SunnyHello Nice effects though.

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Executscan Expected more

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Edgar Allan Pooh . . . unfolding in such an inferior fashion compared to Fritz Lang's original that poorly informed viewers will assume that it was fabricated by the potheads from BE KIND REWIND. As a low-budget "tribute" flick by a couple wannabes who were drunk as skunks the only time that they watched Lang's masterpiece, this 1951 alleged version of M might merit a grade of "D+" from soft-hearted evaluators. However, when we learn that Lang's original producer was behind this 1950s travesty, it's clear that this bozo set out to destroy both Mr. Lang and the original M's stellar reputations (not unlike Edgar Allan Poe's initial obituary writer, or Ty Cobb's first biographer). History has many examples of Sychophantic hangers-on (such as Mozart's jealous rival in the film AMADEUS) who cling to life hoping for an opportunity to soil the legacy of their betters. All the police reports in the so-called American version of M specify that the unknown child killer keeps ONE shoe as a souvenir from each victim, but when M's shoe stash is found, it clearly consists of PAIRS! From whistling the wrong "killing tune" to being given an "M" handprint bigger than Goliath could provide, from spouting pure psychobabble in his own "defense" (turning pathos into bathos) right through to the complete omission of Mr. Lang's cautionary ending, the hack producers behind this 1951 massacre of M MUST remain nameless, as the only way to deprive them of having "the last laugh" of name recognition (which would force poor Fritz to cartwheel in his grave).

kirksworks This is a wrongly maligned film. Fritz Lang, director of the original version, famously hated Joseph Losey's remake, but that is no reason to brush if off. Even if the remake of "M" were poorly directed and acted, the film has so much value as an historic document of old Los Angeles, it is a crime it is unavailable for the general public on video in any format. Yet, the film has far more than its historic legacy. Losey's "M" is not the masterpiece that Lang's original is, but it's sure a darn great film, with fine performances by David Wayne as the killer, Howard De Silva as the head of the investigation, and Luther Adler as the drunken crime boss lawyer. I must also add that there are a number of changes to Lang's film. In one regard, the remake is simplified, with less delineated individual characters and an overall faster pace. This actually streamlines the action somewhat, while losing the strength of Lang's depth of minor characters. In other ways, the film expands on the original. (MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!) While it has shortchanged some of the minor characters, Losey's film has developed the crime boss beyond Lang's film, and is more explicit in revealing the man's violent nature, particularly in the closing moments when he he shoots his lawyer just as the police arrive. There's a fine irony as a result of at least one change. Another reviewer pointed out that the children in the film would hardly have gone off with the murderer as easily as they did, however, they do so in the original version as well. What is interesting in Losey's film is that both the murderer and a little girl (his intended victim) get trapped in the Bradbury building at the film's climax. It is the crime syndicate (not the police) that finally rescue her and as they carry her away (to take her back home) the girl finally asks, "Where are you taking me?" (something she never asked the murderer). The remake goes into more detail as to why the man commits his murders, and David Wayne's big confession scene in the garage (a perfect update of Lang's subterranean mock trial) is both compelling in terms of his gut wrenching performance as well as psychologically sound (or maybe I should say "PSYCHO-logically"). In this regard, I think the remake improves on the original. I am a big fan of Frtiz Lang. His "M" has long been one of my favorite films. I avoided seeing the remake for years because I thought it might taint or spoil my feelings for the original. This has not been the case. My appreciation of the original has only been amplified by seeing how Lang's film and screenwriter Thea Von Harbou's original script, so universal in its moral perceptions of human behavior, effectively translated to another time and place in such fine and expanded form. The remake was made only 30 years after the original, so it could be that in 1951 Lang's film was still too revered to allow for an upstart low budget Hollywood remake to take any credit for itself. However, I think it's not too far fetched to imagine someone having not seen the original, stumbling upon the remake and considering it an American classic. Now that the original "M" is 75 years old, we have nothing to fear by appreciating Losey's remake for the good film it is, classic or not.

barry-mel45 Saw this movie last night for the 1st time. I was impressed with whole remake of the original except the VHS video picture quality was quite poor!! I hope they hurry up and get this in a DVD format with clearer, sharper images!! The acting of David Wayne as the "baby killer" was great as was Howard DeSilva's "chainsmoking" police investigator and Martin Gabel's crime boss, and look closely for Raymond Burr's tough talking "goon" who is following orders from the crime boss. Really great overall performances from all involved also including Steve Brody, John Miljan (as blind man....where are all the women in this picture except the children!! No leading actress was featured. Photography on location with excellent use of the moving camera was really eye-filling!!! The fat, laughing lady and those floating balloons were part of the tension and irony. Great movie!!

Bard-8 I can't understand someone not understanding this film, or considering it as anything less than masterful. I saw it on the big screen, and it left me, like its more illustrious predecessor, profoundly disturbed. In fact, David Wayne's "M" is more frightening than Peter Lorre's--Lorre was a brilliant actor, but his rather idiosyncratic appearance makes it easy to tag him as a "monster", and it typecast him as a perverse (and fascinating!) villain for most of his career. David Wayne not only turns in an harrowing and sympathetic (!) performance in this underrated masterpiece, but he does it with a face as bland and Midwestern as Wonder Bread. His casting, and Losey's change of locale and lighting to working class, sun-drenched and sun-faded shots of L.A., make the crimes and the criminal too believable, too naturalistic for comfort. Murder is more frightening in broad daylight than in shadows, where we've been taught to expect it. There are outstanding moments here: Losey's double-coded messages about the female body (the mannequin scene), which--despite lines inserted to please the censors--indicate that sex is behind the child-murders, the incredible hunt in the wonderful Bradbury Building, even a few comedic one liners (when the hapless police force shake up a low-class joint, and they ask the patrons what they're doing in the place, a bum replies, "Slummin'!") But it is the conclusion, the gut-wrenching final "courtroom" scene with David Wayne giving the most realistic, disturbing and moving portrait of psychopathy on the screen, that cements this film as a classic worthy of standing up to its predecessor. And when his "lawyer" questions the mob--and himself, and the viewers--as to who was truly responsible for this man and his evil, the answer is always disturbing. Losey believed that "it takes a village" fifty years ago, and his "M" remains a brand-hot indictment of a corrupt and money-hungry, perverse and puritanical, escapist and scapegoating society.