I commemorated the 25th anniversary from the death of director Joseph Losey (which occurred on 22nd June 1984) by watching his two best (and, ironically, rarest) Hollywood movies, both noirs made in 1951 – THE PROWLER and M. Fritz Lang's original 1931 version of the latter is not only generally considered to be its director's masterpiece but, on a personal note, is also included in my all-time Top 20 movies. Therefore, I had always been particularly interested in seeing how Losey (another director I admire a great deal) had tackled the daunting task of remaking – and relocating to L.A. – such an iconic German movie. Boasting the original's own producer, Seymour Nebenzal, the 1951 remake has been almost impossible to see and, actually, I only managed to track down a mediocre-looking print a few months ago; even so, I am certainly grateful to have been given the opportunity to catch up with it
especially in view of the fact that Sony's long-rumored Joseph Losey box set on R1 did not materialize after all! Perhaps inevitably, the film's initial stages (the murder of little Elsie) closely resemble those of Lang's film – even down to the choice of camera set-ups: the high angle shot down an eerily desolate flight of stairs, the close-up of the vacant breakfast table, the tell-tale shots of a solitary flying balloon and a rolling ball – but Losey nevertheless manages to gradually make the film his own, culminating in a trademark hysterical finale that highlights a new character not featured in the original: Luther Adler's alcoholic attorney who is, ill-advisedly, moved to turn against his boss Martin Gabel after the baby-killer's confession. David Wayne – best-known until then for playing lightly comic roles – is quite good in his own right (especially during the aforementioned trial sequence) if, understandably, falling short of Peter Lorre's unforgettable original characterization; similarly (and effectively) cast against type, Howard Da Silva makes for a fine Chief of Police, while the sterling supporting cast includes Raymond Burr (also atypically amusing as a raspy-voiced, leading underworld thug), Steve Brodie (as a sadistic cop), Glenn Anders and Jim Backus (as the mayor)! Interestingly enough, two directors-to-be were employed in minor capacities on this film: assistant director Robert Aldrich and script supervisor Don Weis. Allegedly, Fritz Lang balked at Nebenzal's offer to direct the remake himself and never forgave Losey for daring to touch his magnum opus
he must have conveniently forgotten the fact that he had himself remade in Hollywood two Jean Renoir classics – LA CHIENNE (1931) and LA BETE HUMAINE (1938) – as SCARLET STREET (1945) and HUMAN DESIRE (1954) respectively!
45 Reviews
Surprisingly good
Erewhon3 July 2004
Seymour Nebenzal didn't have an especially illustrious career as a producer, either in Europe or the United States. Two of his American movies, in fact, SIREN OF ATLANTIS and this one, were remakes of movies he had produced in Europe. But in this case, he hired the right director.
Was it the growing Blacklist that resulted in this movie having no writing credits on screen? Perhaps, but also perhaps not, as the soon-to-be-blacklisted Howard da Silva and Joseph Losey both use their own names.
Losey and his team make excellent use of numerous Los Angeles locations, including Angel's Flight, Bunker Hill, the Bradbury Building (which is identified by name and location) and what seems to be that old amusement park in Long Beach, although what's seen here could be Venice.
David Wayne is fine as the disturbed child killer, and delivers the required final act speech very well. But he doesn't have the power and poetry of Lorre's performance--but then who in Hollywood in 1951 would have? The movie still has some of the comedy of Lang's original, but it's not as dry and sardonic, and there isn't as much of it. The score isn't good, and shoves the movie even more firmly in the direction of the melodrama it keeps threatening to become.
The very last shot is oddly theatrical in a literal sense: it looks like it is being performed on a stage. And I'm not sure what the point of the drunken lawyer trying to grasp a bit of his former glory really was. However, this element merely weakens the film, it doesn't destroy it.
No, this isn't as good as Lang's original, but Lang's original is perhaps the best film of a great director. It's a classic in almost every regard. This version of "M" is an interesting and largely successful attempt at adapting the themes and ideas of the original to Los Angeles, and to 1950s Hollywood. Naturally there are some weaknesses, but the movie is brisk and engrossing, and certainly doesn't deserve the obscurity into which it has fallen.
Some condemn the film merely for being a remake, but remakes have always been a large part of movie history. There's little reason to object to them, especially now that the original films tend to be available on video. (In the 1930s-50s, originals were generally withdrawn.) If the remake is good, then hooray, there are now two good movies on the subject. If it's bad, then the remake will soon be forgotten.
Was it the growing Blacklist that resulted in this movie having no writing credits on screen? Perhaps, but also perhaps not, as the soon-to-be-blacklisted Howard da Silva and Joseph Losey both use their own names.
Losey and his team make excellent use of numerous Los Angeles locations, including Angel's Flight, Bunker Hill, the Bradbury Building (which is identified by name and location) and what seems to be that old amusement park in Long Beach, although what's seen here could be Venice.
David Wayne is fine as the disturbed child killer, and delivers the required final act speech very well. But he doesn't have the power and poetry of Lorre's performance--but then who in Hollywood in 1951 would have? The movie still has some of the comedy of Lang's original, but it's not as dry and sardonic, and there isn't as much of it. The score isn't good, and shoves the movie even more firmly in the direction of the melodrama it keeps threatening to become.
The very last shot is oddly theatrical in a literal sense: it looks like it is being performed on a stage. And I'm not sure what the point of the drunken lawyer trying to grasp a bit of his former glory really was. However, this element merely weakens the film, it doesn't destroy it.
No, this isn't as good as Lang's original, but Lang's original is perhaps the best film of a great director. It's a classic in almost every regard. This version of "M" is an interesting and largely successful attempt at adapting the themes and ideas of the original to Los Angeles, and to 1950s Hollywood. Naturally there are some weaknesses, but the movie is brisk and engrossing, and certainly doesn't deserve the obscurity into which it has fallen.
Some condemn the film merely for being a remake, but remakes have always been a large part of movie history. There's little reason to object to them, especially now that the original films tend to be available on video. (In the 1930s-50s, originals were generally withdrawn.) If the remake is good, then hooray, there are now two good movies on the subject. If it's bad, then the remake will soon be forgotten.
not quite as bad as its reputation
didi-54 July 2009
Fritz Lang's classic 'M' back in the 1930s is a well-regarded classic, which brought Peter Lorre to prominence and a career in Hollywood.
This film, made twenty years later by Joseph Losey, starred light comedian David Wayne as the child-killer, and has much of the same storyline and set-pieces as its predecessor. But is it any good? It has its chilling moments - notably the ones involving the plasticine figure and the bird at the cafe - and Wayne, in a largely silent part, is surprisingly good. But much of the film is a copy of the original, and this lessens its impact. Also, the character of the lawyer who has gone to drink is too prominent, and the underworld search for the murderer who threatens their operation doesn't quite fit on the mean streets of LA, where it did in Germany.
Not as bad as I'd heard, in fact this film is really quite good, but some bad editing decisions (acknowledged at the time of its release by Losey) have done damage. It deserves a nod for unusual casting though.
This film, made twenty years later by Joseph Losey, starred light comedian David Wayne as the child-killer, and has much of the same storyline and set-pieces as its predecessor. But is it any good? It has its chilling moments - notably the ones involving the plasticine figure and the bird at the cafe - and Wayne, in a largely silent part, is surprisingly good. But much of the film is a copy of the original, and this lessens its impact. Also, the character of the lawyer who has gone to drink is too prominent, and the underworld search for the murderer who threatens their operation doesn't quite fit on the mean streets of LA, where it did in Germany.
Not as bad as I'd heard, in fact this film is really quite good, but some bad editing decisions (acknowledged at the time of its release by Losey) have done damage. It deserves a nod for unusual casting though.
The pied piper
dbdumonteil3 November 2009
A perilous remake ,"M" ,while it's not exactly as startling as Fritz Lang's classic ,is proof positive that all the remakes are not doomed .David Wayne's performance compares favorably with Peter Lorre's,which was not an easy task.The screenplay is faithful like a dog to Von Harbou/Lang's story,itself inspired by a true news item ,the vampire from Düsseldorf.David Wayne ,with his next-door-man look,manages to stay disturbing and threatening ,particularly when he plays with laces and Plasticine figures.The over possessive mother's aberrant upbringing is not passed over in silence ("I'm a man;I'm evil;I have got to be punished!")Losey makes an awesome use of the settings in the last sequences .
Thanks to Losey 's talent ,the Americanization of "M" was a success. Please do not redo now!
Thanks to Losey 's talent ,the Americanization of "M" was a success. Please do not redo now!
One of the most gripping noirs of its era
tomgillespie200229 March 2017
The poster for director Joseph Losey's M promises to deliver "the greatest motion picture you've ever seen!". This, of course, isn't true; in fact, it isn't even the great motion picture entitled M you'll ever see. The original movie of the same title, directed by Fritz Lang, is possibly one of the finest pieces of cinema ever made, and one that reflected the political turmoil of Germany at the time as the Weimar Republic start to collapse under the increasing power of the Nazis. Douglas Sirk, a German working in Hollywood, was first approached to helm the remake, but wanted to scrap the original premise but keep the focus on a notorious child-killer. This could not happen, as such a grisly topic was banned in Hollywood, but would be allowed if it was a remake of a classic. Sirk held his ground, and so M was handed to Losey instead.
Martin W. Harrow (David Wayne) is a reclusive serial killer who has already gained notoriety throughout the city after a few dead bodies were found, minus their shoes. Inspector Carney (Howard Da Silva) feels the pressure of expectation, resorting to desperate measures by fleecing the regulars at a known criminal hangout in the hope of stumbling upon a clue or lead, as the city's residents are in high- paranoia mode, reporting anyone acting remotely suspicious or seen walking with a child. One old man is hauled in after helping a young girl take her skates off after a fall. Syndicate boss Charlie Marshall (Martin Gabel), seeking an opportunity to divert the attention away from his own criminal activities, rounds up his gang of crooks and brings in drunken lawyer Dan Langley (Luther Adler) in the hope of tracking down the murderer himself.
Any American remakes of foreign masterpieces will always be looked upon with some degree of disdain, and I must admit that I went into M expecting a pointless re-hash of what came before. However, under the disguise of a film noir, Losey's M is a damn good movie, with the panic-stricken city eager to turn over their neighbour in the hope of sleeping easy at night easily comparable with Joseph McCarthy's Communist witch-hunts terrorising Hollywood at the time, which saw industry giants pressured into naming names and exiling their co-workers onto the Blacklist. As Harrow, Wayne is subtly effective, sweet-talking his victims and luring them with his whistle. More focus is given to his character than in Lang's film, and Wayne manages to invite more sympathy than Peter Lorre's incarnation as he is eventually hauled in front of a public jury. It certainly doesn't have the dramatic weight or technical wizardry of the 1931 version, but Losey's effort stands out as one of the most gripping noirs of its era.
Martin W. Harrow (David Wayne) is a reclusive serial killer who has already gained notoriety throughout the city after a few dead bodies were found, minus their shoes. Inspector Carney (Howard Da Silva) feels the pressure of expectation, resorting to desperate measures by fleecing the regulars at a known criminal hangout in the hope of stumbling upon a clue or lead, as the city's residents are in high- paranoia mode, reporting anyone acting remotely suspicious or seen walking with a child. One old man is hauled in after helping a young girl take her skates off after a fall. Syndicate boss Charlie Marshall (Martin Gabel), seeking an opportunity to divert the attention away from his own criminal activities, rounds up his gang of crooks and brings in drunken lawyer Dan Langley (Luther Adler) in the hope of tracking down the murderer himself.
Any American remakes of foreign masterpieces will always be looked upon with some degree of disdain, and I must admit that I went into M expecting a pointless re-hash of what came before. However, under the disguise of a film noir, Losey's M is a damn good movie, with the panic-stricken city eager to turn over their neighbour in the hope of sleeping easy at night easily comparable with Joseph McCarthy's Communist witch-hunts terrorising Hollywood at the time, which saw industry giants pressured into naming names and exiling their co-workers onto the Blacklist. As Harrow, Wayne is subtly effective, sweet-talking his victims and luring them with his whistle. More focus is given to his character than in Lang's film, and Wayne manages to invite more sympathy than Peter Lorre's incarnation as he is eventually hauled in front of a public jury. It certainly doesn't have the dramatic weight or technical wizardry of the 1931 version, but Losey's effort stands out as one of the most gripping noirs of its era.
Stranger danger!
AlsExGal3 December 2020
This is a 1951 remake starring David Wayne as the child killer that was so brilliantly portrayed by Peter Lorre in the original 1931 film.
The remake is well made, but mostly because of Wayne's basically non-verbal performance and the fact that producer Seymour Nebenzal was only allowed to make it if it almost exactly mirrored the original. That was due to Production Code concern that the movie not include child molestation as part of the plot. In fact, before he hired director Joseph Losey, he asked fellow German ex-pat Douglas Sirk to direct, but Sirk turned the project down because he wanted to do a rewrite. (Losey also wanted to rewrite it, but for the same reasons, couldn't.)
You see the same camera work, the child is approached by a man at a candy machine, but he is only seen in the mirror and from the legs down (very menacing); the killer buys balloons for the girls he kills to pacify them and the balloon is seen floating above the power lines once the child has been killed; a child's ball that she was bouncing a moment before her death comes rolling into the frame and we know, again, a child has been killed.
The kangaroo court held by the mobsters is almost identical to the original as is the search for the killer in a giant commercial building. The motives are the same; the mob wants to get the child killer because he offends even their criminal senses and because they want good publicity from the police, press and public.
There is one very American element to the remake, however, and that's the use of psychotherapy/psychology that was sweeping the nation around this time (and which continues today). Wayne gives a speech explaining his domineering mother's hatred toward the "evil of men, just men" and his need to be punished not only for his deeds but because he is, simply that, a man.
I thought I would hate this remake but I didn't. Although not as startling and striking as the original, there is still a place for this remake I think in the catalog of American cinema. There are very good character actors as well, including Raymond Burr as a gravel-voiced mob enforcer, Howard Da Silva as a chain-smoking homicide detective, Martin Gabel as the crime boss trying to get all the mileage he can out of catching the killer and Luther Adler as an alcoholic criminal attorney who puts up a defense for Wayne and maybe himself simultaneously.
There is also the cinematography of '50s Los Angeles by Ernest Laszlo that serves as another character in the film--it appears to have been filmed on location and it is eye-opening to see this portrait of the City of Angels. Not looking very angelic.
I would have to say I liked this "M" but it is not as good as the original; maybe it isn't trying to be. Like their German roots, the film and the filmmakers seem to be searching for something uniquely American.
The remake is well made, but mostly because of Wayne's basically non-verbal performance and the fact that producer Seymour Nebenzal was only allowed to make it if it almost exactly mirrored the original. That was due to Production Code concern that the movie not include child molestation as part of the plot. In fact, before he hired director Joseph Losey, he asked fellow German ex-pat Douglas Sirk to direct, but Sirk turned the project down because he wanted to do a rewrite. (Losey also wanted to rewrite it, but for the same reasons, couldn't.)
You see the same camera work, the child is approached by a man at a candy machine, but he is only seen in the mirror and from the legs down (very menacing); the killer buys balloons for the girls he kills to pacify them and the balloon is seen floating above the power lines once the child has been killed; a child's ball that she was bouncing a moment before her death comes rolling into the frame and we know, again, a child has been killed.
The kangaroo court held by the mobsters is almost identical to the original as is the search for the killer in a giant commercial building. The motives are the same; the mob wants to get the child killer because he offends even their criminal senses and because they want good publicity from the police, press and public.
There is one very American element to the remake, however, and that's the use of psychotherapy/psychology that was sweeping the nation around this time (and which continues today). Wayne gives a speech explaining his domineering mother's hatred toward the "evil of men, just men" and his need to be punished not only for his deeds but because he is, simply that, a man.
I thought I would hate this remake but I didn't. Although not as startling and striking as the original, there is still a place for this remake I think in the catalog of American cinema. There are very good character actors as well, including Raymond Burr as a gravel-voiced mob enforcer, Howard Da Silva as a chain-smoking homicide detective, Martin Gabel as the crime boss trying to get all the mileage he can out of catching the killer and Luther Adler as an alcoholic criminal attorney who puts up a defense for Wayne and maybe himself simultaneously.
There is also the cinematography of '50s Los Angeles by Ernest Laszlo that serves as another character in the film--it appears to have been filmed on location and it is eye-opening to see this portrait of the City of Angels. Not looking very angelic.
I would have to say I liked this "M" but it is not as good as the original; maybe it isn't trying to be. Like their German roots, the film and the filmmakers seem to be searching for something uniquely American.
Excellent remake of 1931 M.
barry-mel4518 July 2006
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!!
Blind Panic
bkoganbing5 October 2019
If the mastodons over at the House Un-American Activities Committee hadn't
enough reason to blacklist Joseph Losey than his remake of Fritz Lang's classic
M gave it to them. This is Losey's best broadside against the witch hunts and
the blind panic the gripped vast sections of the American public ferreting out
Communists and their fellow travelers.
There's a serial killer of little girls operating in a small American city and it's got the police baffled. With conditions as they are the police turning up the heat, organized crime types can't operate so the local Don played by Martin Gabel starts his own manhunt. He can move into places local police chief Howard DaSilva can't.
The killer is mild mannered David Wayne a truly pitiable sort when unmasked. His devolution of defenses is something to see.
Good ensemble cast worked with the leads. A good remake of a classic.
There's a serial killer of little girls operating in a small American city and it's got the police baffled. With conditions as they are the police turning up the heat, organized crime types can't operate so the local Don played by Martin Gabel starts his own manhunt. He can move into places local police chief Howard DaSilva can't.
The killer is mild mannered David Wayne a truly pitiable sort when unmasked. His devolution of defenses is something to see.
Good ensemble cast worked with the leads. A good remake of a classic.
Blacklisted
szbow321 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I saw "M" in 1952. The theater in LA was picketed because Joseph Losey was Blacklisted by the McCarthy Committee, and the film wasn't shown again after that week. I don't think it's been shown since then, and it's probably difficult finding a copy. I hadn't seen the original, but I was very impressed by this film, especially David Wayne. The attitude of the mob, especially the women, was expected. But I was surprised by the speech of the "defense attorney". Even today, people would be vexed by his sympathy toward this mentally disturbed criminal. When the original "M' was shown, the Nazis were coming to power, but Lang was able to escape to the USA. Joseph Losey, however, wasn't able to escape the Blacklist. Was this version of "M" meant to foreshadow the "new order" of McCarthyism?
Not the equal of the original, but equally valid and solid on its own terms
dbborroughs1 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Remake of the Fritz Lang classic about the hunt for a child murderer is a good little film in its own right. To be certain the film is not the equal of the original, however it is a solid film in its own right. The film plays like a "daylight" film noir (since kids are only really out during the day it has to be set during the day) mixed a bit with a procedural ala Dragnet, though the people we follow most are actually the crooks of the city who view the killer as a hindrance to their own ends. One of the films strong points is how we see the madness of the mob as regular citizens and even the "bad guys" try to get the right man, and aren't always successful. If there is any trouble with the film its that David Wayne as the killer is not the presence of Peter Lorre. Wayne is probably closer to a real sociopath in that he is a little nothing of a man which is terrifying thought since he could be anyone, but its not exciting on the screen because he is such a nobody. Worth tracking down.
A Bunch of Nonsex
disinterested_spectator5 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
In the original version of "M" made in 1931, as well as in the remake of 1951, a city is plagued by a man who is killing children. The police become so relentless in their pursuit of the killer that the ordinary way of life of the criminal underclass becomes disrupted. As a result, the criminals take matters into their own hands, capture the child killer, and have a trial of sorts, during which he tells everyone that he is compulsively driven to do what he does. Before the mob can do anything to him, the police show up and take him away.
In the 1931 movie, it is never explicitly stated that the children are sexually molested, but it is implied, and in any event, we would automatically assume as much anyway. In the remake, however, the movie goes out of its way to make it clear that the children are not molested. While a crowd watches the chief of police on television warning parents about the child killer, someone in the crowd asks, "What's he mean the children were neither violated nor outraged?" Someone else in the crowd responds, "What's the difference? He killed them, didn't he?"
Well, it may not make any difference to the people in the crowd, but apparently it must have made a difference to the Production Code Administration. It was not sufficient merely to omit all reference to sexual molestation. It had to be explicitly denied. At the same time, all of the killer's victims are little girls, which would indicate a sexual preference. Presumably, just in case the audience refused to believe sex was not involved, the producers went the extra step to avoid any hint of homosexuality. The killer takes the shoes of his victims, which suggests a fetish, which in turn suggests a sexual perversion. Furthermore, in one scene, a man and wife are informed that their child has been a victim. As they start to leave, the woman turns around in desperation and says that maybe it is a mistake, that the child is someone else's. We can only conclude from this that there was no body in the morgue for them to identify, that the police were only going by the doll and the girl's dress, which are on the chief's desk. He holds up the dress for her to look at, which she recognizes as belonging to her daughter. From this we can only conclude one thing: the killer took off the girl's clothes, and her naked body is yet to be found. Still, we are supposed to believe that sex is not the motive for these murders. Censorship can be confusing.
It goes without saying that the original was much better, and one way in which it was better is that the killer simply had an evil impulse that he did not understand. In the remake, owing to the popularity of psychoanalysis at the time, we are given an explanation for the killer's behavior as resulting from something that happened when he was a child. As a harbinger of that explanation, we see him strangling a clay model of a child, with a picture of his elderly mother sitting right beside him, almost as if she were watching him do it. At the end, when the child killer is surrounded by the underworld figures that captured him, he gives a garbled explanation about how his father mistreated his mother, and how she raised him to believe that all men are evil. As a result, he reasons that since he is a man, then he is evil and deserves punishment. So, he has to kill little girls, partly to keep them from growing up and being mistreated by evil men, and partly so he will get caught and get the punishment he deserves. The explanation comes across as artificial, unsatisfying, and unbelievable. Fortunately, we are not told why he took the girls' shoes, which would only have made the explanation even more tortured. The remake was destined to be inferior to the original, but it would still have been a lot better movie had all that psychobabble at the end been left out.
In the 1931 movie, it is never explicitly stated that the children are sexually molested, but it is implied, and in any event, we would automatically assume as much anyway. In the remake, however, the movie goes out of its way to make it clear that the children are not molested. While a crowd watches the chief of police on television warning parents about the child killer, someone in the crowd asks, "What's he mean the children were neither violated nor outraged?" Someone else in the crowd responds, "What's the difference? He killed them, didn't he?"
Well, it may not make any difference to the people in the crowd, but apparently it must have made a difference to the Production Code Administration. It was not sufficient merely to omit all reference to sexual molestation. It had to be explicitly denied. At the same time, all of the killer's victims are little girls, which would indicate a sexual preference. Presumably, just in case the audience refused to believe sex was not involved, the producers went the extra step to avoid any hint of homosexuality. The killer takes the shoes of his victims, which suggests a fetish, which in turn suggests a sexual perversion. Furthermore, in one scene, a man and wife are informed that their child has been a victim. As they start to leave, the woman turns around in desperation and says that maybe it is a mistake, that the child is someone else's. We can only conclude from this that there was no body in the morgue for them to identify, that the police were only going by the doll and the girl's dress, which are on the chief's desk. He holds up the dress for her to look at, which she recognizes as belonging to her daughter. From this we can only conclude one thing: the killer took off the girl's clothes, and her naked body is yet to be found. Still, we are supposed to believe that sex is not the motive for these murders. Censorship can be confusing.
It goes without saying that the original was much better, and one way in which it was better is that the killer simply had an evil impulse that he did not understand. In the remake, owing to the popularity of psychoanalysis at the time, we are given an explanation for the killer's behavior as resulting from something that happened when he was a child. As a harbinger of that explanation, we see him strangling a clay model of a child, with a picture of his elderly mother sitting right beside him, almost as if she were watching him do it. At the end, when the child killer is surrounded by the underworld figures that captured him, he gives a garbled explanation about how his father mistreated his mother, and how she raised him to believe that all men are evil. As a result, he reasons that since he is a man, then he is evil and deserves punishment. So, he has to kill little girls, partly to keep them from growing up and being mistreated by evil men, and partly so he will get caught and get the punishment he deserves. The explanation comes across as artificial, unsatisfying, and unbelievable. Fortunately, we are not told why he took the girls' shoes, which would only have made the explanation even more tortured. The remake was destined to be inferior to the original, but it would still have been a lot better movie had all that psychobabble at the end been left out.
Who's Responsible?
Bard-817 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Crime & Punishment in the Fifties
atlasmb1 January 2016
"M" is a remake of the Fritz Lang film shot twenty years earlier. In this version, the setting is Los Angeles, where the public is up at arms about a child killer on the loose.
The first half of the film feels like a public service announcement for parents, warning them to protect their children from strangers. It's not a dramatic start, and the weaknesses easily shine through--the uneven acting, the contrived script, the repetitive exposition.
Still, the film has interest as a document of its time--with its perhaps unintended swipes at the unprofessionalism of police, and the current views of crime and big city life. It also captures the nascent views of basic criminal psychology, much as some Hitchcock films do.
The latter half of the film is about the actual apprehension of the murderer. There's a chase, which gives the film more interest, then a final denouement that examines common views of morality and opposing views of the nature/nurture dichotomy. If only the two halves were more cohesive.
There is a lot going on in the film, and the cast offers many moments of surprising recognition. I recommend that viewers watch it, but I cannot assign a higher grade.
The first half of the film feels like a public service announcement for parents, warning them to protect their children from strangers. It's not a dramatic start, and the weaknesses easily shine through--the uneven acting, the contrived script, the repetitive exposition.
Still, the film has interest as a document of its time--with its perhaps unintended swipes at the unprofessionalism of police, and the current views of crime and big city life. It also captures the nascent views of basic criminal psychology, much as some Hitchcock films do.
The latter half of the film is about the actual apprehension of the murderer. There's a chase, which gives the film more interest, then a final denouement that examines common views of morality and opposing views of the nature/nurture dichotomy. If only the two halves were more cohesive.
There is a lot going on in the film, and the cast offers many moments of surprising recognition. I recommend that viewers watch it, but I cannot assign a higher grade.
Oy! What an Ending!!!!
arfdawg-115 September 2019
This remake was really good. That is, until the last quarter when it took a really stupid and moronic turn. The ending was atrocious and completely ruined the rest of the film.
OMG! I endured like 20 minutes of stupidity that made no sense. In fact, it was so moronic, I had a hard time following it because it didnt make any sense. What a disappointment.
OMG! I endured like 20 minutes of stupidity that made no sense. In fact, it was so moronic, I had a hard time following it because it didnt make any sense. What a disappointment.
Underrated American Re-Make
luna_the_cat-114 April 2013
Wow. This is a really under-sung, but still great remake of M.
Like anyone else, I assumed this would be an inferior version of the Lang classic, but this movie stands alone and takes the already disturbing plot to a very '50's place.
If you're interested in noir, and you're seen the original M, you definitely, so much, HAVE to see this. The performance from David Wayne rivals Peter Lorre's and if nothing else, for you Americans, he is surprisingly sympathetic and relate-able.
The original M is one of the first great thrillers and bridges the gap between expressionism and what would become noir in film. This movie serves an exact opposite purpose - it takes the plot of "M" and does an amazing job of turning it in to a local film that both serves as a great thriller and a great commentary on our society.
Like anyone else, I assumed this would be an inferior version of the Lang classic, but this movie stands alone and takes the already disturbing plot to a very '50's place.
If you're interested in noir, and you're seen the original M, you definitely, so much, HAVE to see this. The performance from David Wayne rivals Peter Lorre's and if nothing else, for you Americans, he is surprisingly sympathetic and relate-able.
The original M is one of the first great thrillers and bridges the gap between expressionism and what would become noir in film. This movie serves an exact opposite purpose - it takes the plot of "M" and does an amazing job of turning it in to a local film that both serves as a great thriller and a great commentary on our society.
Do You Know Where Your Children Are?
rmax30482311 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
One of the difficult things about shooting a movie in Los Angeles is that the city itself seems so dull. Every vista looks flat and tends to fall into one or another of two types. There are the wide car-choked boulevards with used car lots and Chinese restaurants, or there are the sterile, empty residential areas of trimmed lawns and ranch houses. Fast food dispensaries proudly proclaim, "Serving the Public Since 2009." There is no downtown. Some films manage to overcome this disadvantage. "Chinatown" was one. This one partially succeeds. The urban setting here has a texture to it. Not just the familiar Bradbury Building (in which Neff tried to outwit Keyes) or the Santa Monica pier but hills with steps, and multilayered wooden apartments, and corner candy stores. The location scout should get a screen credit.
Few remakes live up to the original, even if the remake was directed by a young Joseph Losey. It's pretty thoroughly Americanized. In the original, Peter Lorre was the helpless child killer. Here, David Wayne is driven by ego-alien impulses too but Lang gave Lorre no facile excuse, whereas this script has Wayne hating his mother and taking his rage out on little girls. He was probably abused as a child. That accounts for all rudeness these days, doesn't it? Lang's treatment is both less sentimental and more in line with what psychologists know about serial killers, which is virtually nothing. Not all the changes are dumb. Instead of being trapped in the wooden bin of a warehouse, Wayne (and a kidnapped girl) are stuck in a room jammed with plastic mannequins and the air is full of legs dangling as if recently severed. What really freaks me about those mannequins is that their feet are shaped into smooth wedges but they have no toes.
I don't think I'll go farther into the plot. Wayne is hauled up before "a jury of his peers" and defended by a drunk but I can't discuss the case out of court.
Wayne has a heavy duty speech at his mock trial. The camera doesn't cut away from him for a long while. And he handles it pretty well -- not like Lorre, whose only justification is that he's in the grip of his obsession, but equally pathetic.
In general, Lang's is the better film because, for one thing, it was an original, not a remake. For another, the agency of social control was Berlin's horde of beggars and small-time thieves in 1931 who formed a convincing network. Losey's movie loses that sense of solidarity and tries to being together too disparate a group: juvenile delinquents, rich racketeers, a black shoe shine boy. And Lang's depiction of police procedure is more explicit and more interesting. This version looks like a gangster movie.
On his hunting trips, Lorre whistled a piece from Grieg's "Peer Gynt", "In the Hall of the Mountain King," which was both catchy and a little ominous. Here, David Wayne plays a lugubrious tune in a minor key on a flute, bespeaking utter misery and impending doom. The overall effect of these and other modifications is just to simplify the story by reducing, or eliminating, the ambiguity. Everything is spelled out for the viewer, as in a kindergarten class where the ABCs are being taught.
Few remakes live up to the original, even if the remake was directed by a young Joseph Losey. It's pretty thoroughly Americanized. In the original, Peter Lorre was the helpless child killer. Here, David Wayne is driven by ego-alien impulses too but Lang gave Lorre no facile excuse, whereas this script has Wayne hating his mother and taking his rage out on little girls. He was probably abused as a child. That accounts for all rudeness these days, doesn't it? Lang's treatment is both less sentimental and more in line with what psychologists know about serial killers, which is virtually nothing. Not all the changes are dumb. Instead of being trapped in the wooden bin of a warehouse, Wayne (and a kidnapped girl) are stuck in a room jammed with plastic mannequins and the air is full of legs dangling as if recently severed. What really freaks me about those mannequins is that their feet are shaped into smooth wedges but they have no toes.
I don't think I'll go farther into the plot. Wayne is hauled up before "a jury of his peers" and defended by a drunk but I can't discuss the case out of court.
Wayne has a heavy duty speech at his mock trial. The camera doesn't cut away from him for a long while. And he handles it pretty well -- not like Lorre, whose only justification is that he's in the grip of his obsession, but equally pathetic.
In general, Lang's is the better film because, for one thing, it was an original, not a remake. For another, the agency of social control was Berlin's horde of beggars and small-time thieves in 1931 who formed a convincing network. Losey's movie loses that sense of solidarity and tries to being together too disparate a group: juvenile delinquents, rich racketeers, a black shoe shine boy. And Lang's depiction of police procedure is more explicit and more interesting. This version looks like a gangster movie.
On his hunting trips, Lorre whistled a piece from Grieg's "Peer Gynt", "In the Hall of the Mountain King," which was both catchy and a little ominous. Here, David Wayne plays a lugubrious tune in a minor key on a flute, bespeaking utter misery and impending doom. The overall effect of these and other modifications is just to simplify the story by reducing, or eliminating, the ambiguity. Everything is spelled out for the viewer, as in a kindergarten class where the ABCs are being taught.
M esmerizing
ArtVandelayImporterExporter10 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Lots of target hit here:
American paranoia over crime and violence (check out the TV police bulletin near the beginning),
mob mentality (neighbours ratting on everybody else),
vigilantism (a parking garage full of criminals can't wait to lynch the perp),
inept cops,
scheming mobsters and compliant media.
For a Hollywood remake of a classic foreign film this is well above average. Maybe because it's shot as a B movie noir rather than a slick A-list reproduction.
OK, sunny L.A. isn't exactly known for its street grit. But the director's choice to show most of the murderer's stalking very nearly as silent film dials up the creepiness despite the sunny skies. The other thing about scuzzy 50s B movies is they couldn't afford shmaltzy scores from A-list composers so these movies, esp viewed in the 21st century, aren't ruined by soaring violins and over-done timpanis, and various other musical tricks used by big-budget directors to tell us how to feel when we watch their movies.
The movie hits a bit of a road bump when the flat-foots consult a head-shrink for some 1950s psycho-babble. Thankfully, that's over and done within a minute or two. I bet it was shot and added after the film was finished and cut, at the request of the Hays Office or some clown in the executive suite.
I thought the perp's semi-coherent psycho-drivel near the end was quite effectively delivered. I couldn't decide whether the director wanted us to feel sympathy for him, or to show what a load of bollocks psychiatry is. In any event, a compelling ending.
I'd like to see it back-to-back with the Frtiz Lang version, which is a nearly perfect film.
Very Good Film Indeed!
kirksworks22 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
50% Great 50% Shocking Acting
JMaddocks967 August 2019
They tried to Americanise it but after 20 years and a Hollywood botox the standards of acting appeared to get much worse.
I don't know much about film making in the 50s but surely when someone acts terribly and then looks at the camera, can't you just cut the reel and try again?
As much a masterpiece as Lang's original
MOscarbradley15 September 2018
Films about child murderers are reasonably rare perhaps because the subject of child murder is so repugnant. The definitive movie about child murder, (Fritz Lang's "M"), kept the killings off-screen and concentrated instead on the psychopathology of the killer, (a superb Peter Lorre), whose final speech, ("I can't help myself..I have no control over what I do..."), brought the nature of his actions into sharp focus. Like many great movies, then, it seemed inconcievable that anyone would want to remake it, particularly in view of the subject matter, and yet in 1951 Seymour Nebenzal, who also produced the Lang version, decided to do just that.
The 1951 version of "M" was not a success. It dealt with a subject much too dark for an American audience and, furthermore, its director Joseph Losey was on the cusp of being black-listed and yet I think it is as much a masterpiece as the earlier German movie. The setting was moved from Berlin to Los Angeles, (superbly shot and making great use of LA locations by Ernest Laszlo). The plot remained very much the same with a few noticeable changes, (both the police and the criminal underworld are more 'enlightened' here), while the pivotal role of the murderer, seen for most of the picture as a mostly silent, shadowy figure was given to David Wayne, who up to that time was seen as a light comedy actor.
Casting Wayne may have been a risky strategy but it certainly paid off. There was something simple and unobtrusive about his presence, the ease with which he moved about children easily explainable as he seemed so childlike himself. When finally he is tracked down and brought to a large underground carpark for 'trial' his fear and panic are palpable and, like Lorre's, his long speech direct to camera is heart-breaking as well as a stunning example of the actor's art. If in the end there is the tiniest touch of melodrama introduced into the climax, it is forgiveable in view of all that has gone before. This is an "M" for the McCarthy age, a genuinelly frightening picture of an America where even the murder of a child isi viewed as collateral damage in a society where criminality is corporate. It's failure is both understandable and troubling; it is certainly Losey's best American film and one of the finest things he was ever to do. It is long overdue a re-release and a reassessment.
The 1951 version of "M" was not a success. It dealt with a subject much too dark for an American audience and, furthermore, its director Joseph Losey was on the cusp of being black-listed and yet I think it is as much a masterpiece as the earlier German movie. The setting was moved from Berlin to Los Angeles, (superbly shot and making great use of LA locations by Ernest Laszlo). The plot remained very much the same with a few noticeable changes, (both the police and the criminal underworld are more 'enlightened' here), while the pivotal role of the murderer, seen for most of the picture as a mostly silent, shadowy figure was given to David Wayne, who up to that time was seen as a light comedy actor.
Casting Wayne may have been a risky strategy but it certainly paid off. There was something simple and unobtrusive about his presence, the ease with which he moved about children easily explainable as he seemed so childlike himself. When finally he is tracked down and brought to a large underground carpark for 'trial' his fear and panic are palpable and, like Lorre's, his long speech direct to camera is heart-breaking as well as a stunning example of the actor's art. If in the end there is the tiniest touch of melodrama introduced into the climax, it is forgiveable in view of all that has gone before. This is an "M" for the McCarthy age, a genuinelly frightening picture of an America where even the murder of a child isi viewed as collateral damage in a society where criminality is corporate. It's failure is both understandable and troubling; it is certainly Losey's best American film and one of the finest things he was ever to do. It is long overdue a re-release and a reassessment.
It could be anyone's child, anyone's, no one is safe.
hitchcockthelegend25 June 2019
M is directed by Joseph Losey and written by Norman Reilly Raine and Leo Katcher. It stars David Wayne, Howard Da Silva, Martin Gabel, Luther Adler, Steve Brodie and Raymond Burr. Music is by Michel Michelet and cinematography by Ernest Laszlo.
Fritz Lang's original film from 1931 is a seriously classy classic, no doubt about it and although making a remake seems to many like birthing the devil's spawn, the 1951 version exists. How great to find that it's a very fine offering, one that was made at the right time (the film noir zeitgeist) and puts its own slant into the mix.
Story here has been relocated to Los Angeles, where there's a child murderer on the loose and not only are the cops under pressure to capture the fiend, but also the criminal underworld since there's too much heat being brought into the vicinity of their operations. Narrative is structured in three ways, the operations of the police investigation, the criminal mobsters forming their own plan of seek and eradicate, and of course we follow the despicable actions of the killer, Martin W. Harrow (Wayne).
Following closely from the original's template, Losey instils key haunting images and the killer's traits, whilst giving them their own identity within the grimy downtown L.A. locales. That we are in Bunker Hill and taking in such landmarks like the Angels Flight railway and the Bradbury Building, makes for some superb period flavours. Couple these with Laszlo's spell bindingly noir compliant cinematography, and Losey has got atmosphere to burn.
Cast are giving good turns, with many noir favourites doing their thing, best of all, mind, is Wayne as the tormented kiddie killer. Getting more screen time than Peter Lorre does in the original, Wayne gives us a different interpretation that works for a high end portrayal of a man at the mercy of his desperate urges. None more so at pic's denoument, where he is cast to the floor and proceeds to outpour his very being. Wayne would never be this good again.
It's not close to being as good as Lang's original, and the thread of the crime underworld worrying about their image is just daft. It's also safe to say that there's no deepness on show, there's some reasoning for why Harrow is as sick as he is - and a little snippet of vigilante paranoia, but this does fail to expand upon some serious themes. That said though, this is certainly a worthy entry in the file that contains remakes that hold their own. 7/10
Fritz Lang's original film from 1931 is a seriously classy classic, no doubt about it and although making a remake seems to many like birthing the devil's spawn, the 1951 version exists. How great to find that it's a very fine offering, one that was made at the right time (the film noir zeitgeist) and puts its own slant into the mix.
Story here has been relocated to Los Angeles, where there's a child murderer on the loose and not only are the cops under pressure to capture the fiend, but also the criminal underworld since there's too much heat being brought into the vicinity of their operations. Narrative is structured in three ways, the operations of the police investigation, the criminal mobsters forming their own plan of seek and eradicate, and of course we follow the despicable actions of the killer, Martin W. Harrow (Wayne).
Following closely from the original's template, Losey instils key haunting images and the killer's traits, whilst giving them their own identity within the grimy downtown L.A. locales. That we are in Bunker Hill and taking in such landmarks like the Angels Flight railway and the Bradbury Building, makes for some superb period flavours. Couple these with Laszlo's spell bindingly noir compliant cinematography, and Losey has got atmosphere to burn.
Cast are giving good turns, with many noir favourites doing their thing, best of all, mind, is Wayne as the tormented kiddie killer. Getting more screen time than Peter Lorre does in the original, Wayne gives us a different interpretation that works for a high end portrayal of a man at the mercy of his desperate urges. None more so at pic's denoument, where he is cast to the floor and proceeds to outpour his very being. Wayne would never be this good again.
It's not close to being as good as Lang's original, and the thread of the crime underworld worrying about their image is just daft. It's also safe to say that there's no deepness on show, there's some reasoning for why Harrow is as sick as he is - and a little snippet of vigilante paranoia, but this does fail to expand upon some serious themes. That said though, this is certainly a worthy entry in the file that contains remakes that hold their own. 7/10
Abysmal
Anne_Sharp18 November 2000
It would be hard for any remake to live up to Fritz Lang's original, but the Joseph Losey version of "M" deserves its terrible reputation. It's hard to imagine any little girl being stupid enough to befriend David Wayne's lurching gargoyle of a child-murderer, and the sequences depicting the police and underworld's parallel search for the killer are reminiscent of a very uninspired Ed Wood.
Oh boy, Anne, did you miss the boat!
mhspain-15 June 2006
I just saw it at the Film Forum in Manhattan, and the notion that your review of "abysmal" could be the topline comment for this movie is really a shame. Far from having a terrible reputation, this unknown classic is just now being rediscovered. And your description of the conflict between the cops and the mobsters as being like "Ed Wood" says more about you personally than it does about the movie. And to everyone else: this is a lost classic, unfairly dismissed in its day because it was a low-budget remake. The vintage L.A. locations alone make this movie well worth seeing, almost like a documentary of a past that is mostly gone.
And Raegan, I love how you so consistently make statements and then retreat from them, claiming that it's interesting, yet a failure, dated, yet not without merit. Pick a side buddy. I also love how you say that the movie is set in San Francisco (you too, repticicus!). Uh, it's set in L.A., buddies. They're two different cities, and they're about 6 hours away from each other on the 5.
And Raegan, I love how you so consistently make statements and then retreat from them, claiming that it's interesting, yet a failure, dated, yet not without merit. Pick a side buddy. I also love how you say that the movie is set in San Francisco (you too, repticicus!). Uh, it's set in L.A., buddies. They're two different cities, and they're about 6 hours away from each other on the 5.
Hysterical, mob-driven remake of German original
adrianovasconcelos15 May 2023
Joseph Losey looked ready for major director status in his country of birth, the USA, when he decided to flee to Europe to escape the Senator McCarthy-led House Un-American Committee, HUAC investigations. In Europe, specifically the UK, he produced most of his better known work, including THE SERVANT, THE GO-BETWEEN, KING AND COUNTRY, BLIND DATE, among other superior films.
M is a remake of the similarly entitled German film directed by Fritz Lang in 1931. It falls well short of the original's genius, but it does retain some of its expressionism, especially over the first third, with superb closeups of gargoyle-like faces, including the blind man who gets to play a crucial part in identifying the culprit. I admire Losey's courage in tackling a near taboo subject even today, let alone back in 1951, that of child abduction, abuse and murder, but he loses focus when he starts bringing in all manner of social strata, including politicians, police and a criminal gang, all with their own motivations for locating the child and capturing the abductor.
After the terrific first third, I found that I could not accept the logic of the criminal gang and its nose-poking kingpin, Martin Gabel.
Very good cinematography, as in all of Losey's work. Very good performances from Da Silva, Burr. Not overly impressed with David Wayne, with the unenviable role of child abductor. Even less impressed with the script, with sketchy characters.
I found M watchable but a dim remake of the original. I doubt I will want to rewatch it.
M is a remake of the similarly entitled German film directed by Fritz Lang in 1931. It falls well short of the original's genius, but it does retain some of its expressionism, especially over the first third, with superb closeups of gargoyle-like faces, including the blind man who gets to play a crucial part in identifying the culprit. I admire Losey's courage in tackling a near taboo subject even today, let alone back in 1951, that of child abduction, abuse and murder, but he loses focus when he starts bringing in all manner of social strata, including politicians, police and a criminal gang, all with their own motivations for locating the child and capturing the abductor.
After the terrific first third, I found that I could not accept the logic of the criminal gang and its nose-poking kingpin, Martin Gabel.
Very good cinematography, as in all of Losey's work. Very good performances from Da Silva, Burr. Not overly impressed with David Wayne, with the unenviable role of child abductor. Even less impressed with the script, with sketchy characters.
I found M watchable but a dim remake of the original. I doubt I will want to rewatch it.
Garbage
William_x_Lee26 August 2018
The term film noir has come to mean many things, and yet it is best exemplified by Fritz Lang himself. This 1951 remake is an abomination. It is flat, without mood or nuance. It's a 1950's crime drama with the name M stamped on it. Please, apologists, spare me. Did your grandfather work on the film or something? You cannot seriously be lauding this film on its cinematic merits!
Pure garbage. Mister Lang is obviously rotating in his grave.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
