Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

fanan450 I watched this movie and I must say it's good , I like it and I Injoyed , because I used to watch many old classic movies from this era which had slow pace from the beginning to the end . but there is one thing I did not understand to this day , this movie on Top Rated Movies #79 ! , why ? for God sake why ? in my opinion it doesn't deserve this rate (8.4) !! , this movie is good to watch if you have nothing to do and you were bored, but it's not the best , there is many movies better and deserve to be on the top list , i think it's overrated by people and critics , and I don't know why ! 6/10

allstarrunner I just watched this movie for the first time about 90 years after it first came out! It is still a great movie! The tension it builds throughout and the use of music to set the tone and even move the plot along are brilliant! I can understand why this movie was used as a recipe for future movies. I think what I like best about the movie is the moral questions that are raised at the end and the decision of the director to leave it up to us to decide. So good! Trust me, you need to watch this film - even if you're one of those people who don't like to watch old films or international films (which I used to be) - there is amazing cinema out there to enjoy if you will expand your horizons. This is one of them you need to watch (I also recommend "The General" as a great silent film movie).

kluseba M is a quite overrated and underwhelming movie if one takes into consideration masterpieces such as the epic Die Nibelungen and the visionary Metropolis that Fritz Lang has directed before. It tells the story of a crime murderer who is tracked down by desperate police officers who want to stop him and underground gangster who want to dissociate themselves from the murderer and clear their names.What really drags this film down is the confusing use of sound in this film. Some scenes feature no sounds at all as if this were a silent movie. Other scenes then suddenly have sound such as loud sirens and lengthy dialogues. The director tried to make these contrasts on purpose but whatever the intention was, it didn't work out very well because the movie is lacking fluidity. Another problem this movie has are its lengthy and at times pseudo-philosophical dialogues. The director wanted to craft a realistic movie and tries to show us the work of the local police force and the work ethics of the underground mob but instead of making the film more authentic, one gets the impression that the gloomy thriller is at times interrupted by lengthy documentary segments. Once again, this weird mixture of genres slows the film down. The movie tried to have a deeper meaning which is that one has to watch one's children carefully but this grounded lesson feels somewhat forced after the surreal trial when the underground mob attempts to sentence a mentally disturbed child murderer. This film received critical acclaim for its main antagonist, played by Peter Lorre. In my opinion, the actor overacts his character which makes him look ridiculous instead of dangerous. The character also speaks too much about his feelings and intentions which isn't realistic for a child murderer that tries to leave no trace behind.On the other side, one has to take into consideration the time when this movie was made. Making a film about a child murderer was a quite courageous attempt and revolutionary idea at its time. The movie convinces with a gloomy atmosphere. The opening sequences are quite bleak, the manhunt in the building is filled with tension and the surreal trial at the end is also quite memorable. The movie's opening ten minutes and closing forty minutes are thoroughly entertaining but everything in between drags on for far too long.In the end, M can't compete with Fritz Lang's other classics like the epic Die Nibelungen or the science-fiction masterpiece Metropolis. M was a revolutionary movie at its time with a shocking topic and a horrifying atmosphere but the film tries to accomplish too many things all at once such as portraying the work of police forces versus gangsters from the underground. Technically speaking, the movie hasn't aged very well and Peter Lorre's acting also feels exaggerated nowadays. This film is an intriguing product of its time and interesting for those studying the history of cinema but if you are looking for a great crime flick, you can find much better movies made around the same time.

Scott LeBrun Peter Lorre is absolutely unforgettable playing that most despicable of criminals, the murderer of children. The police of Berlin are having a very tough time identifying him as the culprit, but ultimately he is found out. Not by the police, but by the city's criminal underworld. They determine to mete out their own brand of vigilante justice. Not so much for altruistic motives, but because the increased police action is hurting their way of life.This early sound effort for both Germany and the highly regarded filmmaker Fritz Lang is a classic example of that form of cinema known as "Expressionism". It's stunningly shot and directed, counteracting its police procedural aspects with a matter of fact depiction of the machinations of this underworld. There's no music score, but then the script (by Thea von Harbou and director Lang, based on an article by Egon Jacobson) gets by just fine without one. Director Lang is still able to generate sufficient tension without that kind of assistance.A film of this kind wouldn't quite be to all tastes, as some people might feel that there is more talk (and the script *is* dialogue heavy) than action. But there is also plenty of wonderful black & white imagery on display, and a riveting climax where these gangland bosses give Lorre their own version of a trial.Although one shouldn't feel pity for such a beast - and Lang doesn't try to make the viewer feel that way - the killer is turned into a vivid, compelling character by Lorre. He desperately tries to make the case that he's not in control of his own actions, and is simply compelled to murder. He may not be pitiable, but he *is* pathetic.86 years later, the theme is still extremely relevant, and the fact that the story was at the time contemporary and not a traditional Gothic or anything like that gives it real immediacy. The setting may have been Depression era Germany, but much of the dialogue could easily be heard today.Nine out of 10.