My opinion of this movie is that it was different than what I am use to seeing. The use of shadows and camera angle was very open to my eyes. I noticed how at first the killer was all in shadow ala Hitchcock. Using the different angles to show size was genious. The use of sound made me uncomfortable. First, the silence was eerie and then the sudden sound grabbed my attention. Secondly, using a whistle to signify the killer was also something I noticed. One thing that caught my attention, is that the movie was made and spoken in German, however the blind man had a sign that read “Blind” in German it should have said, “Blenden”. So that made me wonder what was going on. I did not like having to read what was going on during the movie. I think I missed a lot of the action. I ajm not a big fan of foreign films that I have to read. I would rather read a book and think about what is going on than having to read and watch.
It is really amazing to see just how far we have come in the film industry. "M" was an interesting movie. The directors first film with sound. I thought the movie was very exaggerated with the sound, it almost to me made the movie slower. It seemed that he almost didnt quite know what to do with it. Another element was the humor in the movie, there were funny parts that you would not have had without sound. And going from silent to sound, I noticed almost no gesture acting at all.
I liked some parts of the movie where the changed from having sound to no sound. An example would be when the little girl was murdered how the implemented no sound during that, it made it eery. But other times like when some cars were racing to a building and you couldn't hear the cars or the commotion going on I was was wondering if there was something wrong with the dvd it just didn't fit. One of the camera angles that I was impressed with was when the killer was writing a letter to the newspaper and all it showed was the top of his head, I thought that made the killer more mysterious that way. I did get confused in the middle of the movie trying to distingish between the good guys and the bad. they all started to look alike and all of them trying to capture the murderer. I also thought I missed a lot of the movie because I was concentrating on reading more than on what was going on. I was really disappointed in the ending, I felt like their was no resolution in the film. I am wondering what happened to the killer did he go free, or to prision or to a psychiatric hospital?? I don't know and was disappointed that it ended the way it did, I would have really liked to know what happened to him.
I thought that the first good use of sound was in the opening scene where the kids were playing the game/singing. I liked how the mother told them to stop, and when she was out of earshot, the auidence could not see them, but it could hear them. I thought it was a good effect and added some humor. I thought the next good effect was created by the lack of sound, in the scene showing the balloon floating away in dead silence. The scene created an errie feel of dread, showing that the girl was gone. The whistle of the murderer became an obvious alert that he was present, becomming his "calling card" Another scene I noticed was a woman going up the stairs, where the auidence could hear her panting, to imply exhaustion with sound, rather than expression. The film used horns alot, but to me they seemed poorly timed. I imagine the sound was to imply traffic, but it didn't work for me. As far as angles, I did notice how at first the killer was shot from the back, to create mystery, but when he was shown, it was anti-climatic. The crotch-shot just left me wondering what the heck was going on. A scene I did like was when the captured murderer was brought in and the camera showed how many people were there. From this point, there was a lot more dialoge, with hot tempers and people yelling. It almost seemed out of place compared to the rest of the film, not that it was innapropriate, just different. I think that at the end there was an attempt to dive into exposing social issues such as justice, the legal system, insanity, and of course watching our children..(which was brought up a couple of times) I was left wondering what happened to the murderer. I think that the ending was perhaps more about making a point than telling a story.
My first thought about this movie was that it was going to be "good." I liked the beginning of the movie where the kids were singing and the mother was calling out for her child. It "pulled me in." Made me wonder what was going to happen. The different camera angels they used was neat as well because it made you think in different ways.
I agree with Kristi Davis about being confused in the middle of the movie becuase I thought the characters also started to look the same. I had a hard time following along.
I loved how they used the "scary whistling tune" when the murderer was around. That made it obvious who the killer was and made you sit on the edge of your seat a little more.
I enjoyed this movie however, Like Michael, I was left wondering what exactly happened to the killer...
I enjoyed this movie, though I agree with the others that I had to concentrate on reading and I may have missed some of what was going on. The sound in the movie was pretty interesting to see where the director decided to place it and when to be silent. When he murdered the little girl and it was silent I thought that was a great way to show it and it left me feeling empty and I knew she was gone, but when all the cars were bustling around and it was silent I had the same thoughts as Kristi Davis I wondered if the dvd wasn't working right. I like how he used the whistling also it let me know the killer was there so I didn't get lost with the characters. The sound also made it so they had to use less gestures I noticed and their facial expressions were more flat. The camera angles were pretty good, with the scene with the little guy being accused of being the murderer by the tall one it made them seem extremely tall or short. But the crotch shot could have been done away with or at least not quite to that extreme. I agree with the others also with the end I thought it didn't resolve what happened to him but it made the point instead. As a viewer I think I would have rather known what happened to the murderer then knowing I should watch my children and leave it up to the law to fix things. Over all good movie, I enjoyed it.
I enjoyed this movie. The only thing I really didn't like was the lack of a resolution. It bothered me that the only thing resolved was the parents learned their lesson about leaving their kids alone, but the murderer didn't seem to get a punishement for his crimes. I also found it confusing at times to differentiate between the "good" guys and the "bad" guys. They're clothing, gestures, and just general appearance seem to blend more and more together throughout the movie.
I really found the use of sound and at times lack of it very good. The whistle of the murderer was very interesting to me, because you soon came to realize that when you heard it a crime was about to be committed. Although the lack of music was interesting as well becuase you needed to really concentrate on their words to get the feel of the movie, rather than "Metropolis" you were able to hear the tempo to gauge what was going to happen. Both ways work, but this movie was a little hard for me to follow because I had to read the whole movie. By the time I was able to finish reading and realize something was coming, it was already in the middle of happenening.
I found their use of angles interesting. They tried to make a person seem more or less powerful depending on the shot. Quite a useful tool, I don't think I realized is used until it was pointed out to me. The crotch shot was interesting because to me they seem do "de-man" him by making him seem unqualified for the job.
Minus the lack of a resolution I really enjoyed the movie.
The movie was pretty well done for its time. The sound was a new thing of that era, so I am sure the editing was a little rough. Subtitles have a tendency to take away from the impact of the movie, and this film was no exception. I found that I was looking more at the words than the actors. The camera work was well done, although the crotch shot was... interesting at best. The whistling was pretty innovative on Lang's part because it queued the viewer into who the killer was long before the actors figured it out.
It is a good movie, I enjoyed how they used very little sound effects, the ones they used forced you to focus on them, like the whistling. They used the whistling as the way to identify the murderer. I found it humurous that the blind guy was able to identify the murdurer by the whistling, it seemed ironic that the director used that to identify him since sound was just barely coming around in videos. It was a good movie. I wouldn't watch it again though
While I understand the frustration at the "lack of resolution", I was perfectly fine with the ending of M. I feel like Fritz Lang presented the killer as vaguely sympathetic, yet completely deranged. It seems like he posed a question to the audience: What do you think should happen to Hanz? Honestly, you hear of some creepy dude killing little girls and you want to rip his head off. But when you get a taste of his daily life and struggle, a part of you (while probably very very small) feels like he deserves help. Not freedom, but something to help him resolve his issue. I liked being able to contemplate that, and not have that side of the story written out for me. As for the sound side of things. I felt so nervous/sick while watching this movie. The lack of sound added a suspense higher than most modern films dream of. To know that a child was being murdered and the only evidence was a rolling ball, and a balloon stuck in the powerlines, otherwise complete silence... It made my guts twist. When there is sound there is a slight comfort knowing its all just a movie. When its silent, it feels like they are trying to hide something, trying to make sure he gets away with the murder. The way they use very distinct sounds, like whistling, car horns, loud clacks etc was very effective to keep attention and continue to build suspense. I think this movie wouldn't be nearly as lauded if it had a soundtrack, regardless of the interesting angles and shots.
I didn't particularly enjoy the movie "M", although this I think that Fritz Lang did a good job producing it. To me it seemed really dark, the shades of black had much more contrast than Metropolis. I also I didn't enjoy to much how the movie was very so in presenting the plot and the main points of it. To me this movie seemed like the filming was really awkward for lack of better words. The angles of the camera were sometime really weird, although I do think that it kind of depicts the time period. I also found it interesting that they used the whistling to identify the murderer. It seems like in every movie one is given a clue at the very beginning. In this film for example there was whistling right at the beginning when the young child was in the street by the balloons. I don't think that I would watch this film again, but I do think that it helped me appreciate that quality of other films.
I would agree with everyone on most points the movie was definately better than metropolis but at the same time the lack of music made it seems just as long but maybe the director was trying to focus on the use of voice but I think that both would have greatly improved the movie.
I had one major beef at the end where they take him to trial and instead of showing what happens to the murderer the police come break everything up and you do not know what happened at all. Did not really like the resolution at all to me it was only a partial one.
i think this movie was way better than metropolis. i really actually enjoyed this one, i think they did a phenomenal job using sound and different camera angles for the era it was made in. it was a little to slow for my taste and dragged the story a little at times, but it made up for it with humor and i really like the story. it was really good and interesting how the portrayed the effect on society, even if it was in a non realistic way. but over all i really liked it i give it an A i think it tops a lot of movies made even now
Fritz Lang’s M had a lot more adding to it than his other film Metropolis. I noticed first how he was using sound. It was like a child with a new toy. When the movie began every clock, car, horn, footstep was heard. I found that there was an empty silence through the movie. I was a little uncomfortable during those parts of the movie because it was startling when the silence was broken, because it was usually broken by a siren or someone yelling. As the movie went on I noticed how he manipulated the sound to emphasize the feeling he wanted to create with the film. For example he gave the killer a tune to whistle to let you know that he was on the prowl. Also the silence as the balloon floats away, adds to the implication that the girl has been murdered. The camera angles to indicate someone’s status was creative and very different form Metropolis. I thought the movie was well done and very creative. I enjoyed it a lot.
My opinion of this movie is that it was different than what I am use to seeing. The use of shadows and camera angle was very open to my eyes. I noticed how at first the killer was all in shadow ala Hitchcock. Using the different angles to show size was genious. The use of sound made me uncomfortable. First, the silence was eerie and then the sudden sound grabbed my attention. Secondly, using a whistle to signify the killer was also something I noticed. One thing that caught my attention, is that the movie was made and spoken in German, however the blind man had a sign that read “Blind” in German it should have said, “Blenden”. So that made me wonder what was going on. I did not like having to read what was going on during the movie. I think I missed a lot of the action. I ajm not a big fan of foreign films that I have to read. I would rather read a book and think about what is going on than having to read and watch.
ReplyDeleteIt is really amazing to see just how far we have come in the film industry. "M" was an interesting movie. The directors first film with sound. I thought the movie was very exaggerated with the sound, it almost to me made the movie slower. It seemed that he almost didnt quite know what to do with it. Another element was the humor in the movie, there were funny parts that you would not have had without sound. And going from silent to sound, I noticed almost no gesture acting at all.
ReplyDeleteI liked some parts of the movie where the changed from having sound to no sound. An example would be when the little girl was murdered how the implemented no sound during that, it made it eery. But other times like when some cars were racing to a building and you couldn't hear the cars or the commotion going on I was was wondering if there was something wrong with the dvd it just didn't fit. One of the camera angles that I was impressed with was when the killer was writing a letter to the newspaper and all it showed was the top of his head, I thought that made the killer more mysterious that way.
ReplyDeleteI did get confused in the middle of the movie trying to distingish between the good guys and the bad. they all started to look alike and all of them trying to capture the murderer. I also thought I missed a lot of the movie because I was concentrating on reading more than on what was going on.
I was really disappointed in the ending, I felt like their was no resolution in the film. I am wondering what happened to the killer did he go free, or to prision or to a psychiatric hospital?? I don't know and was disappointed that it ended the way it did, I would have really liked to know what happened to him.
I thought that the first good use of sound was in the opening scene where the kids were playing the game/singing. I liked how the mother told them to stop, and when she was out of earshot, the auidence could not see them, but it could hear them. I thought it was a good effect and added some humor.
ReplyDeleteI thought the next good effect was created by the lack of sound, in the scene showing the balloon floating away in dead silence. The scene created an errie feel of dread, showing that the girl was gone.
The whistle of the murderer became an obvious alert that he was present, becomming his "calling card"
Another scene I noticed was a woman going up the stairs, where the auidence could hear her panting, to imply exhaustion with sound, rather than expression.
The film used horns alot, but to me they seemed poorly timed. I imagine the sound was to imply traffic, but it didn't work for me.
As far as angles, I did notice how at first the killer was shot from the back, to create mystery, but when he was shown, it was anti-climatic. The crotch-shot just left me wondering what the heck was going on.
A scene I did like was when the captured murderer was brought in and the camera showed how many people were there. From this point, there was a lot more dialoge, with hot tempers and people yelling. It almost seemed out of place compared to the rest of the film, not that it was innapropriate, just different.
I think that at the end there was an attempt to dive into exposing social issues such as justice, the legal system, insanity, and of course watching our children..(which was brought up a couple of times)
I was left wondering what happened to the murderer. I think that the ending was perhaps more about making a point than telling a story.
My first thought about this movie was that it was going to be "good." I liked the beginning of the movie where the kids were singing and the mother was calling out for her child. It "pulled me in." Made me wonder what was going to happen. The different camera angels they used was neat as well because it made you think in different ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristi Davis about being confused in the middle of the movie becuase I thought the characters also started to look the same. I had a hard time following along.
I loved how they used the "scary whistling tune" when the murderer was around. That made it obvious who the killer was and made you sit on the edge of your seat a little more.
I enjoyed this movie however, Like Michael, I was left wondering what exactly happened to the killer...
I enjoyed this movie, though I agree with the others that I had to concentrate on reading and I may have missed some of what was going on.
ReplyDeleteThe sound in the movie was pretty interesting to see where the director decided to place it and when to be silent. When he murdered the little girl and it was silent I thought that was a great way to show it and it left me feeling empty and I knew she was gone, but when all the cars were bustling around and it was silent I had the same thoughts as Kristi Davis I wondered if the dvd wasn't working right.
I like how he used the whistling also it let me know the killer was there so I didn't get lost with the characters.
The sound also made it so they had to use less gestures I noticed and their facial expressions were more flat.
The camera angles were pretty good, with the scene with the little guy being accused of being the murderer by the tall one it made them seem extremely tall or short. But the crotch shot could have been done away with or at least not quite to that extreme.
I agree with the others also with the end I thought it didn't resolve what happened to him but it made the point instead. As a viewer I think I would have rather known what happened to the murderer then knowing I should watch my children and leave it up to the law to fix things.
Over all good movie, I enjoyed it.
I enjoyed this movie. The only thing I really didn't like was the lack of a resolution. It bothered me that the only thing resolved was the parents learned their lesson about leaving their kids alone, but the murderer didn't seem to get a punishement for his crimes. I also found it confusing at times to differentiate between the "good" guys and the "bad" guys. They're clothing, gestures, and just general appearance seem to blend more and more together throughout the movie.
ReplyDeleteI really found the use of sound and at times lack of it very good. The whistle of the murderer was very interesting to me, because you soon came to realize that when you heard it a crime was about to be committed. Although the lack of music was interesting as well becuase you needed to really concentrate on their words to get the feel of the movie, rather than "Metropolis" you were able to hear the tempo to gauge what was going to happen. Both ways work, but this movie was a little hard for me to follow because I had to read the whole movie. By the time I was able to finish reading and realize something was coming, it was already in the middle of happenening.
I found their use of angles interesting. They tried to make a person seem more or less powerful depending on the shot. Quite a useful tool, I don't think I realized is used until it was pointed out to me. The crotch shot was interesting because to me they seem do "de-man" him by making him seem unqualified for the job.
Minus the lack of a resolution I really enjoyed the movie.
The movie was pretty well done for its time. The sound was a new thing of that era, so I am sure the editing was a little rough. Subtitles have a tendency to take away from the impact of the movie, and this film was no exception. I found that I was looking more at the words than the actors. The camera work was well done, although the crotch shot was... interesting at best. The whistling was pretty innovative on Lang's part because it queued the viewer into who the killer was long before the actors figured it out.
ReplyDeleteGood movie, albeit a little slow paced.
It is a good movie, I enjoyed how they used very little sound effects, the ones they used forced you to focus on them, like the whistling. They used the whistling as the way to identify the murderer. I found it humurous that the blind guy was able to identify the murdurer by the whistling, it seemed ironic that the director used that to identify him since sound was just barely coming around in videos.
ReplyDeleteIt was a good movie. I wouldn't watch it again though
While I understand the frustration at the "lack of resolution", I was perfectly fine with the ending of M. I feel like Fritz Lang presented the killer as vaguely sympathetic, yet completely deranged. It seems like he posed a question to the audience: What do you think should happen to Hanz? Honestly, you hear of some creepy dude killing little girls and you want to rip his head off. But when you get a taste of his daily life and struggle, a part of you (while probably very very small) feels like he deserves help. Not freedom, but something to help him resolve his issue. I liked being able to contemplate that, and not have that side of the story written out for me.
ReplyDeleteAs for the sound side of things. I felt so nervous/sick while watching this movie. The lack of sound added a suspense higher than most modern films dream of. To know that a child was being murdered and the only evidence was a rolling ball, and a balloon stuck in the powerlines, otherwise complete silence... It made my guts twist. When there is sound there is a slight comfort knowing its all just a movie. When its silent, it feels like they are trying to hide something, trying to make sure he gets away with the murder. The way they use very distinct sounds, like whistling, car horns, loud clacks etc was very effective to keep attention and continue to build suspense. I think this movie wouldn't be nearly as lauded if it had a soundtrack, regardless of the interesting angles and shots.
I didn't particularly enjoy the movie "M", although this I think that Fritz Lang did a good job producing it. To me it seemed really dark, the shades of black had much more contrast than Metropolis. I also I didn't enjoy to much how the movie was very so in presenting the plot and the main points of it. To me this movie seemed like the filming was really awkward for lack of better words. The angles of the camera were sometime really weird, although I do think that it kind of depicts the time period.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that they used the whistling to identify the murderer. It seems like in every movie one is given a clue at the very beginning. In this film for example there was whistling right at the beginning when the young child was in the street by the balloons.
I don't think that I would watch this film again, but I do think that it helped me appreciate that quality of other films.
I would agree with everyone on most points the movie was definately better than metropolis but at the same time the lack of music made it seems just as long but maybe the director was trying to focus on the use of voice but I think that both would have greatly improved the movie.
ReplyDeleteI had one major beef at the end where they take him to trial and instead of showing what happens to the murderer the police come break everything up and you do not know what happened at all. Did not really like the resolution at all to me it was only a partial one.
i think this movie was way better than metropolis. i really actually enjoyed this one, i think they did a phenomenal job using sound and different camera angles for the era it was made in. it was a little to slow for my taste and dragged the story a little at times, but it made up for it with humor and i really like the story. it was really good and interesting how the portrayed the effect on society, even if it was in a non realistic way. but over all i really liked it i give it an A i think it tops a lot of movies made even now
ReplyDeleteFritz Lang’s M had a lot more adding to it than his other film Metropolis. I noticed first how he was using sound. It was like a child with a new toy. When the movie began every clock, car, horn, footstep was heard. I found that there was an empty silence through the movie. I was a little uncomfortable during those parts of the movie because it was startling when the silence was broken, because it was usually broken by a siren or someone yelling.
ReplyDeleteAs the movie went on I noticed how he manipulated the sound to emphasize the feeling he wanted to create with the film. For example he gave the killer a tune to whistle to let you know that he was on the prowl. Also the silence as the balloon floats away, adds to the implication that the girl has been murdered.
The camera angles to indicate someone’s status was creative and very different form Metropolis.
I thought the movie was well done and very creative. I enjoyed it a lot.