M

The M stands for Mörder don't you know. You can
 probably guess what that means... image filmjournal

The German master director Fritz Lang made a lot of noteworthy films during his long career, including Metropolis in 1927 and the Dr. Mabuse movies. However, the film that he regarded as his finest work was 1931's M. M told the story of a child-killer in Berlin and the measures taken by the police and fellow criminals to stop him. A biting critique of the fascist methods of justice, the film was banned by Hitler's Nazi government shortly after it came into power. The following Amazon.com reviewers, however, most definitely disagree with the esteem in which it is held:

I know my comments will provoke the ire of movie fans who hold this movie in high regard (Well, at least you're prepared I suppose...), but I can't remain silent about a movie that fails to deliver in the end, especially after all the exaggerated reviews I've read concerning its place in film history (Like the film or not, it is an important piece of work in the history of cinema). What's more, from what I could see, most of "M" is bogged down by excessive talk that doesn't propel the story forward (I must disagree here. The vast majority of the dialogue does move the story along. Without much of the talking the viewer would be unsure as to what is going on.). In fact, it does the opposite and holds the movie back (It really doesn't you know.). Case in point, in one scene, you have the chief of police on the phone talking to his superior about what's being done to capture the killer (That was required so that the audience would be aware that  the police were doing everything they could, making the criminals' methods seem the more attractive). I think 10 minutes or more elapsed before the next scene even appeared (I don't remember it being that long to be honest...). Why Lang decided to cover the minutiae of the investigation is beyond me (He doesn't discuss everything. Just enough so that it is clear how much the police are trying to catch him). It just wasn't necessary, especially when a superficial account would have sufficed (It really wouldn't have. The whole film is a comparison between the fascist and traditional justice systems. It would have been biased in favour of the fascist methods without these scenes). But to be fair, this is 1931 and tight scrip writing wasn't part of the writing craft. (Timeist...)

Also, Lang took so much away from Lorre's character just to focus the film on the volk, in terms of their fears, helplessness, and anger over the situation they'd been thrown into (Well that wasn't the point of the film, now was it. It would have failed as a criticism of fascism if it didn't bother covering fascist methods, don't you think). Instead, he should have redirected his efforts on Lorre so we, the viewer, could understand what twisted forces compelled "Hans Beckert" to kill little girls. (First of all, you do find out at the end. And second of all, you're a moron who has failed to grasp the central concept of this film.)

I'm sorry but the accolades are undeserved (They really aren't. I've studied this film at Uni, and it is a beautifully directed, well thought out picture, with a timely warning about fascism), except for Lorre's acting which was top notch in my opinion (At least we agree on something.). And another thing I'd like to point out, just because Criterion releases a film they deem is deserving of their rolls-royce treatment doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a winner. (No. I suppose not, but that being said, this one is a winner. By almost any definition.)

Here's another:

"M" is an example of a good idea that is poorly executed (In what way? I do hope you are going to expand on this point, but I doubt it). Peter Lorre plays a child murderer who is terrorizing a city in Germany to the point where both the police and members of the local underworld are hunting him down. With more action involved, this could have been the "intense psychological thriller" that many critics claim it to be, but it is very hard to become emotionally involved in a film when 80% of the film comprises non-descript characters (police and gangsters) sitting around and discussing the need to capture the murderer (If 'action' is what you like from a film then perhaps you had better stick to Die Hard, or The Terminator. Or if they're too good for you, Transformers). It is repetitive to the point of being sleep-inducing (I don't remember it repeating itself much. Are you sure the disc wasn't skipping?) and with the exception of Lorre's murderer (who barely even appears in the first hour of the film), all of the characters feel like the same "person" (How? They all look different, sound different and say different things. The police and the criminals have very different motives for wanting to catch the killer. I really can't see where you got this from). They have no real distinguishing characteristics (Well, Lohmann is fat for a start, whereas Der Schränker isn't and wears a leather jacket. That is surely incredibly easy to spot, even if you fail to see the more subtle differences). Even by the standards of the time when this was made (1931), "M" is a slow-moving and uneventful film (Another timeist I see. Not all old films are slow, just as not all modern films zip along. It depends on what the story in question calls for), which is surprising, since director Fritz Lang himself had already demonstrated that he was capable of making better films with 1927's "Metropolis", a film which is just as engrossing as any modern film (Whilst Metropolis is also an exceedingly good film, I remain unsure as to which I prefer, such is the brilliance of both.). If you want to see one of Fritz Lang's "masterpieces", then "Metropolis" is the way to go, not "M". (Or, perhaps [and I realise I'm putting forward a radical, even dangerous idea here] they could watch both and make up their own mind?)

And another:

Maybe this shocked in its day, but it's terribly dated, with long dialogue scenes that could have been condensed way down (Yes. Lang should have realised that morons in the future would dislike films with talking and put some robots fighting in the corner for them instead while everyone else is given important plot details...). Interesting to see Peter Lorre so young and speaking German. But I thought I'd be caught up in the actual movie, but was forced to watch it as a piece of film history, like a college film class (I did it at uni, and was expecting it to be something of a chore to be honest. I was very pleasantly surprised to find an interesting [on many levels], absorbing piece of cinema that was eminently watchable). The one thing that prevents film from being the greatest art form is movies date so quickly (How? Because it's in black & white? Because its set in the past? This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen for a while. Of course film is art. How can you see films such as this, or Bergman films, or The Godfather movies or Luis Bunuel films and say that they are not art? Either you are pretentious and feel only works by famous painters or sculptors can be art, or you are an idiot. Which is it?). This is a perfect example (Of a really good film).

That's your lot for today folks, hope you had a merry Christmas and such like. 

The Seventh Seal

Look at that young Max Von Sydow there...

Swedish director Ingmar Bergman is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors of all time. One of his finest achievements was the 1957 film The Seventh Seal. Featuring the iconic scene of Max Von Sydow's world-weary Knight playing chess with Death, the film has been imitated and parodied in films as diverse as Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey and Woody Allen's (a massive Bergman fan) Love and Death. These people, however, seem immune to the artful direction and thought-provoking matter of this masterpiece. 
Amazon.co.uk:

Just watched this on Blu Ray. The picture is nothing special at all, DVD quality (Well what did you expect? There's only so much that can be done with a film that is over 50 years old), although maybe better than on DVD releases, don't know, but didn't look special. The film itself made no sense at all to me (Really? I mean in the first few minutes it's slightly unclear if it has skipped back in time or not. But it's cleared up 2 minutes later... Apart from that it's perfectly straight-forward) Call me a philistine (I'll probably take you up on this offer shortly...), but no plot (There is a plot. A Knight has returned to Sweden from the Crusades and is slowly making his way back home. At this point Death comes for him. The Knight requests a game of chess against Death, in order to delay his passing until he has answered the questions that trouble him - is there a God? And, if so, is he good? He then meets various people on his journey who help him attain his answer), the dialogue made no sense (Did you forget to turn the subtitles on?), just downright weird. OK, maybe you could call it pretty (It very much is), but it's no Third Man or Citizen Kane by any stretch (I would say that, at the very least, it is close to those two films in beauty). Hugely over-rated (Nope. It's quite-rightly held up as a masterpiece by those with two brain-cells to rub together...), certainly not worth £24 to buy unless you're an existing fan of the film. Glad I rented. (Philistine)

Here's another from Amazon. This one even features outstanding grammar...:

Plenty of reviews how great it is, piece of landmark cinema (I don't know where to start to fix that bad sentence, so I won't bother. Oh, and it is, undeniably, a landmark for cinema). Honestly is rubbish, you'll never get that time back if you manage to sit through it. (In your opinion. An opinion not shared by a great many people. Many of whom are far more qualified than us to determine the artistic merits of this film. And if that's what you think qualifies as a review, then you are sorely mistaken my friend.)

Here's one from amazon.com:

The most atheistic, nihilistic, depressing movie I have ever seen (Why is atheism something to be hated? And anyway, the film doesn't come down on any side of the God debate). Death is preferred over life in this movie (No it isn't. Why do you think the Knight wanted to live on? Acceptance of death, and the preference for death over life are two very different things. Perhaps you should watch the film again, and actually pay attention this time...). Love is called "the blackest of all plagues" (He was trying to comfort a heart-broken man. His pint was that, as wonderful as love can be, it can also be very painful. Not, I feel, a revelation to anyone.). The message of this movie is that life is meaningless (Can't argue there. But what is so objectionable about a life with no meaning? Surely living itself is reason enough? As co-discoverer [with Francis Crick] of the structure of DNA James Watson told evolutionist Richard Dawkins, when asked what he looked forward to in place of heaven, 'I'm anticipating having a good lunch') and that ideals are ridiculous and absurd (Not at all. After all [SPOILER] the Knight gives his life so that the family can escape). I was hoping for a moral at the end of the story, but sadly, this movie is just gloomy nihilism with attractive actors (You appear to have confused this film with one of the stories from the Bible. Not all stories require a 'moral'.). Western Civilization is pining away in a morass of depressed meaninglessness bc of too many movies like this. (I think you're putting a little too much power at the feet of films... And what utter rot.)

We shall end today with a review from the rental site LOVEFiLM:

Even for a subtitled movie (no idea why i rented it (Why do you find it so offensive that a Swedish director should direct a film full of Swedish actors, in Swedish?)) it was brutal and nasty (What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It wasn't that brutal. The only possible bit I can think of, is when the girl gets burned. And you don't even see that.) and why the producer reckoned 'every human should watch it', is quite beyond me (It's because it is an utterly wonderful film with very real questions to ask), it was not a story as such and hard to follow (It was a story. It has a beginning, middle and end; characters; a plot; everything a story needs really. And as I told the guy above, it is a perfectly easy to follow), Main man played chess with death on the beach and then you have no idea even if he won (Well, the game is still in progress actually...), you assume he did, as death is nowhere to be seen for quite sometime (It's not that long. Maybe ten minutes, tops.), till he pops up again as a monk (Preist actually...) and the main man is tricked into telling him how he was winning in chess against death, so far it was just an odd story (Not that odd...), but then you meet some jesters (They're a company of actors), who are (by all accounts) odd anyway (What do you mean 'by all accounts' did you actually watch this film? If not, that would explain a lot...), they have a couple who i guess are married (Well, whilst its true it never says they are, I believe Bergman presumed the audience would be able to work it out...) and have a baby (who is left wondering around the field (He was playing in a fucking field while his parents watch on! It's not like they let him wonder all the way to Holy Land or anything.)) and a single man (who seems to have it away with any woman who shows him favour (You don't know many people do you?)) they're on stage and suddenly a procession of monks goes thru, oh my word, they're hitting each other and moaning and groaning and it is one of THE oddest things i've ever seen in my life. (Really? Have you never seen a spider baby? Seriously though, it was supposed to show how religion can make people do weird things)

They pass on through after head monk gives a speech about the end of the world. (Those head monks and their ways...)

Then into a tavern where they start to pick on one of the jesters and it really is brutal (It's not that brutal. It's not brutal like the Crusades, for example, were brutal... I've seen more brutal bullying at primary school), they make him dance while chasing him with fire, it is odd (Why is everything 'odd' to you?) and quite frankly made me feel ill and i switched it off and sent it back. (Say what? That made you ill? God you're a pussy... Also, if you switched it off at that point [which can be little more than halfway through] then you have no right to review this film.)

I really have no idea how or why i ended up with this film i can only guess i thought it was something else, i'm not one to watch forgein foreign films and now i have even more reason not to do so! (Why not? Foreign films are often wonderful. By reducing yourself only to films that are in the English language you are missing out on some of the very best films that are around. What a fucking idiot you are.)

Watch at your own risk of being sick :( (Oh fuck off you ignorant prick. If you don't like it for stupid reasons, then fine, but don't tell other people not to watch this brilliant film because of your immature hang-ups.)

I think it might take me a while to calm down after that...