User reviews

This is a very interesting film on so many levels. It's interesting to see just how far ahead German cinema was of its American counterpart at this point in time. Although there is not that much talking in this early German talking picture - Fritz Lang resisted going to sound in the first place - what conversation that does take place is well done and natural sounding. Compare it with any American film from 1931 and you can't help but see the difference.

The murderer, artfully played by Peter Lorre, has been killing children that have no link to him personally for months. The police, despite all of their efforts, are unable to catch him, mainly because there is no rhyme or reason in his choice of victims. At first there is a focus on the victims and the hole left in their families by their killing. Then, the film shifts to two normally opposed groups - the police and the underworld. After several months of no results by the authorities, the police are unhappy because it reflects badly upon them, and the underworld is unhappy because their activities are being disrupted because of the police doing constant raids in their efforts to capture the killer.

In a particularly well-done part of the film the scene shifts back and forth between a conference of police and one of the underworld. They discuss how they are going to catch the killer. The police settle upon the idea of looking for people with a history of past mental problems that were pronounced cured and released. The underworld decides to enlist an invisible group - the beggars - to follow every child at all times and therefore catch the killer. Both groups focus on the right suspect, the question is - who gets there first? M is a fascinating film that raises many topics - the death penalty, a group of criminals that are criminals by choice causing less stress on society than a lone criminal that acts out of an uncontrollable compulsion, and the motivations of the authorities often being their own bureaucratic survival rather than the larger issue of ending a series of horrible acts against humanity.

The economy, austerity and directness of the films of Fritz Lang made him one of the most profound, and precise filmmakers...

Lang, a master of the German expressionist film, shot his first talkie, a crime drama considered a landmark in the story of suspense movies... It was a shocking idea for its time, based on the real-life killer Peter Kurten, headlined as the Vampire of Düsseldorf...

'M' is about a terrorized city, and a plump little man with wide eyes (often chewing candy) who is a pathological child-killer, unable to control his urge for killing...

The film embodies several Lang themes: the duality between justice and revenge, mob hysteria, the menacing anticipation of watching a helplessly trapped individual trying fruitlessly to escape as greater forces move inexorably in, and, for probably the first time in the cinema, it adds a new dimension to suspense: pity... For the killer is clearly mentally sick... He cannot overcome the overwhelming compulsion of his murderous disease, and yet, we see him hunted down and almost lynched as a criminal, rather than treated as a sick man...

Early in the film, the killer is heard whistling the Grieg theme from 'In the Hall of the Mountain King'. This theme inexorably becomes imbued with menace... And when we see no more than a girl looking in a shop window, the melody on the sound-track told us chillingly that the murderer is there, just out of sight...

The Murderer is played by Peter Lorre in a virtuoso performance that has barely been matched in all the thrillers he has made since 'Casablanca,' 'The Maltese Falcon,' and 'The Mask of Dimitrios.' When the photographs of his victims, all little girls, are shown to him, he jumps back and twitches with horror...

With powerful visuals, Lang's motion picture is Lorre's first film... His performance as the corpulent, hunted psychopath is a masterpiece of mime and suggestion... Lorre is the archetypal outsider-outside the law and society because of his compulsive crimes, outside the balancing society of the underworld because he is not a professional criminal... He had only twelve lines of dialog...

In the most famous of all about a pathological killer - Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' - Anthony Perkins lacked not only the threat of the tortured Peter Lorre, but also the dimension of invoking our incredulous sympathy...

'Psycho' reeked with blood and horror, whereas the suspense of 'M' is subtle... A child's balloon without an owner, a rolling ball, are enough to tell us that another murder had been committed... The audience, trapped in its seats, torn by ambivalent feelings towards the killer, watched him trapped as the net is pulled tight...

Being a huge fan of German Expressionist art, I'm naturally drawn to the films of Fritz Lang. I recently was able to see the restored version of "Metropolis" on the big screen, and was delighted to see "M" on the Sundance channel - especially since it was the uncut version. M follows the trail of a child killer (Peter Lorre), sought both by the police and the members of the underworld whose businesses are being effected by the investigation.

This film is ground-breaking for many reasons: It is Fritz Lang's first talking picture, it is one of the first in the serial killer genre and it was overtly anti-Nazi. This film was banned in Germany shortly after it premiered, and Fritz Lang and Peter Lorre, both Jews, soon fled the country. It has superb acting (most notably, Peter Lorre's trial scene in the catacombs) and very stark yet at times gritty cinematography. The story is indeed suspenseful and at times, very creepy (what whistling child killer isn't?). The entire movie, however is extremely thought-provoking and challenging, much like the German Expressionist movement itself.

This is not a movie for everyone; some may find it boring, some may find it too abstract. It also has one of the most bizarre shots I've ever seen in film - essentially it's a 30 second shot of the police inspector talking on the phone, but you're under his desk and looking up his pants leg. It actually kind of baffled me and made me chuckle for a second, but it was avant garde if anything.

To those who appreciate early cinema that truly makes you think, both about the film and the subtext with which it was written and filmed, it is a must-see.

--Shelly

Fritz Lang's highly influential career as a film director began in post World War I Germany, where he was a leading figure in the German Expressionist film movement, and ended in the United States in 1953 with the production of The Big Heat, a film noir classic. Perhaps his greatest film, M (Germany, 1931) forms an historical bridge between expressionism and film noir. Like the former it uses strange and disturbing compositions of light and dark in order to symbolize the inner workings of the human mind; like the latter it more realistically sets its story in a modern urban setting and blends in sociological issues along with the psychological and moral ones.

Even though M was Lang's (and Germany's) first sound film, many historians cite it as the initial masterpiece of cinema to appear following the introduction of sound into films in the late 1920's. While most early "talkies" return films to their static, visually monotonous, stage- imitative beginnings and thus limit rather than expand the artistic possibilities of the medium, M avoids the failing by skillfully balancing asynchronous, off-screen sounds with the more limiting use of synchronous dialogue. The film's editing, particularly its elaborate use of parallel cutting, also contributes kinetic energy and fluidity to the storytelling. Of course, many of the film's sound effects are also imaginative and memorable, none more so than the compulsive whistling of the film's central character, the stalker and serial killer of little girls Hans Beckert (magnificently played by Peter Lorre).

Sound is also an important contributor to M's rich and influential use of off screen space. One famous example is the scene that introduces Beckert as a shadow against his own Wanted poster, creepily intoning to his next victim, Elsie Beckmann, "You have a very pretty ball." Not only is Beckert's shadow a bow toward Lang's expressionist artistic roots, but it ironically places the murderer in the implied space in front of the image - that is, among us, the human community of viewers of which he is an innocuous-appearing, albeit monstrous, member. Another example of Lang's use of off-screen space is the montage of shots whose common denominator is Elsie's absence from them: an empty chair at the Beckmann dinner table, the vertiginous stairwell down which Elsie's mother searches compulsively and futilely for signs of her daughter's arrival, the attic play area that awaits Elsie's return from school. Most memorable of all - and most often alluded to visually in other films - is the series of shots that indirectly record Beckert's assault and murder of the innocent child, representing these off screen events metonymically via the entry of Elsie's ball from bushes along on the right edge of the frame and the release of her balloon from telephone wires and off the left edge of the frame. Never in the history of cinema has something so terrible been communicated through such powerfully understated images.

Beyond its technical brilliance, the keys to M's lasting impact are its psychologically convincing portrait of Hans Beckert's twisted compulsion and the still relevant ambivalence of his capture and "trial." Unlike contemporary cinematic examples of the serial killer, Beckert is not presented simply as a grotesque psychopath. Nor is the issue of how society should deal with him at all clear-cut. To be sure, the gut-reaction of most film audiences is to root on the underworld mobsters and petty thieves who, beating the established authorities to their mutual quarry, capture Beckert and bring him to a mock- formal trial whose conclusion is foregone. Like many in America today, Beckert's accusers are disinclined to listen to insanity pleas and would just as soon be rid of the "monster" in the surest way possible: a summary death penalty with as little fretting about legal rights as possible.

Considering the heinousness of Beckert's crimes and the imperfections of a legal/medical system that could well turn him loose to kill again, this emotional response is hard to resist. Yet M is by no means an endorsement of vigilantism - quite the contrary. Through the unlikely rhetorical persuasions of Beckert's unkempt "court appointed" defense attorney and Beckert's own impassioned monologue, Lang strongly implies that impatience with democratic judicial procedure and a paranoid eagerness to scapegoat others (guilty or not) in the name of order are symptomatic of the social hysteria breeding Nazism in 1930s Germany. That the ruthless killer who heads the underworld looks, dresses, and gestures like a Gestapo officer is no accident. Moreover, the letter "M" chalked on Beckert's back by one of his pursuers not only stands for "murderer" but also alludes to God's marking of Cain. While the popular misconception holds that the mark of Cain symbolizes his evil, it in fact represents God's warning to Cain's flawed fellow creatures not to mete out wrathful vengeance, but to leave justice in God's hands. Translated into secular terms (and literally entering the shot from the top of the frame), God's hands in M belong to the legitimate authorities that intervene at the last moment to arrest and try Hans Beckert "in the name of the Law."

M is a monumental film and seriously should be watched by all. For a film like this to be made in 1931 is just shocking. Even if the film was released today it would still be nothing like we have seen before. In our modern age of film making there has been a considerable rise in the production of films about serial killers, their complexities and particularly about pathological ones. Yet, M is the first movie that comes to my mind when I think of the themes that have been in Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, Seven and not to mention countless more.

The film is lead by Peter Lorre in a transcending performance who plays the serial killer and rapist in which the film is centered around. In this performance Lorre is successful in something that at the very least is rare to see in any kind of film, compassion for a child killer and rapist. Lorre makes the viewer see, that he is not a criminal by choice but by a sickness of compulsion. Too often then not is our perception of a psychotic killer having that look that puts fear into his or hers victims' eyes. Lorre doesn't do that but rather displays a frightened man, a scared man. One in which his desperation leads to his hazardous behavior. His portrayal of a killer is not of a fearless one but of one consumed by fear. Something that even today we as a people cannot understand, let alone in 1931.

The direction and writing of Fritz Lang is beyond comprehensible as he taps into the mind of a serial killer and his complexities. He does so in such that we get an empathetic and compassionate illustration of all sides of the story. This in which by then end of the film all points of view are more then well delivered to the audience. Fritz Lang here, has simply created here a timeless masterpiece. One that excels in its technical aspects and enlightens the audience on a topic that other films still have not yet to match M in.

I highly recommend this film for many obvious reasons and conclusions. This film was created by one of the all time great directors in Fritz Lang, Lang's command for the screen is mesmerizing and a joy to witness and so on and so forth. Yet much of this is mostly superficial and a waste of time to continuously state. M, as I mentioned before takes a strong and original stance on an issue that we as a society yet have not fully resolved. This film may not give you THE answer on this issue but it may sway that moral compass of yours that lies inside of all of us.

M / (1931) ****

"M" is a cinematic masterpiece of visual drama. The stunning performances define the careers of exceptional actors such as Peter Lorre and Gustaf Grundgens. Director Fritz Lang gives depth and dimension to his production by distinctly capturing the ecstasy of the film's many characters and focusing accurately on individual situations. This is an intriguing journey into the mind of a psychotic child murderer, blending terror, complexity, and malignity in one amazing motion picture.

Screenwriters Paul Falkenburg and Adlof Jansen construct the characters of "M" with distinctive personalities and three dimensional emotions. Many lesser filmmakers give their characters no creativity outside the confines of the script. In this movie each individual character has a mind of their own; they are free to roam the landscape of a inviting atmosphere.

Fabricating such an impressive atmosphere is some of the best cinematography and lighting effects that I can remember watching. This resplendent component creates the film's terrific moody ambiance. Suspense is one thing "M" contains in full context. The movie's third act is sheer peak-high tension.

Shot in black and white, "M" stars Peter Lorre as Peter-Hans Beckert, an extremely disturbed child murderer in the process of wreaking havoc on a neighborhood. Parents everywhere are living in fear of their children being kidnapped and abruptly annihilated.

This picture contains a brilliantly crafted setup. The visual setting creates a strongly developed opening. Every scene works to either complicate the initial problem or propels the story through a firm narrative through line.

The film captures the chaos of the town in terror perfectly. "M" is more about the results of a serial killer than an actual serial killer. Never do we directly witness a murder; the violent encounters are implied. This method of film making perhaps makes the movie's impact even greater. With an creative perspective through a third person point of view, the filmmakers repeatedly give us examples of a solid structure through characters and occurrences.

"M" offers a unforgettable, challenging performance by Peter Lorre. This extraordinary actor is tormenting and disturbing without embracing in extreme violent conduct. He perspires with momentum and rapture. This productions closing scenes are so deeply penetrating they entirely captivate the viewer. Isn't this what movies are supposed to do?

The first time I saw M, by Fritz Lang, I almost didn't know what to make of it. I was overwhelmed by the power of the performances, the staging of the scenes, the locations, and the power that the simple story had with such complex circumstances. Then I saw it again, and a third time, and I know that this is one of the best films ever to come out of Germany- it's a powerful statement about protecting our children (if you're looking at it as a "message" movie), but in reality it is just a piece of cinema heaven. Thrillers today only wish they could draw a viewer into the mystery elements, and have such unconventionality of the times. Boiling down to this, M is about a child Killer - the legendary character actor Peter Lorre in his first major role - who snatches children when their parents don't watch, and continues on until an investigation goes underway. But as the police investigate overly thoroughly into the real criminal underworld, they know something is up, that this is someone far more gone than they could ever be, so they join in the hunt. This all leads to one of the supreme dramatic climaxes in any thriller.

On the first viewing I just went straight for the story, which is able to suck one in enough to make you feel dizzy. But on the multiple viewings it becomes even more interesting as one can study the intricacy, and indeed full-on artistry, of Lang's camera. He puts it in unusual places at times, and adds for good measure shades of dark and gray in many of the night scene (this is, by the way, a precursor to 'film-noir', which Lang later became an important director in the 40's and 50's). On top of this, there is a very modern sense of style in the editing- I remember a couple of scenes that surprised me editing wise. One is where the cops (I think it was the cops) have an argument about the investigation- two of them get into a shouting match, and we get medium close-ups of them going back and forth. This is done quickly, with a kind of intensity that isn't even captured in today's thrillers. There is also the hunt for Lorre in the digging of the house, where Lang cuts around constantly, heightening the tension between the predators (the criminals) and the prey (Lorre), until it's almost too much to take.

The disturbing aspects of the story, of child abduction and murder, have become benchmarks of a number of today's thrillers, where the cop is usually the subject and the killer left more in the shadows, in cat & mouse style. This doesn't happen here, and because of it by the time we get to the final scene, with Lorre being interrogated and giving his "I can't help it" speech, it becomes something poetic, tragic, frightening. Lang doesn't leave his "message" so simplistically, he makes sure we know Lorre's side too, however twisted it has become, and the antagonist is shown as human as opposed to these present-day thriller where the killers are barely given one dimension let alone two. There were reports that during filming Lang put Lorre through torture, ultimately causing the two to never work together again. But nevertheless, out of this comes a towering performance of a small, wild-eyed criminal in the midst of an extremely well-told and unpredictable mystery story. In short, if you don't know what you're in for when you hear that whistle, those several infamous notes, you may not at all.

The opening scene of this movie is the first clue to its near perfection – A mother preparing dinner for her child, waiting anxiously for her to return from school. Her hope, and then distress as she hears people pass outside her door. While down in the streets of Berlin, her daughter is receiving a balloon from a strange man in a long black coat. We know what's going to happen, but it's still horrific to watch.

Fritz Lang, you cinematic god! A simple story of the underworld, the police, and a single man holding an entire city hostage, and done with such precision and pre-noir darkness that is oozes creepy suspense from beginning to end.

But this movie is not so simple as the police inspectors trying to catch a devious murderer – it's about the mob, employing its network of beggars and petty thieves also trying to bring the killer to their own brand of justice. Apparently, the police crackdown caused by the murders is bad for business – so the mob begins to track him down as well.

It's not only a great crime story, and perhaps the first physiological thriller (the murderer is schizophrenic) but there's comments to be made here about the nature of justice, and who should best dispense it.

In all, not only a trail-blazing classic, but THE trail-blazing classic.

Casting its shadow through motion picture history and continuing to do so to this day, suggesting that societies throughout the world have struggled to resolve the most despicable actions of their citizens (inc. those in the police and armed forces) and the penalties they should pay - as seen by the gamut of forfeits that can be incurred for the same crimes across the planet, as well as those that are crimes in some territories and not in others.

Ultimately this film asks the question: what makes us who we are, how responsible are we for our actions and what should be done about it and by whom? To this day, as subjective a set of questions as you could wish to ask - but ones we will forever continue to try and answer and cinema will continue to catch in its shadows.

An expertly written & masterfully executed example of genre-filmmaking that was far ahead of its time back when it was released and which even today is counted amongst the greatest & most influential works of world cinema, Fritz Lang's M is an intriguing character study that paints an interesting portrait of a serial killer & is a biting criticism of a negligent society as well.

The story of M concerns a serial killer who preys on children & presents an underworld society whose usual business is disrupted due to the everyday raids carried out by the police to apprehend the killer-on-loose. Driven by police's continued failure & increasing losses in their business, the criminal bosses ultimately decide to take matters in their own hands & try to capture the killer all by themselves.

Directed by Fritz Lang, this is the film that the esteemed director called his finest & it's not really difficult to see why. The screenplay & direction brims with creativity, the suspense is wonderfully created & utilized, black-n-white photography is crisp & inventive, editing never lets the story settle down, score & sound effects work in seamless harmony, and Peter Lorre steals the show with a highly compelling performance.

On an overall scale, M is a cinematic treasure that has innovation written all over it. Whether it's the narrative style, leitmotifs, camera angles, sound mixing, symbolism or expressions, the contribution this German classic has made in the world of filmmaking is groundbreaking. A thought-provoking & well-researched study into the mind of a disturbed character, M is a strong meditation on the morals of right & wrong, that has a lot to say about our very own society.

Thoroughly recommended.

In my opinion this is just an OK film. Except for some little stylistic tricks there is nothing special. The story is OK, how it is told is rather weak, in some parts it's even ridiculous, the acting is mostly very weak except for Lorre who you don't see much of anyway, and the sound quality is horrible (something you can't blame it for, but I had to use HEADPHONES on full volume to even understand the words!) but switching from sound to silent all the time is very distracting and has no dramatic effect at all (even if some say so) - the opposite is the case, it seems very amateurish. The slow pacing is typical for it's time. And suspense? I don't think so.

In my opinion the main reasons why this film is so critically acclaimed are:

A) Lorre's overacting. Whenever overacting has a purpose it's critically acclaimed. And his acting as a madman is very effective.

B) I'd call it "heavy look". The topic seems "heavy" and the plot and style seem all too heavy and important. You almost want the film to be successful so you search for it in Lorre's acting. As a justification so to say.

I'm sure you like the film for many other reasons too. Some more important reasons maybe. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's a film we want to like and where you don't want to look for the flaws. Well, long story short, I don't think the final result is a success. There is too much Average in it and the Great isn't all that great.

Metropolis, Nosferatu, Caligari, Sunrise, I think, have all a more stunning look. All silent and all made before "M". Don't get me wrong, the cinematography is good and also inventive in little parts, but not THAT revolutionary that it deserves the reputation it has.

Probably the flaws are too big for me to fully appreciate the rest. Like every time one said: "He doesn't leave any marks...blah, blah" I had to laugh. He talks with the kids in the middle of the day in the middle of the street, he walks along the streets with them, he goes into shops, buys stuff for them, he makes mad gestures in public. And then he also whistles this damn song all the time so loud you hear it from three streets away while everyone in the audience knows from beginning on that this will be his doom.

6/10

M has to be one of the most influential movies ever made, both technically and psychologically. With an outstanding Peter Lorre, suspense that outsuspenses Hitchcock, excellent cinematography and a deep sociological layer added to it, M is one of the masterpieces of the psychological thriller genre.

It is a film devoid of typical humanitarian propaganda, yet it is not the case that we immediately feel the need to relate to the child murderer Hans Beckert ( Peter Lorre ) since Fritz Lang also shows us the effects his gruesome crimes have in the form of the police constantly raiding establishments, the grieving parents & random people accusing eachother of the murders. It is not a movie that forces its opinion on you, but causes you to think about what is truly right and wrong. Hans later claims he cannot help himself because he has an irresistible compulsive urge to kill which cannot be stopped, much to the dismay of other career crooks who claim they only commit crimes to survive and take no pleasure or feel no compulsion towards it. It is a psychological kind of movie that is still as relevant as ever today as it was in 1931.

Peter Lorre is ofcourse the perfect fit for the psychopathic child murderer, he has the perfect innocent wide eyed look for a psychopath, who seems to even be likeable when he is not murdering children. His signature whistle by Edvard Grieg - In the Hall of the Mountain King is a nice creepy addition to his character which he uses to lure kids to their doom. Ofcourse the incredible shot at the start which focuses on Hans's shadow on the poster that lists his crimes and reward for capture while talking to a little girl before killing her is a great ironic symbolism to announce his character.

It was Lang's first sound picture, yet only two third of the movie was shot with actual sound while everything else was shot silent. This was primarily to keep the costs down since sound equipment was very expensive at the time. It creates a weird mix in constant transitioning from silent to sound. Yet as Lang has stated it adds another layer to the eeriness the movie has, so it only enhances the experience instead of unimmersing you out of the film.

The cinematography is revolutionary in its use of low key lightning, which is a technique that was used many times after in the classic Film Noir era in Hollywood. The result is many Film Noirs share a visual resemblance with M due to their dark tone. Not only visually, but psychologically many themes of M have been repeated throughout the years in cinema. It was one of the first instances of a semi-sympathetic look on a pure psychopathic murderer, which has been repeated countless times in later years.

Some might feel sorry for Beckert for having this affliction of which he cannot be helped while others would prefer to see him hang, the movie doesn't shove the right answer down our throats, and it's possible to look at it from either way without having a right answer. It is a sociological thinking man's picture that is as relevant now as it ever was.

A serial killer plagues a town in Germany. Numerous children have gone missing, being befriended by a stranger and then killed in a manner most horrifying. The police are struggling to find clues under the ever-growing pressure from the public for results. They start mounting an offense against the town's criminal underworld. So much so that those criminals decide to find the killer themselves to ease the situation.

Fritz Lang's first sound picture and quite an impressive one at that. Lang experimented heavily with these new sound techniques. Most of them are so commonplace in modern cinema that you don't really notice them, but at the time they must have seemed very impressive indeed. One of the most notable traits - even today - is one of the earliest examples of the so called leitmotif technique, where a particular piece of music is attached to a particular character. Whenever you hear the Imperial March playing in Star Wars, for example, you know Darth Vader won't be far away. In this particular film the murderer likes to whistle "In the Hall of the Mountain King", and it is chilling indeed to see a child playing on the screen and then hear the whistling start off-screen.

The other major point in this film's favour is Peter Lorre as the murderer. Especially the final scene where he pleads about the demons in his head, about the dilemma of must versus want. A powerful scene and one I've often seen in film studies, which is why it's nice to have finally seen this film in its entirety.

M is an old film, all the way back from early 30s, but it's still head and shoulders above the vast majority of films made after its first screening. Well worth a watch for all fans of crime and mystery.

Perhaps this was influential at the time but as entertainment now it has little to offer.

The plot is simple enough, a serial killer is loose and the police can't find, pretty normal. Where it becomes more interesting is that the police, to show the public they are trying, harass the criminal community to the point that the criminals start to look for the killer. This is a nice idea.

Unfortunately the good parts of the plot stop there, the way the killer is identified makes no sense at all, it is hard not to shout "wtf?" at the TV, it is contrived and unbelievable and just plain stupid.

There is also no suspense in the film, the chase scene has an obvious conclusion and although you are kept in doubt as to what the fate of the killer will be you don't care, he has no personality.

There is also a lot of preaching in the final sequence about the death penalty and insanity that becomes very annoying.

The acting is good, pretty much everyone delivers which is especially unusual in films of this vintage.

Dated and lacking in real entertainment.

I don't understand the high rating it has got, maybe people are going easy on it because it is old but new or old it has to entertain and it doesn't.

Probably the first sound masterpiece. Though it's one of the first to use the new technology, it doesn't feel like it, as the camera is fluid and expressive and the sound effects are utilized perfectly and are even essential to the story. Lang's direction is superb, amping up the suspense and terror by using the cinematography, lighting, and sound together to create a very tense and distinctive atmosphere. Peter Lorre is fantastic in what is really the lead role of the film, making us feel sympathy and pity for a horrific child-murderer. The combination of German expressionism, film-noir tendencies, and social commentary that Lang injects into the film makes for a brilliant and gripping work. Simply a terrific film all-around.

As riveting as it is intellectually demanding. And that's just by 2001 standards-- Fritz Lang directed this film, his first with sound-- in 1931, when hardly anyone knew how to integrate dialogue into a previously silent art form, and in the midst of the Nazi uprising at the same time.

The plot is taught and tense, waiting to find out what's going to happen next, or which side is going to make the next move. Moreso when you realize that Lang was the first ever to do this-- previous IMDB comments such as "we've seen this all before" show ignorance, because in 1931, NO ONE had seen this before. No one had DONE this before.

The Nazi regime wanted to ban this film because they suspected-- correctly-- that the film was talking about them. Seventy years later, its questions of good vs. evil are still equally as relevant, or else you weren't paying attention.

Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" has never been more powerful.

This movie is definitely one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. It's about this childlike, pity evoking man (brilliantly played by Peter Lorre), who also happens to be a psychotic child killer. The city in which he lives is, of course, panicked by the mysterious child-killings, and both the criminals and the police starts to haunt the man down. I won't reveal more then this, but I will say this: Just because it's an old movie, don't let your guard down. This movie is one of those rare movies, which are so good that you'll never forget them.

Outstanding German expressionist film from Fritz Lang that follows first the police, then the underworld, as they search for a child killer in Berlin. The cinematography is moody and dramatic as the story moves through the poorer sections of the great city and the acting, while of a more melodramatic style than is currently popular, is very good*. Peter Lorre is outstanding as the killer who taunts the police as the noose slowly tightens around him. To some extent the film is an early 'procedural drama' as the police use (then) modern forensic techniques such as finger printing and graphology to try and find the killer. Tired of the increased police surveillance, the city's criminal element begins their own search, mobilising the numerous beggars to be 'eyes on the street'. The film touches on a number of issues that are as relevant now as in the 1930s including mob mentality (men are accused of being the killer simply for talking to a child), rights of the accused, the 'end justifies the means' use of torture, and the ever thorny issue of mental health and culpability. One of the great pre-WWII German films. *I watched a subtitled version on TCM.

Great story with incredible development of ideas and feelings while giving the audience an in-depth perspective for each side to an extremely difficult issue to resolve. Every film lover should take the time to see this film for its ingenious style and execution of ideas. Adds a little comedy in interesting ways to help entertain and engage the audience. Acting is incredibly real and heart felt. Dramatic and tender to fit to any interest.

Someone here on wrote "You'll remember this one forever" here on IMDB and I have to say that person is absolutely right. The fact that it is one of the first movies where they speak on camera makes it even more interesting and sometimes disturbing. The characters are fenomenal and the world that is pictured in this murder / crime / thriller is tremendous. The script is written with exact precision and I love the dark, almost depressing atmosphere that is within this movie.

I was immediately sold when I saw and I will see this movie again soon. Just to compare how it has grown on me. Whenever someone ask me if I have "a favorite movie" I answer with this one. "M" and another movie called "Children of Paradise".

Being a thriller with all the ingredients that a crimthriller needs. This is a must see. I could go on and on why you should see it.

Fritz Lang, Peter Lorre and cat and mouse at its core.

Just watch it!

This movie may be especially interesting to cinema students, as people say it's an historical point for film-noir and other such genres, besides all the new techniques applied, which were indeed well used..

But for a more general public, the pace of the movie is too slow. Like most "old" movies. Also, the story is quite simple, especially for today's standards, since we've already "seen it all".

However, the way it is presented works. Quite well, in fact. The only problem is that the story has so little to it, that it could've been presented easily in half the time, instead of boring the viewer with meaningless police investigations.. Until I got past half of the movie, I was considering giving up on it, but the last part hooked me up till the end. The way they present the moral dilemma behind the story really makes one think about it. But that's pretty much it.

Still, a pleasant experience, if the viewer is patient/doesn't have anything else to do..

Yikes. This is the second "classic" I'm reviewing in the same day where my opinion is almost the polar opposite of the consensus (the other was Things to Come, 1936). At least I do not feel that M is a complete disaster. The final third is actually quite good, and there are occasional moments of artistic merit prior to that. Further, you should watch M at least once for the same reason that you should head out to see the Emperor parade by in his new clothes at least once--namely, because everyone is talking about it, a lot of people are being influenced by it, and so on. But M is far from a masterpiece. Comparing M to classic Hitchcock is almost criminal. The hot air that's regularly emitted about this film could fill a million balloons for street vendors. The first two thirds of M are pretty bad--I almost couldn't make it to the ending, which would have been a shame, and I'm someone who is almost _never_ tempted to bail out on a film.

The crux of the story is that there is a serial killer targeting young girls in a large German City. The time period is the film's present. The police are having difficulty catching the killer, who is regularly making the headlines of the local paper, especially as the killer keeps writing taunting notes to be published. After the latest murder, a large vigilante group of panicked citizens, including a fair number of criminals, decides to take action. They organize, dividing up the city into quadrants for different people to patrol, and they try to keep the police uninvolved.

The problem with the majority of the film, in a nutshell, is that the storytelling is extremely sloppy. The script, co-written by director Fritz Lang, is all over the map. There are way too many characters. The audience doesn't get to know any of them, at least in the first hour. Instead, it is scene after scene of people we've never met before, mostly sitting or standing around and fretting about how they're going to catch the killer. Lang's direction is extremely flat, and the editing is even worse. The pacing is horrible. There are superfluous pregnant pauses around every corner. There are a lot of superfluous insert shots. There is a lot of poorly chosen camera placement. The absence of a score, except for the killer whistling a famous bit of Edvard Grieg's Peer Gynt, doesn't help. There are no characters to care about. There are no characters to follow into a story. The scenes have all the flow of waiting for two hours in a dentist's office. The dialogue is bland.

And the plot unfolds very linearly--this is even true when the film improves in its final third. There are no surprises or twists to be had here. All of the information that the police and the vigilantes need basically falls right into their laps. They hardly run into a kink. There are a couple small problems, but they're easily resolved.

For a thriller, M has very little tension. The first hour is more in the realm of "police procedural", but it's very slow at that, and the police aren't in it enough, or at least there's not enough procedure shown, to make it work. M is also considered a film noir, but residence in that genre is more superficial here. At any rate, it doesn't help create an engaging film.

But, as I mentioned, there are a few moments of value in the first hour. These mostly come by way of cinematographic symbolism. For example, one shot shows a child's balloon being ensnared in power lines. That and a rolling ball are sufficient to convey that the child has fallen into the killer's trap and is now dead. Some of the interesting symbolism is a bit heavy-handed, but still attractive. For example, a potential child victim who ends up in front of a store's picture window, beneath a large arrow pointing down at her, and next to a hypnotically spinning spiral.

The improvement arrives once the vigilante mob believes it has the killer cornered. This is more than an hour into the film. The sequence where they're "taking the place apart" is well directed and actually becomes suspenseful. We finally get to know a couple characters, later including two members of the police force. The crowning scene features Peter Lorre as Hans Beckert giving an impassioned speech before a huge vigilante mob--he's defending himself before a kangaroo court. Yes, Lorre is excellent here, but he's not in the film enough. 15 minutes of an excellent performance, with scattered moments elsewhere, are surely not enough to put M on "best films of all time" lists.

Lang has interesting things to say about (vigilante) justice and criminal culpability. But the vigilante justice stuff was to be much better handled by Lang elsewhere, such as Fury (1936), which is very nearly a 10. Beckert's culpability speech covers some of the basic issues that one would in an ethics class, but it's not very complete--it doesn't delve into the ontology of choice enough, and of course, it doesn't answer any of the issues. The latter fact is probably for the better. There aren't really easy answers, although my personal view is that choice is not strictly necessary for responsibility or culpability. This scene also at least implies a lot of the ethical issues involved with the formal justice system, vis-à-vis insanity defenses, the possibility of parole, and so on.

But why couldn't Lang have dived right into the material of the last half-hour after, say, a 5 or 10-minute prologue? The film ends abruptly. Extend the ending and cut out all of the fiddling-about garbage that consumes the majority of the screen time. This is just bad screen writing, and it doesn't deserve the praise it has received.