who kills scorpio at the end? - Scorpio (1973) Discussion

[–] fanaticita 19 years ago

Yes, obscured to the point of showing the gunman out of focus. I would say if had to have been the CIA. Scorpio was too hot, and not all together committed to the organization. He had tortured feelings about killing Cross.

reply

[–] Stoi1 19 years ago

I think too, he was killed by the CIA.

-------------------------------------------
http://www.sl-design.de/

reply

[–] jscorrales 19 years ago

It's in keeping with the whole movie being a study in ambiguity and obsure motives that this part is deliberately left unclear.
Could be its Scorpio's employer, but by the nature of his trade, its plausible to think his enemies too, or it could be revenge for his past targets.
A suspense movie that ends on a suspenseful note, I think.

reply

[–] melkiades 19 years ago

Just before dying, Cross says "there's a room just down the hall from McLeod's office...where grown men play a game. It's a bit like Monopoly ...only more people get hurt. The object is not to win but not to lose, and the only rule is to stay in the game."

Right after this, Scorpio gets shot (unless the assassin shoots the cat muhahahah), so it's pretty obvious that he was shot on order from one of those men playing games.

What's unfair is that this assassin doesn't seem to be credited in the movie hehehe.

In any case, this must have been Burt Lancaster's worst offer of a movie. When he says "Jesus" at the end, I'm sure he means "what the hell am I doing in this piece of crap movie". What kind of a cheap-ass dubbing was that? I just can't believe it. And to say that Paul Scofield was also in there, my BEST ACTOR EVER. He was so amazing in A Man for All Seasons. Life is too often a very sad moment.

cheers
melkiades

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ldavelewis 18 years ago

In 1972, the vogue was in for films to be cryptic and indeterminate about the CIA, after watergate and the agency expose hearings in congress. Another paranoid thriller, The Parallax View, also ends on an ambiguous note; the film maker refusing to provide a tidy moral lesson in a very conflicted time in America.

reply

[–] lunrlandr5 18 years ago

Well said Idavelewis,

This movie very much reflected the mindset of mistrust the American public had towards their government and the CIA during this time.

All Scorpio's death reflects is his inability to stay in the game as Cross had warned. The identity of his assassin is not important. The ending serves only to confirm that Scorpio's fate was sealed the minute he took the assignment to get the double agent. Scorpio and Cross were expendable pawns in a much bigger clandestine game where cat and mouse and cover-up rule.

reply

[–] ozymandius22 18 years ago

The shooter is obscured but the gun isn't../ couldn't the killer at the end be Cross' Russion spy friend? if i remember correctly the gun had the same appearance as the one the Russian gave to Cross earlier in the film.

reply

[–] lunrlandr5 18 years ago

Hello ozymandius22,

You could be right, but guns are so interchangeable, at this point it really could be any one. And it's that line of thinking that in my opinion plays better with the storyline than anything else. We just don't know for sure all these years later.

Here are some issues for further review:
Who ever it was in that garage, they were informed enough to know what to use as a decoy to distract Scorpio for just a few seconds. Now who would have known about that? Scorpio's girlfriend for starters for she knew what was always roaming around the inside of Scorpio's flat. Now who would she have told? We saw who she confided in. And who would he have told? So then you have your theory and it fits nicely here.

Unless of course that kind of minute detailed information would truly be in ones dossier or company file. Then that would bring us right back to his own team.

So then it becomes which side would benefit the most? Was it revenge or just cleaning house?

You decide.

reply

[–] defiant-10 18 years ago

Can't be the same gun- he was given a Walther P-38 automatic in the apartment, and the killer uses that anachronism of Hollywood shooting, a revolver with a silencer on it (for non-gunners, the space between the cylinder and the barrel lets almost all the noise and most of the flash escape- an automatic puts its cartridge directly into the barrel, so there's no "leak").
However, the killer working for the Soviet would nicely tie-up all the possible loose ends about Cross. I had just always assumed (yes)the shooter was with the Agency.

I love this cheeseball movie; the hideous dubbing and clumsy musical score add to the overall grit of the presentation. I'm not sure Michael Winner ever did a better film.

What I had in mind was boxing the compass.

reply

[–] dreamonforever1 17 years ago

i think it's a moderately entertaining "spy thriller," but considering the kind of talent they had in it i'd expect a much, much more involving film...
and, "hideous dubbing" is right. (l.o.l.)

gregory 030508

reply

[–] john-schafer 17 years ago

one of the 'rules' is that the safest method is to kill the assassin once the main job is completed. 'hideous dubbing' makes a nice catchphrase...

reply

[–] Huckleberry99 15 years ago

A lot of good points. I love 70's films. They don't always tie it (plot) up nicely with shiny red ribbon. Sometimes the endings are bittersweet, and hard to swallow, but nonetheless fulfilling and memorable.

reply

[–] goleafsgo27 10 years ago

To clarify a bit of history, this movie's US release was in April 1973, around the time when Nixon was just starting to feel some serious heat from Watergate. It was the month when Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Dean left the White House, but still well before the Senate hearings, before we learned about Nixon's tapes. So the movie had to have been written and filmed well before Watergate became a major deal on most people's radar, and long before the Congressional probes into the CIA, and with thousands of US troops still fighting in Vietnam.
It was, however, after the decade of US assassinations, so much of the US and the rest of the western world were already getting pretty cynical.

I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO

reply

[–] powelltolar 17 years ago

I watched this dog just a few days ago. I was really disappointed, considering the cast.

If you recall, Lancaster's character tells Scorpio that he (Scorpio) will be eliminated shortly after he completes his contract on Lancaster. My impression was that CIA operatives carried out the hit.

It's interesting the CIA couldn't kill the aging Lancaster, but they could kill the top-notch killer Scorpio, the only man in the universe who could kill him for them.

reply

[–] Catch-52 16 years ago

It's interesting the CIA couldn't kill the aging Lancaster, but they could kill the top-notch killer Scorpio, the only man in the universe who could kill him for them.

That's because Cross covered his tracks well, and Scorpio was the only person who knew how to uncover them.

At the end, Scorpio wasn't even bothering to cover his tracks. Before that, the CIA wasn't trying to kill him -- they were trying to use him.

Oh, and for the other poster, the one wondering how the killer knew how to use a cat as a decoy for Scorpio -- huh? That cat wasn't a decoy. It was just an ordinary stray. Its presence was nothing more than the filmmakers' attempt at a small poetic touch.

reply

[–] foxhot 17 years ago

If you look at the blurred shape of the killer's face, it looks more like the William Smithers character (Mitchell).....

reply

[–] powelltolar 16 years ago

Be grateful. They just saved you two hours of your life watching this garbage.

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 16 years ago

The original ending had him dying in the trailers.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mark-1589 16 years ago

Thanks for putting a spoiler in your title so you ruin the film for everyone.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]