SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

lawcrossing01 Oh my gosh, what a cheesy scene with the mock lawyer defending the accused against the mobsters and the angry parents. Nothing but shallow, trite, over-emotional, characterizations designed to alarm the audience. Subtly and sophistication ? Not at all. Why have meaningful ideas when the characters can just yell well-worn slogans. Do you like being provoked for the sake of being provoked? If yes then you will love this movie. Absolutely nothing is believable about this movie.

atlasmb "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.

MARIO GAUCI 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!

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