Edgar Allan Pooh . . . unfolding in such an inferior fashion compared to Fritz Lang's original that poorly informed viewers will assume that it was fabricated by the potheads from BE KIND REWIND. As a low-budget "tribute" flick by a couple wannabes who were drunk as skunks the only time that they watched Lang's masterpiece, this 1951 alleged version of M might merit a grade of "D+" from soft-hearted evaluators. However, when we learn that Lang's original producer was behind this 1950s travesty, it's clear that this bozo set out to destroy both Mr. Lang and the original M's stellar reputations (not unlike Edgar Allan Poe's initial obituary writer, or Ty Cobb's first biographer). History has many examples of Sychophantic hangers-on (such as Mozart's jealous rival in the film AMADEUS) who cling to life hoping for an opportunity to soil the legacy of their betters. All the police reports in the so-called American version of M specify that the unknown child killer keeps ONE shoe as a souvenir from each victim, but when M's shoe stash is found, it clearly consists of PAIRS! From whistling the wrong "killing tune" to being given an "M" handprint bigger than Goliath could provide, from spouting pure psychobabble in his own "defense" (turning pathos into bathos) right through to the complete omission of Mr. Lang's cautionary ending, the hack producers behind this 1951 massacre of M MUST remain nameless, as the only way to deprive them of having "the last laugh" of name recognition (which would force poor Fritz to cartwheel in his grave).

Michael_Elliott M (1951) *** (out of 4)A child killer is stalking the streets and soon the police are everywhere trying to catch him. This means that the police are stalking the low-life criminals and the crime bosses grow tired of it because it's costing them business. In order to get their business back, the crime bosses set out to catch the killer.Fritz Lang's 1931 film M is without question one of the greatest and most disturbing movies ever made. This 1951 remake from Joseph Losey went decades without being seen but a recent restoration has it available for fans to finally catch. Is it a worthy remake? It absolutely is a winning gem. Some people have called it a film noir but I really don't agree with that. The film is very much like the original in that it has you who the real monsters are out in the world.This film really shocked me on a couple levels. For starters, this was made in 1951 and I was shocked at how suggestive the material was. The early scenes show the killer stalking various little girls of all ages and race. The film certainly puts it in your face that this is a pervert and it doesn't shy away from this guy being attracted to them. Unlike the first film this one tries to explain why the killer is this way and of course it's the hatred of his mother.The cinematography is a major plus and there's no question that Losey has great control of everything going on. There's a very long sequence inside a shopping center where the criminals are searching for the killer and the way this sequence is edited was just flawlessly done. Another major plus were the performances with everyone from a large role to a small one doing a great job. David Wayne plays the killer and brings a certain coldness to the role as well as a creepy undertone.M has been forgotten over the years due to it being unavailable but now that it's making the rounds I can't help but think that it's reputation is going to improve. It's certainly not on the same level as the Lang film but it's still quite impressive.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

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!