Arianna Moses
Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.
josephcamplese
This film is directed by the amazing directer Fritz Lang, and "is one of the best films iv'e seen in a while." is what I said as a child and I still stand by this. M is one of the greatest films ever made and hears why. The film stars Peter Lorre as the serial killer and this film has great casting I couldn't imagine this role being played by anyone else and that's why this performance is so believable he obviously cares about the role and the end scene is the best showcase of his acting. The end scene is brilliant the room is full of hypocrites and one of the judges is wanted for 3 murders so he looses all of his credibility as a judge and the murderer posing as insane to avoid death is a good move . but the end scene is not the only good scene the whole movie is good but you will have to watch the film for yourself to see it's brilliance.beware this film is subtitled but it's a slow burn that really pays off the message at the end still makes sense today and even more so in today's world and this is why M gets a 9/10
allstarrunner
I just watched this movie for the first time about 90 years after it first came out! It is still a great movie! The tension it builds throughout and the use of music to set the tone and even move the plot along are brilliant! I can understand why this movie was used as a recipe for future movies.
I think what I like best about the movie is the moral questions that are raised at the end and the decision of the director to leave it up to us to decide. So good!
Trust me, you need to watch this film - even if you're one of those people who don't like to watch old films or international films (which I used to be) - there is amazing cinema out there to enjoy if you will expand your horizons. This is one of them you need to watch (I also recommend "The General" as a great silent film movie).
Dylan Dunmyer
The film is about a child murderer that roams the streets of Paris, avoiding the police at every turn. What i love most about this film is that while the killer is just a faceless monster at the start of the film, but he becomes a very nuanced, complicated character with a passionate speech by the end. And it makes you really think about the nature of what it means to be an evil person. Are we evil because we choose to be? Or is evil something that can be thrust upon us, that takes us over, and forces us to do terrible things? These are questions that the film looks at, and to see such a sympathetic portrayal of a killer in 1931 is mind blowing to me. This is something that captivated audiences in 1991's The Silence of the Lambs because of how fresh, and original it was. And then to see the same thing done 60 years before is nothing short of spectacular.Many people have pointed out how Lorre's overacting is one the biggest strength's of the movie, and i'm inclined to agree. Every time the camera zones in on his face as we see an expression of delight, horror, or fear, it really shows the emotion of the scene without the need for dialogue.I do like the juxtaposition of the police and criminal characters throughout and the different paths they choose to pursue through the film.I don't know if i would consider this a masterpiece though. While i find the pacing and characters are very good, I feel like it runs on a little bit too long, and kinda meanders in certain spots. The story is good, and has a lot of smart moments, but it's nothing so wholly original that I feel the need to rave about it.Overall i would say that this is a great movie for it's time, from a great director, that definitely deserves to be talked about.
roblesar99
Considering the fact that I regard director Fritz Lang's Metropolis as one of the crowning achievements in sci-fi cinema, I expected M to be an early hallmark of the thriller genre. However, while there's plenty to admire about Lang's first "talkie," it doesn't live up to the high standard set by Metropolis. The film follows two distinct groups, one composed of criminals and the other composed of police investigators, as they search for a serial killer of children after he strikes for the ninth time. What's most interesting about the film from a storytelling standpoint is that Lang eschews having a principal protagonist. Instead, Lang presents a three-prong narrative that focuses on Otto Wernicke's Inspector Karl Lohmann, Gustaf Gründgens' The Safecracker, and Peter Lorre's child killer Hans Beckert. Lang's decision to weave three story lines into one coherent narrative is a bold move, especially for a film nearly ninety years old, but Lang struggles just a tad to harness them all, leading to some slack pacing. The structure of the film felt akin to that of L.A. Confidential, but whereas that film functioned as a fascinating three- pronged character study, the characters in M unfortunately aren't as complex.However, it is refreshing to see Lorre receive plenty of screen time, considering his status as the film's antagonist. Most mystery films today spend their entire run time building up to the "big reveal," but Lang's decision to reveal the identity of the murderer halfway through allows for the film to benefit from Lorre's phenomenal acting. Carried mostly by a wide range of facial expressions, Lorre's performance elevates the film to a classic of German cinema. Despite his largely nonverbal performance, Lorre is also the beneficiary of one of the film's highlights: a powerful third act monologue in which Beckert reveals his motivations for the killings. The monologue itself proves magnificent, but I cannot help but feel that it's somewhat ill- conceived. I appreciate the fact that Lang devotes time to developing Beckert, crafting a more well-rounded character as a result, but I cannot sympathize with him. At his core, Beckert is still a child murderer, regardless of the contents of his speech. It almost feels like Lang uses the speech in an attempt to garner some last-minute sympathy for the character, but in that regard, he fails to hit the mark. Additionally, while the film's climax in and of itself is fantastic, the abrupt ending struck me as lazy and rushed. I can understand why Lang would want to leave Beckert's fate ambiguous, but another minute or two wouldn't have hurt.However, the film finds success in a multitude of other areas. For one, the camera work feels remarkably fluid, with Lang and his cinematographer Fritz Arno Wagner pulling off an array of technically impressive crane and tracking shots. Wagner's harsh lighting lends itself perfectly to the film's tense atmosphere as well. Apart from Lorre, the rest of the cast also delivers fine performances. Gründgens has a particularly solid turn as a career criminal driven to capture Beckert for his own sake while Wernicke makes the most of his cunning, unlikable detective. Lang also makes it clear that his career as a filmmaker began in the silent era, experimenting with the presence or absence of noise in certain scenes. The scenes bereft of noise are the most notable, with Lang selectively using them to amplify the tension. Initially, it feels jarring to see dozens of people milling around on screen without the presence of background noise or an orchestral soundtrack, but Lang's directorial skill prevent these scenes from feeling disconnected from the main narrative. Perhaps the main achievement here is that these overtly experimental scenes do not feel overly so.While I expected more from the director of one of sci-fi's most enduring cinematic masterpieces, I enjoyed most of what M had to offer. The cast, especially Lorre, delivers uniformly strong performances, while the film proves technically impressive in regards to its cinematography as well. And like any great thriller, there's also an underlying message that still resonates today, if even it is a bit too on the nose. However, while the film has certainly endured with age and still proves compelling from a mystery standpoint, it fails to reach the level of Metropolis because of Beckert's somewhat questionable characterization and storytelling flaws concerning the uneven pacing and overuse of exposition.Rating: 8/10 (Great)
