Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

tomgillespie2002 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.

A_Different_Drummer As an IMDb prolific reviewer I have no objection to the passion shown by other members in comparing this Americanization to the original. I get it.The problem is that, leaving the backstory of the production aside, this is a superb film from a decade not otherwise known for superb films.First I was lucky to catch a new cut of the film in top quality shown on HD TV in 2016. For those fans who complained about poor VHS copies, again, I feel your pain.Again, if you can stand to rate this film on its own, it is brilliant.The story. Some 15 years before the mob and the authorities would get together for real (JFK) here you have a story that captures your imagination. What if it was in the mob's interest to do a job that no one else wanted to do ... or could do? The acting is top notch, especially since there are few big names in the cast, even by 50s standards. Raymond Burr playing a thug is a treat.The script is hypnotizing. The writer just let the subject matter tell itself.However at the end of the day it is the direction and cinematography that capture the viewer. A few more films like this and you can almost make an argument for going back to B&W prints.The subtext is awesome. I found myself thinking of the original French version of Beauty and the Beast (LA BELLE ET LA BETE.) How many movies can give you in the very same film the best and the worst of our species? Amazing and recommended.

dbdumonteil 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!

mhspain-1 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.