M Reviews

Fritz Lang was a fine director with an artistic vision that is just genius. This is seen perfectly in pretty much all of his resume, especially in Metropolis and this unforgettable masterpiece, M. The film has a great story that unfolds without feeling too fast or too slow in development with a theme that is still relevant today, and to this day I never thought I would see a film that would make me think that the music of Grieg(Peer Gynt being the murderer's motif in a form of a truly chilling whistle) was scary.

When it comes to sound and visuals, M is a triumph. The images expressionistic in their look and tone are incredibly atmospheric including in the brilliantly crafted opening sequence, and the sound is very inspired, yes even in the small details like Lorre clicking open his knife. The script is accomplished and intelligent, Lang's direction is superb and the characters intrigue not just Lorre's very chilling murderer but also Inspector Lohman. While there is a fair bit of suspense and chills, the final shot actually quite touched me in a way.

The acting is excellent. While the support playing of the likes of Otto Klemike hits the nail on the head, it is the performance of Peter Lorre that lives long into the memory. Here he parodies the sinister snivelling that often makes him so compelling to watch and while he is very menacing there are times as you delve deeper into his character where you feel pity for him. All in all, an unforgettable masterpiece. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Posiblemente el primer thriller sobre un asesino serial hecho en la gran pantalla, este es un film que sigue siendo considerado de los mejores del medio incluso casi noventa años después de su estreno. Por M es que tenemos a Se7en o The Silence of The Lambs cargando consigo las bases del género antes del mismo Hitchcock. Ese es suficiente motivo para revisarle en caso de tener algo de cultura cinematográfica y hacer una revisión de sus ideas.

Lo primero que tenemos que clarificar es el escenario empleado, una versión noir de Alemania durante los años treinta. Su grado de exploración es básica, motivo por el cual no verás movimientos políticos nazis o comunistas alrededor. Es lo suficientemente genérico como para encajar en cualquier localización de alguna ciudad occidentalizada para apelar a la masa con tal de que no se aliene de lo que ve. Lo segundo es su grado de viveza, que sea genérico no quita el empeño que tiene a la hora de usar los personajes. Pensarías que todos los actores exagerarían los rasgos de sus roles, con todos siendo hombres ideales trabajando de modo perfecto con las mujeres siendo damiselas en apuros. No señor, los personajes como los actores se sienten muy reales, hay policías incompetentes, políticos corruptos, prostitutas y mafiosos como personajes fuera del estelar. Ninguno sobre exagera sus actos sin perder el carácter caricaturesco de la época. Podrá parecer una insignificancia, pero desde mi perspectiva le da una vibra oscura a la trama.

Dicha trama gira entorno a un asesino de niños que los envenena con dulces. La apariencia del sujeto y sus gestos lunáticos ayudan en entender porque es capaz de salirse con la suya. Su rostro de niño, su postura que genera ternura y condescendencia y sus ojos saltones son usados como un disfraz de un hombre inocente (pitiful) incapaz de hacer el mal. Es una idea que usa Johan Liedhardt, por ejemplo, cosa que hasta cierto punto es una sospecha que se le tiene en la vida real a los hombres aniñados y afeminados. Su método es bastante inteligente y el motivo por el que es interesante, lo que no puede decirse de su caracterización, posteriores films intentarían desarrollar una razón para que entendamos la mente enferma de un asesino con Psycho y su Norman Bates ondeando la bandera al ser el más representativo. Hans Beckert o M no tiene razón de ser, es un simple rarito que tiene la necesidad de asesinar niñas por placer, no tiene historia o pasado con el cual justificarse o siquiera un ideal fuerte para ser carismático. Incluso en el final cuando explica su comportamiento, se reduce a meros impulsos vagos no muy definidos, una excusa freudiana hubiera sido eones de veces mejor. Podemos darle cierto merito por los momentos de paranoia y manía que de vez en cuando presenta, pero son más rasgos que el actor añade para hacerlo el triple de extraño, si lo piensas bien son elementos superficiales.  

Los civiles y el brazo de la ley son otro punto aburrido a destacar. En lo básico, los civiles son manejados con cierta importancia en un inicio para meter revueltas y pánico en la ciudad. Los políticos tienen que reaccionar a sus abucheos presionando a la policía para encontrarles. Lo malo es que ambos tienen muy poca presencia o incluso personalidad. Funcionan como entes colectivos en lugar de un grupo de personajes afectados individualmente. Que la policía sea descrita como sería capaz de hacer redadas y buscar al culpable no importa que suceda es cool hasta que ves como que son eclipsados por otro grupo de personajes. Es la corrupción y falta de conocimiento lo que ayuda al villano en momentos puntuales por su incompetencia.

La incompetencia da paso a lo mejor de la película, los criminales. La policía es tan estúpida que empiezan arrestos a malandrines que nada tenían que ver con el caso, puro para apaciguar al público. Esto da un sentido a que se unan a la trama sin ser forzado. Del mismo modo presentan un gran carisma por no ser tan idealizados, los criminales varían en personalidad, unos más tontos, listos, serios, cómicos entre otros. A ello le añades el bonus de ser competentes en lugar de ir en círculos sin atrapar al malo. Con varias artimañas y estrategias logran dar con M, y la mejor parte es que nada de lo que hacen es estúpido, son hasta capaces de asaltar un local, reunir armas, disfraces, material, ir a sitios para reunirse y organizarse para alcanzar un objetivo en común. Es más atractivo porque sus motivos son hasta cierto punto egoístas con cierta ironía por cazar a un criminal como ellos sólo que aún peor. La escena del tribunal es de lo mejor que tiene con M, un asesino de la peor clase confrontando a criminales y mafiosos sobre la moral y la naturaleza de ellos y la propia. Una reflexión que te da una nueva perspectiva de los criminales para que logres empatizar con la escoria por raro que suene. 

Este linchamiento es el pico de la historia, pico que desafortunadamente Lanz se acobardó de presentar en el final. Introdujeron un último punto en la trama en que uno de los criminales canta para no ser arrestado luego de su redada en el almacén. Con ello en el momento justo evitan que M sea asesinado por la muchedumbre destruyendo por completo la atmósfera y tensión que había construido durante el último arco. El tipo es llevado a una corte donde traen a las madres de sus víctimas parloteando sobre cuidado infantil de que no deberían dejar a los niños solos o en la calle. La película se acaba sin darle una resolución a M o sus captores, es decir, no hay un final. En su lugar te dan un sermón que ni venía al caso para entregar un pretencioso mensaje del tipo “piensen en los niños”. Vaya mierda anticlimática, sé que si lees en que se inspiró sabes que el verdadero M, mejor conocido como El Vampiro de Dusseldorf, es ejecutado, decapitado y su cabeza momificada y partida verticalmente como una manzana, pero no mostrarlo porque, asumo, es muy grotesco no quita que sea decepcionante.

Como pueden ver M es una producción que gustas por su importancia o los memorables segmentos que quedaron impregnados en el inconsciente colectivo del séptimo arte, pero su historia sufre de no ir tan lejos como podía y de tener un final malo. Igualmente es una experiencia curiosa y divertida.  

Apartado visual: 10/10

Dirección general 2/2 (exagerada)

Actuación 2/2 (profesional)

Escenografía 2/2 (genérica pero inmersiva)

Cinemáticas 2/2 (buenos para la época)

Efectos especiales 2/2 (buena ambientación)

Apartado acústico: 5/10

Actuación de voz 3/3 (profesional, creo...)

Banda sonora 1/4 (el silbido de M es lo que hay)

Mezcla de sonido 1/3 (no ha envejecido bien)

Trama: 6/10 

Base 1/2 (algo obsoleta)

Ritmo 1/2 (no bad)

Complejidad 2/2 (multi perspectiva)

plausibilidad 2/2 (Investigación creible)

Conclusión 0/2 (pretensiosa)

Personajes: 5/10

Presencia: 2/2 (casi coral)

Personalidad 2/2 (bien caracterizada)

Profundización 1/2 (vaga)

Desarrollo 0/2 (estática)

Catarsis 0/2 (no existe)

Importancia: 8/10

Valor histórico 3/3 (padre de los asesinos)

revisita 1/3 (divertida y ya)

Memorabilidad 4/4 (imposible de olvidar)

Disfrute: 6/10

El final me saca mucho de lugar

Calificación: 5.5/10 

It's not easy to put yourself in historic context. You see how laboriously, in early days of sound, Lang anticipates so much of scientific, psycological and filmic noir police.

This is somehow the dark lost link between talkies and silent movies. Fritz Lang and the whole cast come from a world where sound in a movie was some music and/or effects that someone had to play (or reproduce) while the movie was projected. They embrace the new medium with passion but this dogs haven´t still changed all the old tricks for the new ones. In fact they had to invent the new ones.

Some scenes are just mute (some others should be) and sometimes the subbing is quite obvious but that´s not really a problem. Lang whistles himself the killer´s leitmotiv ('The Hall Of The Mountain King') and brings from opera one of the most successful tricks in the filmmakers bag, one that was impossible to use before: one song means one character even if you can´t see him. The use of the new elements that sound brings to the writer pallete is quite efective in this movie and that shows the craftmanship of Lang´s (and his wife´s) script. They are inventing the most basic bricks of sounding film´s storytelling and that´s one of the reasons this is considered a masterpiece.

The visual aspect of the movie is also very developed as you could expect from someone like Lang (Metropolis anyone?). The ever present cigar smoke, the lighting that can transform the most lowest of the characters into a messenger of the angriests gods or frame the most excruciating fear. The use of shadows and reflections try to transform the most simple situations into something darker and bigger.

Pete Lorre gets here his passport to almost-fame in hollywood (having to flee from the nazi regime kinda of 'helped') and he deserves it. His acting is as over the top as you could have expected from a silent movie but that´s how the magic of this between worlds film works. It has the powerfull and theatrical imagery from the old times and the useful closeness and power of voice acting.



The argument relies too much in the predisposition of the german watchers from 1931 to feel disgusted and fascinated by the morbid crimes and the laughable (I´m sorry but it is) hunt of a kid killer. It must be said that this is a very oportunistic movie. The script uses the fact that Germany had a bunch of serial killers in the twenties and one very recently (Peter Kürten, the vampire of Düsseldorf) who had striken a new kind of horror in the in-between-wars german law abiding population.

The thing is that you cant get darker in a noir movie without going to just pitch black. Here the useless police is defeated by a weird and unbelievable band of lowlifes, beggars and criminals who try to get justice done by themselves. Of course the script deprives them from winning to the legal authorities in the very last moment but the message is loud and clear: people, normal people, people who are willing to dirty their hands should take this kind of matters in their own hands and protect their streets (it´s a very urban movie). "Watch your children" says the grieving mother in the end. Watch and defend yourself and those who can´t do it themselves. Even if the police officers talk about the way the city people get in the way of their investigations they say it as if the civilians should do a better work not exactly stopping. The whole movie is a schizophrenic recruit movie for vigilantes.



Getting back to the best moments of the film it has some great and memorable shots. The way the killer is haunted before getting himself into an office building, shot from above like the kids play in the very beginning, will be repeated a thousand times in other movies. The delinquent mass shouting and asking for blood, the from below shot of a fat smoking detective sitting at his desk, the long set of stairs that the camera covers in the office building scene, that blinding light that hits a terrorized Lorre when his character is found and of course the final confession of his compulsions will live forever in my mind.

That last confession, the best scene (or at least the most intense) in the whole movie, the final climax, is the result of a great actor being tortured by a great, if cruel, director. Lang had Lorre bruised and exhausted him to get that monologue nailed... he also lost that actor forever, a shame for the noir genre, this two were right for each other. It´s hard to believe that Lorre was a comedy actor before this!



The worst elements are the procedural elements in the search and hunt of the killer. In fact the first fifty minutes, the thirty five after the first time the killer face is shown to be precise because the very beginning is a great way to set the 'stage', drag the movie down. When they interest moves from how to capture him to actually doing it and the consecuences afterwards the movie is again really interesting. At least the silly moments of the argument are compensated with some great shots of people smoking, dicussing, arguing and planning. What they are plotting is, in fact, irrelevant but you won't care.

The fact that it´s such an old and located movie (made for an specific population and culture) doesn´t means that you cant enjoy it. Most of the scenes feel like if they were shot one or two decades later. And that´s it´s magic.

You should try it and then compare it with everything you watch from that point on. You´ll find that there are not so much movies in it´s league.

Honestly, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point whenever I get the opportunity. The point is that this flick is just a massive masterpiece and it really blew me away the first time I saw it. Basically, in my opinion, it is the ultimate psychopath movie and during the last 80 years(!), they have tried to improve the formula but they never improved on the blue print developped in this feature. The funny thing is that I have always been a little bit dismissive towards the serial killer sub-genre. Indeed, most of them, even such massive classics like ‘The Silence of The Lambs’ and ‘Seven’, are so far-fetched, so over the top, I always have a hard time to really connect with them. This one is different though. Indeed, there are no chases, no shootings, no explosions like you see in your typical US thriller. What you have instead is just a frightening and fascinating psychological study of a sick mind and I thought it was much more interesting to behold. To conclude, I think it is a great flick, a tremendous classic, and it is a must-see for any decent movie fan.

M was released in the early stages of cinema and after another German film Nosferatu, M became almost like the birth of the thriller genre so in terms of horror and suspense, the Germans were the ones that started those specific genres off! I really like silent films especially ones that are suspenseful and have a dark story but this one was a bit of both because there were moments of ordinary dialogue and actions but there were a lot of unexpected silent moments that were literally silent without any music at all. This didn't so much terrify me but it really kept me off the edge of my seat as I was watching it and I love the feeling when a film drives me to that. I also couldn't help but notice that the characters seemed to like saying the words ''bastard'' and ''swine'' a lot and I think this is the oldest film that I have watched that actually features swearing in it.


Child-murder is probably the one cinema theme where viewers don't and wouldn't feel comfortable with watching at all so it really isn't for the faint-hearted but I do love films with dark stories and creepy characters. Unfortunately, not everyone would watch this because it was made in the early 1930s, it was filmed in black and white and some are very fussy snobs who expect top quality Avatar-like effects every time. However, I am actually quite surprised that nobody has made a remake version of M yet. It's not like I'd want them to, just that Hollywood are so predictable and most classics have been remade or loosely remade but have turned out crap most of the time.


There have been a rash of child abductions and murders in a German town. The murderer lures the children into his confidence by candy and other such child friendly items. Everyone is on edge because the murderer has not been caught. The most substantial pieces of evidence the police have are hand written letters by the murderer which he sent to the newspaper for publication. Unknown even to himself, a blind beggar, who sold the murderer a balloon for one of the child victims, may have key information as to the murderer's identity. The murder squad's work is made even more difficult with the large number of tips they receive from the paranoid public, who are quick to accuse anyone of suspicious activity solely for their own piece of mind that someone - anyone - is apprehended for the heinous crimes. Conversely, many want to take the case into their own hands, including the town's leading criminals since the increased police presence has placed a strain on their ability to conduct criminal activity. Although they both have the same end goal of capturing the murderer, the police and the criminals seem to be working at cross purposes, which may provide an edge to the murderer in getting away.


Despite there are many characters involved in M, it was really only about one character: the murderer of the children in the city. Peter Lorre portrayed Hans Beckert and what an absolutely outstanding performance it was! It is unique, really, because before M, Lorre was in fact a comedic actor but his performance in this film goes to show that anybody can portray something really well that is totally different from what they have done previously in their careers. He wasn't only a terrifying villain in terms of what he was doing regarding the murder of the children but he was also damn terrifying to look at especially when the character was either scared or shocked about something that was going on. Apart from the obvious fictional characters back in the old days, the Hans Beckert was perhaps the darkest character to have ever been shown in a film and that child-murder is unfortunately something that happens on a regular basis. I don't understand how Lorre as well as the film in general weren't nominated for any Academy Awards at all! Otto Wernicke gave a great performance also as Inspector Karl Lohmann! M was also Wernicke's career breakthrough as well as Lorre's too so this became a breakthrough for those involved in the film as well as a breakthrough in cinema in general.


Fritz Lang is perhaps the most underrated filmmaker in the history of cinema. First he achieves the breakthrough classic Metropolis in the science fiction genre and now M in the horror-thriller genre. Despite the fact that both films are breakthroughs in cinema and both are fantastic, I did prefer M more because it was more powerful and I just happened to enjoy it more as entertainment than art like Metropolis is both of those too but the other way round. I really liked the twist at the end of the film also but I won't spoil that in the review. Anyway, I think that Fritz Lang truly expressed (even from a German in the 1930s on the brink of World War II) that there truly are some sick people in this world and some just don't deserve to live like child-murderers and paedophiles.


Overall, M is one fantastic classic that is a landmark in the thriller genre (and the birth of psychological thrillers) and is without a doubt one of the best foreign language films of all time and it is also unfortunately one of the most underrated films as well. Despite the fact it was made in the early 1930s, it is a lot darker than some of the thrillers we see nowadays. If you're one of those people who aren't too selective when it comes to classics and if you like Metropolis, you will absolutely love this one like I did.

''I can't help what I do! I can't help it, I can't... ''


When the police in a German city are unable to catch a child-murderer, other criminals join in the manhunt.

Peter Lorre: Hans Beckert

''I... I can't help myself! I have no control over this, this evil thing inside of me, the fire, the voices, the torment!''

In the world of film, there is certain subject matter that is just too taboo to be explored by mainstream filmmakers. Even now, with Hollywood's shameless predilection for blood, sex, and drugs, some topics are still just too incredulous to address. Movies that contain serious portrayals of homosexual romance, scenes of rape, or strong anti-governmental themes are certainly unusual in Hollywood; but the biggest way to guarantee a permanent shun from most film studios is to make a film regarding child murder. Better yet, why not make the child murderer a sympathetic character whom has no memory of his killing?





This is exactly what Fritz Lang did in his phenomenal 1931 feature, M. M was truly ahead of its time, and not simply because of its early use of synchronized sound or the use of voice-over narration which was a groundbreaking new technique at that time. What amazed me most about M was that it featured a character whom when introduced, is utterly despicable. The audience quickly learns of his unforgivable crimes, and although none of the murders are actually shown, they are talked about in grim detail, with the camera often focusing; unbearably on the reactions of the distraught parents as they speak of their children's demise. As the film progresses, however, our perceptions begin to change, and we start to take pity on this man, all the while coming to the realization that the vigilant mob who wants to beat this man to death is no better than the murderer himself. After all, is mercilessly pummeling a defenseless man to death somehow more civil than killing a child? To some, the answer may be yes; but to me, murder cannot be divided into degrees of acceptability like that; it is wrong, no matter who does it or who it is done to, just as the concepts of freedom are extreme resolutes; one cannot be half free or half dead, only one or the other.

''Just you wait, it won't be long. The man in black will soon be here. With his cleaver's blade so true. He'll make mincemeat out of YOU!''

But it goes much deeper than that. Aside from just feeling sympathy for the murderer simply because an entire town wants his head on a stick, you can't help but be affected by his genuinely sorrowful personality. After all, he honestly cannot control what he is doing, and he is just as horrified learning about his crimes, as the parents of the children he kills; perhaps even more so, since the shock of discovering that you are the one responsible for such evil is enough to want to die. His speech at the end, is not only heartfelt and pitiful, but it's thought-provoking as well. A speech comprising of substance rather than length, it provides a great deal of insight into the relatively simple mindset most people have regarding issues like these.

Another fascinating quality about M was its constant, almost overwhelming references to angry mobs and vigilante forms of justice. Even before the final chase segment, there are many scenes wherein a dominant force bullies an innocent person or group of people with little or no justification. The scene that sticks out most in my mind is one where a man is beaten down by some nearby pedestrians, simply because he asked a child if she knew the time. The main purpose behind this particular scene is obvious: it serves as a harrowingly realistic portrayal of the dangerous type of hysteria that can infect a highly emotional group of people. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that these types of scenes were probably meant to be sly referendums to the recent existence of the Nazi party in Germany, at the time. Lang seems to be commenting not only on the steadily growing support of the party, but also his disdain for their violent and often extreme dictatorial methods of government and international relations.
Obviously, Lang succeeds in hitting a nerve central to the heart of Germany, unsurprisingly the Nazis banned the movie in July 1934.
Other reasons crediting to the ban was matters of nationality; the main actor Peter Lorre was Jewish and fled Germany in fear of Nazi persecution shortly after the movie's release. Fritz Lang, who was half Jewish, fled two years later.
Contrary to popular rumour, Fritz Lang did not change the title from The Murderers are Among Us to M due to fear of persecution, by the Nazis. He actually changed the title during filming, influenced by the scene where one of the criminals writes the letter on his hand. Lang thought M was a more interesting, more mysterious title.

M is a movie that not only forces you to think, but to feel as well. Peter Lorre's portrayal of the murderous antagonist (or is he indeed, the protagonist?) is both frightening and heart-rending, and Fritz Lang's script and direction are both exceptional in execution, it's no wonder Lang has claimed that M was his favourite film of all those he had directed, presumably for it's controversial nature and success in causing timeless debate.M's cinematography marvelous, not only helping to tell its story in a fluid, stylish manner, but also causing the film to have an ominous, unsettling vibe.
Fritz Lang's M retains its ability to shock almost 70 years after its conception. Some of the images are unforgettable, the sounds echoes of brilliance, and Lorre gives the performance of his career. Do not be allowed to be swayed or put off by the use of subtitles because you will miss out, this film, this story, is a first rate character study and one of the most profoundly disturbing psycho thrillers ever created.

''This won't bring back our children. We, too, should keep a closer watch on our children.''

"What do you know about it? Who are you anyway? Who are you? Criminals? Are you proud of yourselves? Proud of breaking safes or cheating at cards? Things you could just as well keep your fingers off. You wouldn't need to do all that if you'd learn a proper trade or if you'd work. If you weren't a bunch of lazy bastards. But I... I can't help myself! I have no control over this, this evil thing inside of me, the fire, the voices, the torment!"

In German, the word "Mörder" is translated as "murderer". Fritz Lang's M is a revolutionary classic of worldwide cinema (it made an especially influential impact on German filmmaking), and its eerily straightforward title is derived from the German word "Mörder". M is an expressive, supremely haunting venture into the workings of a serial killer that brilliantly raises questions on the nature of justice and who should deal out punishment. The film marked director Fritz Lang's first non-silent picture. Prior to making this conversion, the director was renowned for such films as Metropolis and Die Nibelungen among several others. For its time, M was a technically innovative movie which utilised the new "talkie" technology to great effect. M is also an influential movie that introduced two filmic genres: the serial killer genre and the police investigation genre. Needless to say, this is an important film and an archetypal blueprint responsible for spawning hundreds of facsimiles.

During the early years of the cinematic sound era, most films were given a static and theatrical look. The most prevalent film cameras were too noisy and were mostly anchored to one spot. Actors were required to lean in closely to speak into omni-directional microphones often hidden in vases or other objects (this was brilliantly parodied in the classic Singin' in the Rain). Fritz Lang's M was filmed in 1930. Most filmmakers were amazed by sound technology, and heavily employed it for their films. But M is nothing like most of its peers. Instead of a boring still camera, Lang's lens moved at will; soaring and craning through studio sets...producing an open, flowing, eloquent look for the movie. Lang, one of the supreme masters of silent cinema, wasn't interested in using the new technology merely to replicate reality. To Lang, sound was no carnival sideshow gimmick. He instead used sound for dramatic effect to create an expressionist sound design to augment the narrative and visuals. M actually contains a lot of silence, with the majority of the film being shot devoid of sound equipment. Without sound equipment, the camera was free to roam around the set. Instead of the drone and rattle of a bustling city, Lang gives us isolated sounds such as footsteps or the distant beeping of a car horn. These innovative decisions combine to bestow the film with a chilling, almost surreal soundtrack...at once hollow, brittle and haunting.

Fritz Lang's M closely parallels the case of serial killer Peter Kurten, the "Vampire of Dusseldorf". For months after Kurten's killing spree ended, the country was still held in a state of terror. The release date for M was subsequent to Kurten's much-publicised trial, and just before his execution. Serial killer trials were all the rage in 1920s Germany. At the time of its release, M addressed a very topical issue of serial killers. Today, M can be viewed as a timeless masterpiece that presents an effective snapshot of a 1920s society. Although the technical merits of M may be looked upon as somewhat dreary and ordinary, the film must be viewed on its own terms: the camera movements were innovative and the evocative sound mix was unprecedented.

As I stated before, the storyline of M was somewhat inspired by the killing spree of Peter Kurten. The original title of the film was The Murder Among Us, but changed to M to impart the film with a more eerie, timeless and creepy overtone. The single letter also has great relevance to a significant shot in the film: Peter Lorre, with great horror, notices the letter "M" on his back and realises that people are onto him. The film's basic story concerns Hans Beckert (Lorre): a serial killer who holds a small German city in a firm state of terror. Hans targets young children for his murder victims. He befriends them in the street, tempts them with gifts, and takes a long walk with them before eventually murdering them. During the opening scenes of the film, Hans claims his latest victim: young Elsie Beckman. The piercing, haunting cry of Elsie's mother echoes into the new millennium.
The police grow desperate in their search to apprehend the murderer. With no clues and little suspects, their desperation begins to affect the state of business in the city. As businesses begin to lose customers, the criminals team up in an attempt to catch the kindermörder (that is, child murderer). Pulling the murderer off the streets would put an end to the massive police presence that has effectively ended most criminal activity. In an act of gross desperation, they begin to use the homeless community. The killer frequently whistles Edvard Grieg's "Peer Gynt Suite", and it proves to be his sole identifying feature.

Peter Lorre turns in a haunting performance as the whistling paedophile. Throughout much of the film we never see his face. His shadow is instead used, accompanied by his voice or whistle. Lorre's panicky, jowly, bug-eyed killer seems ready to crawl out of his own flesh at any time. His character is hunted by police before being captured and taken to trial by the forces of the Berlin underworld. Lorre's final speech, featuring the anguished pleas of a madman, is absolutely unforgettable. While his character of Hans Beckert commits monstrous crimes, the film portrays him not as a monster but as a victim of his own infirmity. Lang doesn't ask us to forgive the kindermörder...he asks us merely to understand that he is just a complex, flawed human like the rest of us. As the city closes around this sad, lonely and helpless figure, it's difficult not to feel some semblance of pity for him.

Fritz Lang's M is a brutally atmospheric thriller with a dark and moody feel to it. There are countless shadowy rooms in which the action transpires. Lang's film is eerily prophetic, which gives the beautifully stark cinematography an aura of terror. This is a picture that should frighten us, yet we're uncertain why. Naturally the apparent villain is the murderer...however as the film proceeds it's the angry mob and its brand of snarling justice that makes the audience cower in fear. With meticulous pacing, the film slowly climbs the ladder...steadily building tension step-by-step...until the final, soul-wrenching scene where the ugliness of the human spirit is on full display.

In spite of all the positive aspects of M, the film occasionally has difficulty engaging a viewer. Its ponderous pace won't be liked by all. Regardless of some terrific shots, one may feel sleepy and occasionally bored. It's unfortunate that a few aspects have dated to the extent that it isn't flattering many decades on. It's also difficult to follow at times. Every so often a few things are gruelling to devour.
Despite a few shortcomings, M is a masterpiece that cannot be overlooked. It's a classic piece of cinema that demonstrates how a disturbing story and poignant themes can grab an audience and leave them with an entirely new perspective on such matters. Even though it has been many decades since the film was released, it still holds an immense impact. When compared to modern thrillers, Fritz Lang's M easily holds its own. Cinema enthusiasts and budding filmmakers of any stripe cannot afford to miss it.

8.5/10