive. He smothers him with a pillow, and he continues Randle’s idea. He escapes the building, smashing the wall with a concrete sink that McMurphy couldn’t lift. The murder of the character played by Nicholson is a form of euthanasia, the only way, or rather salvation, from the torment of existence. Clint Eastwood followed a similar path in Million Dollar Baby, where the boxer played by Hilary Swank asks her trainer to put an end to her ordeal by taking her life.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

What does greed and pride combined with a visible aversion to people lead to? What happens when greed is satisfied with material goods, but there is still a need to vent one’s misanthropy, especially when the person despised and hated is within reach and begs for support? You can find out by waiting for the end of Paul Thomas Anderson’s ambitious film. A character with the above-mentioned characteristics is played with the Oscar-winning reverence by Daniel Day Lewis as an oil prospector, a manipulator, a cynic striving for a fortune in a similar style as Tony Montana in Hawks and De Palma’s Scarface. Daniel Plainview only kills two people, but in Anderson’s film, it’s not quantity that matters, it’s quality. The first time he kills the person who pretended to be his brother. Daniel interpreted this not so much as deceit and disloyalty, but rather as greed, for a stranger was playing his relative in order to profit from his future wealth. By the way, we have a testimony: the oilman is ready to kill on his way to big money. A more telling killing occurs at the end of the show. Daniel became rich and holed up in his estate. His adopted, adult son, whom he used to enrich himself, is chased away by Daniel with the truth told in a contemptuous tone. Moments later, self-proclaimed, obsessed preacher Eli Paul Sunday, a rival from his past, a man who has been a major obstacle to Daniel’s pursuit of his goal, shows up at his home. The priest is now in need, he repents, asking for a financial favor. Plainview is willing to lend a helping hand, provided the reverend denounces his religious beliefs loudly, confessing repeatedly and convincingly that he is a false prophet and that God is superstition. Daniel deliberately plays back, because once he himself had to pretend to be a converted penitent before Paul and his followers.

Now the roles have reversed. It is the preacher who must, against his will, express a view inconsistent with his ideology and faith. For Daniel, this is proof that Paul is a lying hypocrite playing a clergyman, and in fact guided only by the desire for profit. The miner exposes his pettiness and duplicity, and at the same time, deep down, he notices several common denominators. With satisfaction, he humiliates Sunday, revealing that the land rich in oil deposits, which he wanted to seize with Daniel’s financial contribution, was bought by him long ago along with the resources. Plainview used the drain, the whole masquerade was deliberate, to disgrace the clergyman. The horny tycoon starts throwing insults at Eli, throwing bowling pins at him, while Paul tries to get out of the apartment in a panic like a scared kid.

Eventually, he falls over, and Daniel after a little thought, he kills the preacher with two blows. After a while, the footman comes down and, seeing the sight, asks a peculiar question, to which he receives an even more bizarre answer. Plainview felt bitter after talking to his son, and the feeling of loneliness he celebrated so much turned out to be his greatest enemy at that moment. Bitterness, despite prosperity, was further strengthened by alcohol. Daniel, killing Paul, felt purification and harmony. The scene is theatrical and grotesque, with a touch of tragedy and ambiguity. The frames carry a taste of the refined and visionary works of Stanley Kubrick, and Anderson never concealed his inspiration from the legendary British director.

Unforgiven (1992)

The presentation of the murder scenes featured various film genres, such as: psychological, social or war drama, horror and thriller. What about a western? After all, a “cowboy hat and revolver” movie cannot do without killing moments. And at this point there is a little dilemma, because the two westerns are considered masterpieces of the genre. Once Upon a Time in the West by Sergio Leone, the spaghetti western milestone, and Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven two decades later. Which one should you choose on this list? After all, the scene when Frank (the perfect Henry Fonda) shoots the boy who “knew his name” or the moment when he kills the brother of the character played in adulthood by Charles Bronson are diamonds in the subject. Eastwood’s work is the renaissance and twilight of the western in one installment. In fact, it is a moral drama dressed in genre clothes. The myth of the Wild West is completely overthrown here, the heroes are people of flesh and blood, violence and killing have no showy cover. It’s real and bleak, and therefore much more believable than in other Western stories. The main character of Eastwood’s film, played by himself, is once a ruthless killer and gunslinger, now struggling as a farmer after the death of his beloved wife and mother of his children.

William Munny has abandoned his old life and ways and has undergone a transformation in the name of love. However, he accepts the offer of young Schofield and, together with him and old friend Ned Logan, sets out to find some cowboys to kill them for money because they disfigured a prostitute. Standing in their way is the cynical and brutal Sheriff Little Bill Daggett (very convincing Gene Hackman), who guards order and justice according to his own rules. The wanted cowboys are found and punished, but during the execution of the assignment comes to a reckoning with their own conscience. Ned Logan lets go, he is no longer able to kill a man. Munny, who even killed women and children in his youth, also has ethical difficulties. After all, he swore on his wife’s grave that he would never go back to his former profession. Young Schofield, a brazen poseur posing as a killer, realizes that killing another person is not a piece of cake. He convinces himself that he is not a tough guy and a gunslinger.

The film ends with eloquent killing scenes. First, Logan is captured by the sheriff’s men, who try to whip him for information about William. Afterwards, Munny learns that his friend was murdered by Daggett. Although the viewer does not see this scene, he imagines it while listening to William’s conversation with the prostitute. We learn that Ned died wrongly – even though he didn’t hurt anyone, the sheriff illegally found him guilty. William decides to get revenge, reaches for a bottle of alcohol, dismisses earlier doubts and shows up at the bar where he was humiliated by the sheriff. Earlier, he notices a dead friend displayed in an open coffin outside the premises as a calling card and a warning to others. Munny confronts Little Bill and his men. Despite being outnumbered by the other side, William misses his opponents, who can’t get a shot on target.

Some may object that this is an unrealistic exaggeration, but the explanation can be found in the scene when the sheriff brags about his knowledge and experience to biographer Beauchamp on the correct shooting of a rival. Daggett said that coolness and composure were more important than speed. His right theory turned against him during a duel with William. At the end, the wounded sheriff stands face to face with Munny one last time. Perhaps for the first time, Daggett shows weakness, realizing that he has been defeated. William finishes him off with icy calm. After all, he leaves the city, even unscratched by a bullet, showing a substitute of his former face.

Schindler's List (1993)

I’m not sure it’s the best Holocaust movie, but certainly the most famous in the description of this terrible phenomenon, one most mass crime in the history of mankind. There is no doubt that Steven Spielberg’s painting is a large-scale appeal for humanity. Hence the whitening of certain attitudes and figures in comparison with historical facts. This is one of the reasons why several critics called Schindler’s List a Hollywood fable about extermination camps. Nevertheless, Spielberg’s film contains very important scenes, including moments of killing, which is inevitable when it comes to a picture about extermination. Behind them stands Amon Göth brilliantly recreated by Ralph Fiennes. Göth, a cold pedant, narcissist and commandant of the Płaszów labor camp, amused himself in the morning by shooting prisoners from the balcony with a sniper rifle. But he didn’t always pull the trigger. In an equally memorable fragment, while choosing a housekeeper from among Jewish women, a dialogue with an architect takes place.

The woman insists that the camp construction project is not properly constructed. Amon orders her to be shot as an example, knowing she is right, then orders the project to be carried out according to her instructions. Oskar Schindler (still Liam Nesson’s most important role), having won a large percentage of the Nazi’s trust, tried to influence him by suggesting that the essence of power is to pardon the guilty. Amon Göth followed these instructions for only a short time, sparing the lives of several people. However, when the teenage boy did not clean his bathtub, the German returned to his habits. He shot him with a sniper rifle. Amon Göth, in reality and in the film dimension, killed for any pretext, on a whim, but Spielberg and Fiennes managed to extract the human element from this character to some extent, also in the physical sense.

A Short Film About Killing (1988)

Finally, two proposals from the Polish film backyard. The first is a memorable film by Krzysztof Kieślowski, who stigmatizes unlawful or lawful killing as the fifth commandment. The film resonated internationally because of its almost documentary capture of a social problem, but above all because of the realistic scene of the murder of a taxi driver. The tormentor is a lost young man who seems to be in social apathy, because it is not known what drives him to the end. Emptiness? Isolation? Frustration? Jacek tells him to be transported to a remote place, suddenly attacks the driver, begins to choke him with a rope, and the gagged victim barely stays alive and tries to escape with the last of his strength.

The boy is shocked by what he has done and what he will do next. There is no turning back now. Jacek kills the man with a boulder. The scene shocked many viewers, it is almost a chronicle record of a crime without a specific reason, followed by the death penalty for the perpetrator, but it does not bring relief. Although Jacek cruelly killed a man, he was actually the victim of his own crime, which leaves the viewer with a moral dilemma about the right position. This is a clear reference to Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment from Kieślowski’s perspective. Mirosław Baka, who played Jacek, later recalled in interviews that several taxi drivers were afraid to use them, some asked him to change to the front seat.

Playground (2017)

The second proposal from the Polish film is the final scene, which caused a similar discussion, because the message and the way of narration is similar to Krzysztof Kieślowski’s painting. The only difference is that in the Playground crimes are committed by children against children. Specifically, two teenagers are taking a little boy out of the market and dragging him out of town. Somewhere in the meadow by the railway tracks they start kicking the boy until he loses consciousness. However, this is not the end, because the excited ones step on his head and drop a concrete lump on it several times. The whole thing is shown from a distance, no details are visible, the teenage criminals exchange remarks in the meantime, but no words are heard. Everything is presented from a distance, which does not reduce the effect of the scene on the viewer’s sensitivity. At its end, the juvenile criminals carry the body to the tracks and leave it there, then appearing to wait for the passing train.

Now you can see their faces up close, which do not express much emotion. The boys seem bored, still waiting for some surprising impressions, as if what they did wasn’t enough. There is no emotion on their faces, no reflection, total indifference. The director of the film, presenting a nasty murder, was inspired by a real event that took place in England. And in this image, as in the fifth installment of the film decalogue or even in Haneke’s Funny Games (older counterparts of the duo from the Playground?), considerations arise as to what prompted the teenagers to make such a move. Boredom? Surely. Curiosity? Also. No empathy? Definitely. The director, debutante Bartosz Kowalski, seems to be saying with this scene that some things cannot be rationally explained, let alone to justify, it just happens, it is next to us, although it is both unacceptable and unimaginable.