《M就是凶手》经典观后感10篇

　　《M就是凶手》是一部由弗里茨·朗执导，彼得·洛 / 艾伦·维德曼 / 因格·兰德特主演的一部剧情 / 犯罪 / 惊悚类型的电影，文章吧小编精心整理的一些观众的观后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(一)：我是精神病

有句玩笑话是这么说的：我是精神病，杀人不偿命。
玩笑话归玩笑话，在法律上拥有可以不对自己行为负全责的特权，确实很诱人，至少看起来是这样。但是作为一个恢复正常的精神衰弱患者的角色，觉得为了这个特权付出的代价也忒大了些。
我就不列举种种表现了，主演很棒，堪称除了希斯莱杰和精神病患者男主外最成功的心理疾病患者表演艺术家，通过眼睛和种种不合常理的举动来表现罪犯的内心世界。
以前和颦颦说到病人犯罪的问题，颦颦说犯罪就要惩罚，我说你不能控制发烧时体温上升，那就不能要求精神病患者不发作，无论是伤害她自己，还是别人。
从我观影的态度看，我也是偏向颦颦一方的，犯罪就要严惩，对杀人的凶手不能讲慈悲，否则就是鼓励杀人了。
但是，就有那么M的一类人，控制不住自己怎么办？
也许有人抓住“控制不住”四字要求严惩，但从手机党无意识的刷屏等各种行为，还有抽烟发酒疯等等来看，都是以是否影响到该地点的其他人为标准的，那也就是说，如果把自然法引申到精神病领域，你自杀都是合法的，但是影响到别人，对不起，我们要对你惩罚。
从片子的进程看，自然法为代表的普通民众偏重于感性，从受害者父母出发而无视了M的人性。但从导演给辩护人的镜头和动作台词看，导演是偏袒法律一方的，为了理性，哪怕天崩地裂。
这是一个很难解决的问题，眼睁睁的看着罪犯逍遥法外却无能为力，如果法外执法痛快一时，正义也已经千里之外了，正如片中所说，没有一个人可以杀死一个人而不负责，国家也不行，他必须接受审判。
如果为了社会的运行来看，这样的论调很好，如果饱含深情地说出来也可以感动一大堆人。
但好玩的是，我们讨论的M的人性，在他的名字被M代替的那一刻，在人群的意志被统一的那一刻，所谓人性，早就不复存在了。
这和精神病一样。
一堆精神病，

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(二)：Tracing Human Abnormality in Modern Berlin

        Fritz Lang, one of the most celebrated auteurs of Germany's national cinema, lays out a chilling crime story in M(1931). In this provocative motion picture, a search for the cruel child murderer, Beckert, drives the whole city to turmoil. As all members in the city become involved in the search for the criminal, two different forms of human abnormality lurked in the city are exposed: the criminal mentality as well as the conflict between the institutional authority and the general public of which it is in charge. While the search continues, both forms of human abnormality keep growing unchecked; yet, eventually, the citizens identified with such abnormality have to face the catastrophic consequences of their behavior. Through innovative use of sound and provocative editing techniques, Lang points to the city as the foster home of both forms of human abnormality. Furthermore, he invites the audience to question the unforeseen detriments of a city in modernity that all its members eventually have to confront.
        As Lang's first film with sound, Lang ingeniously manipulates this new technology to portray the city as an adoptive home of human abnormality. At the very beginning of the film, before any image appears on screen, the audience first hears a child singing a familiar tune: “Wait, wait just a little while/ then the black man will come after you/ with his little chopper/ he will make mince meat out of you.” According to Todd Herzog, this tune is a homage to the “Haarmann song” that tells the chilling crimes of the notorious serial killer Fritz Haarmann. Herzog believes that this song serves to, “locate M in a specific historical context, the world of the Weimar Republic at the time of the film's release, and to place it in dialogue with that world”(Herzog, “Fritz Lang's M(1931), An Open Case”, P232). Nevertheless, Fritz's use of this song to begin the film allows a different interpretation. As the film begins with the dark screen and the nursery rhyme, an image soon appears in a few seconds. A medium shot locates the source of the sound in the yard of a mietskascerne, where a group of kids are playing and singing. By placing the source of the cruel tune in the mouth of a naïve child, Lang further implies that the modern city has become a sink of iniquity, even for the innocent who have yet to understand the city in which they are situated. The victim of today is just as likely to become the perpetrator in the future.
        Beckert's whistle is a repetition in the film which symbolizes his criminal mentality. Each time when he begins to whistle, the audience witnesses the awakening of the monstrous murderer within him. Thus far, Lang constantly shifts the source of the whistle from on-screen to off-screen; such manipulation of the sound source sheds light on the unlikelihood to locate the specific origin of human abnormality in a modern milieu. In a scene when Beckert stands on the street and looks into a shop-window, the sequence is accompanied with no diegetic sound. All what the audience can see is that Beckert dramatically changes his facial expression when he sees a little girl in the reflection of the shop-window. As the girl walks away, the camera moves out of the shop to the street and captures Beckert staring in the direction that the girl is walking. The audience then hears the diegetic sound of the street traffic, and Beckert's whistle simultaneously joins in as he starts following the girl and walks out of the frame. In the next medium-long shot, the camera tracks the little girl as she walks on the street. The whistle continues in the background; however, Beckert no longer appears on-screen in this tracking shot. While the audience has been led to believe that the whistle comes from Beckert by the previous shot; Lang purposefully leaves the established sound source off-screen in the following shot, which leads the audience to question whether Beckert himself is the source of his abnormality, or if the city is that with which has fostered his brutal crimes.
        Lang further manipulates sound to create off-screen space that contrasts the on-screen image in order to depict another form of human abnormality: the revolt against the political authority. The conflict between the underworld business and the police points to a divergence between the authority and the public, which is previously kept in disguise by a seemingly stable social order. However, as Beckert's crimes disturb the social order and alarm the police, they immediately assume that the criminal must be someone from the underworld, and decide to break the ostensible peace and raid their gathering spots. One night, the police secretly surround one of the underworld's gathering place; in which the entire process is accompanied with no sound. The camera soon moves downstairs into the basement where people in the underworld business gather. As a woman shouts out that the police is here, everyone begins rushing towards the exit to leave the basement. In a medium shot, the camera awaits at the top of the stairs and looks slightly down as everyone starts running towards the camera. Among the frenzied noises, the audience first clearly hears a woman's scream as the policemen yell back at her; yet the entire action takes place upstairs in off-screen space while the shot remains still, featuring the panicking crowds. Soon, the police enter from the lower frame and gradually push the crowds back into the basement for investigation. The image on-screen contrasts the actions taken place in off-screen space; such contrast allows the audience to look beyond the images shown on-screen and picture the entire city, where its underlying instability and human abnormality are close to outbreak due to the police's disruption of a public order that does not solve social problems, but merely hides them unseen.
        Throughout the film, Long constructs several montage sequences which implicitly build cause-and-effect relationships between the modern city and human abnormality. In the beginning of the film, when Elsie's mother becomes worried about Elsie for having not returned home, a medium shot shows Elsie's mother walking towards the window and looking out. When she begins calling out “Elsie”, the image cuts to an aisle shot of the stairwell in the Mietskaserne. As the mother's cry echoes down the stairs, the audience then follows the camera to an empty space where people in the neighbourhood hang their laundry; Elsie is still absent on-screen. The sequence continues as it cuts to a close-up on the lunch table, where Elsie's seat remains empty. The grieving howl of the mother has now ended, yet the sequence did not until the audience are shown with two more shots: Elsie's ball rolling on the grass, and the ballon that the criminal Beckerd bought for Elsie entangled in the electric wires on the city street. In this sequence, Lang juxtaposes the mother's continuous calling for Elsie with discontinuity editing of on-screen images. The audience follows the mother as she searches for Elsie in all public spaces in the city where Elsie can possibly be; yet Elsie's ball and ballon at the end of the sequence tell audience that Elsie must have already been slaughtered by the murderer Beckerd. In this sequence, Lang associates the befalling of Elsie's tragic death with the city itself: the development of the modern metropolis not only enlarges the public space, but also catalyses crime and threat among the citizens.
        In another scene when the minister condemns the police chief on the phone for the police department's incompetence in finding the killer, Lang edits a flashback as the chief explains their difficulty. The editing of this flashback again connotes the unforeseen detriments of a city in modernity. When the chief tells the minister about a white paper bag that they found behind the hedge, a close-up on the paper bag gives the audience a clue that it is a candy wrapper, and the store's name was on the wrapper. Then, the image cuts to a close-up of a map of the city, in which circles and circles are drawn with a pair of compasses in increasing radius. While the search widens, the police interrogates owners of candy stores all over the city. However, all owners shake their heads and cannot remember who had bought the candy for little Elsie. As population increases, the city provides perpetrators the opportunity to disguise their abnormality and let it grow unchecked. The editing of this sequence connects the failure to identify the abnormal with the city itself.
        Lang further implies a cause-and-effect relationship between the city and another form of human abnormality, namely, the public and the institutional authority's revolt against each other. As both the leads of the underworld and the chiefs of the political institutions gather for two separate meetings to discuss their objectives on the case of Beckert, Lang uses cross-cutting to juxtapose both meetings. The heads of the underworld complain about the consistent police raids' harm to their business and decide to find the killer by themselves in order to resurrect their business. As the underworld head waves his hand, the shot cuts to the head of police's same action. The police simultaneously decides to continue their search for Beckert without the help of the public, by organizing more police raids and search among public spaces. While the underworld condemns the police for interfering the underworld's business, the police chief Lohmann also refuses to ask the public for help as he states, “Don't talk to me about the public helping, it disgusts me.” The cross-cutting technique invites the audience to contrast the underworld and the police's conflicting attitudes against each other. Such social conflict is another form of human abnormality that is against the democratic ideal of the Weimar republic.
        As the underworld collaborates with the beggars and has seized Beckerd from the building, together they leave the scene in a hurry. Lang then presents the audience with a montage sequence in which he rewinds the crimes that the underworld has just committed. The audience follows the camera into the room where both watchmen have been knocked out and tied up. Then, the sequence continues with still shots of the forcefully broken office door, the compartment's broken fences, and ends with the hole they have dug on the floor in order to make the crime scene look like a result of burglary. This montage sequence is shown with no sound, leaving the audience in contemplation of the underworld's motive and the destructions their abnormal behaviors have caused. The heads of the underworld are provoked to capture Beckerd not because that they find Beckerd's behavior immoral, but because the underworld's business is interrupted by the police's consistent raids. In turn, they decide to look for Beckerd without collaboration with the police, and purposefully commit a series of crimes in order to achieve their goal. The lack of stability in the city's social order has fostered the formation of the underworld, and the underworld's distrust with the political authority. Yet, their abnormal behaviors will lead them to their final conviction.
        The film ends with the final conviction of both the underworld and the child murderer. The audience should not forget that it is the underworld, despite their unrighteous motives, who has asked for help from the beggars and successfully seized Beckert. Nevertheless, both parties have to eventually face the catastrophic consequences of their abnormal behaviors. The first being the underworld's imprudent disruption of the public order for their own economic benefits, and the second being the brutal crimes that Beckert has committed. Throughout the film, Lang manipulates the sound effects and the editing of the sequences to point to the modern city itself as the very cause of all forms of human abnormality preeminent in it. The diegetic world in the film, which is the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, still echoes the modern milieu in which we live. However we try to trace any form of abnormality that hinders the public order, we are always led back to the society as the cause, without identifying the specific origin. Perhaps, the only way of prevention lies in the hands of the people who make up the society, with self-awareness of their behaviors, and positive objectives to make changes.
 
 
                                      Works Cited
 
Herzog, Todd. "Fritz Lang's M(1931): An Open Case." An Essential Guide to Classic Films of the Era Weimar Cinema. Ed. Noah Isenberg. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. 291-309. Print.
 
M. Dir. Fritz Lang. Perf. Peter Lorre, Ellen Widmann, Inge Landgut. Criterion Collection, 2004, DVD.
 

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(三)：Shadow attached

As we know, America’s early sound era was filled with musicals and comedies. Whereas in Germany, M, as a thriller about child murder, shot a creepy start. This story was inspired by a real serial killer in Dusseldorf.
Children in the movie
Children are the most naïve and innocent group in the society. Their appearance can also enhance and deliver the horror atmosphere. This usage is common in contemporary thrillers like Orphan and Hard Candy. In this movie, the kids are also victims. Being regarded as the future of the society, kids’ sufferings can arouse great panic and hate among the whole city. Especially in the scene when every adult cursing the killer, Elsie still plays with her ball bouncing back and forth towards the wanted announcement. Unfortunately, this is exactly where she meets the killer and being killed. Kid’s innocence and killer’s cruelty reflect a distinctive comparison, which lay stress on the evil of murderer.
Becker’s shadow
“I have to roam the streets endlessly, always sensing that someone’s following me. It’s me! I’m shadowing myself!” Beckert’s monologue in the last part of this movie is the most unforgettable scene to me. Before the very end of this movie, the murderer is shaped as an absolute mob that causes great panic among all the society. Police and gangs both utilize the entire source in order to catch and punish this killer. His evil is so extreme that even can eliminate the opposite position between these two kinds of force, which represent the traditional justice and blackness. However, in the final part of the movie, when the killer is dragged into the basement being confronted by the citizens, he finally expresses himself as a psycho. He cannot escape the evil compulsions that control him and makes him a monster. Things become blur after his defence. He becomes a patient when he acts as a killer, so should we give him treatment to produce a nice person back to society or just execution to eradicate the hidden danger.
Fritz’s utilization of shadow to depict the creep figure of killer is so clever. Although Becker is the main character in this movie, most of his time on screen is in the form of shadow. Only in the end of the movie, his physical appearance reveals. This setting is so interesting if we regard the increasing physical presence as the trajectory from his shadow monster to the real him.
Police and the underworld
During the search for the killer, Fritz gives us series of parallel shots depicting conferences among police and the underworld. These two groups are so visually similar that I could hardly distinguish them. They sit around tables, smoke in the gloomy rooms and discuss the trail of killer. Their dialog can be even pieced together. I think this structure is kind of mock towards ineffectiveness of the government.
Techniques
The killer uses candies and balloons to please kids and then kills them. The director Fritz Lang did not show the exact scene of the murder, but use the balloon, electric wire and the empty dinner plate to indicate the victim’s death. This kind of shooting method can be found in later crime movies as well.
M was Fritz Lang’s first sound movie but he was not that excited to make characters talking all the time. He left spaces for his camera to prowl through the streets and dives without any sound, which ease the tempo but actually draw more attention of audience.
M is not only a thriller, but also a meditation towards pathological human. As I discussed in the previous part, if we treat the illness to be the shadow of Becker, this shadow can be attached to every self in the society. If that happens, flushing one out of existence would be a problematic solution and so, caring these groups of psycho would not be simply about sympathy but a must-do of the society.

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(四)：《两个我这辈子都排斥的伪善》

一个是未成年保护法，一个是精神病可减轻判刑的“手法”。后者是这部电影的探讨。
关于第一个，的确明确了我排斥的观念的是，印度纪录片《印度的女儿》，被害人被强暴（是暴力施暴结果致死）到肠子都出来了——几个犯罪者，几个被判死刑、司机判重刑，但有一个施暴者17岁、离18岁还差一到两个月就被判去少管所还是什么的，总之结果是一段时间后“被教育后”可以释放完好无损“的”回归社会……拜戴头套在媒体镜头前保护他呢~ 我设想的这套权力游戏规则，我设想的是也许过去曾经有有权力的人，亲身孩子犯了大罪，权力者当爹妈的想要给孩子个“改过自新”的机会、透过政治斗争的游戏手腕造就了这套法则。总之我认为，孩子还是不是孩子、本质是人能对自己的行为负责还是不能对自己行为负责，不是以年龄划分的，而人本身的行为，人本身就该负责。没有其它瞎扯，也不存在争论，是我的直觉，和对事理的常识，良知，让我知道这样才是对的。
而本片讨论的第二个，同理，哪怕是精神病人、真正失心癫狂的精神病人，也是需要对其自身的行动后果负责，人的大脑内部的感知、幻象，至今都没有对他人直接同步投影的渠道，医生和律师透过文本认为能够诠释，则是天大的狂妄，也正是我认为必须要人人在事理面前都该对自己的行为后果负责，不论是孩子、精神病人，还是普罗大众、还是电影人。
中国电影有救，某一天、拍烂片的导演要被打靶，接烂片的明星要罚钱、罚大钱而不是给你再被两句台词赚大钱，那么——创作必须有良知和不装逼了，也许、国产电影的大多数，就都有这部经典那么有能量了。当然，哪怕没有那么调侃的一天，仅仅是有良知的新一辈、得到机遇和发挥才华，好片还是会出的，这是基本事实，这是历史发展的游戏规则。
对的，我所排斥的，也许，几百年后能够修正改变，这就需要更大的智慧、更多人的辨别了。还好，那些负面的，不曾、也不会与我有关。拍片吧。

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(五)：不朽的死亡

十字路口有两棵树，一棵是银杏树，另一棵也是银杏树。
南方的冬天罕见阳光，偶尔出一回太阳，晒太阳的人倾城出动。冬天里阴冷潮湿的身体，晒了太阳后像棉被一样蓬松起来。我推着儿子蹲在十字路口晒太阳，然后就看见了那两棵树。
冬天的太阳终归有些惨淡，但那两棵树却灿烂的不可思议。满树扇形的叶子变成了金黄色，金色的叶子像黄金雨一样落下来，拥挤的十字路口成了背景，忙忙碌碌的过往行人也不重要了，这两棵树才是此刻世界的主角。不止我在看着他们，很多人为他们驻足，惊叹他们的美丽。然而他们浑然不觉，也丝毫不讨好观众，表演的并不卖力，却十分忘我——对于他们而言，也许本就是没有“我”的。
我忘着那两棵树，心想如果我不生而为人，生而为树是一种怎样的体验呢？一棵树的生死又是怎样的？我突然发现我并不知道一棵树是如何生如何死的，虽然小人书告诉我们是一颗种子破土而出成了小苗，然后长成了参天大树，但仔细想想总觉得不对劲：草本怎么可能长成木本。
原来我并不知道一棵树的生死，就像我不知道自己的生死，然而我脚下的城市又会如何生死？如果他有生死的话。
《ROM@》试图描述的就是这个问题。
这本书大概讲的是一款以罗马为背景名为rom@的游戏，在罗马举行了一场电子竞技赛，全球多支队伍前来参赛，但在比赛过程中突然游戏中的古罗马与现实的罗马相混淆，时空与时空相混淆，古罗马雄伟的建筑重现现代罗马，奥黛丽赫本、墨索里尼再一次回到罗马。
听上去像个很酷的科幻故事，乍一看还有点像《刀剑神域》，等你实际阅读的时候会发现比想象的更酷，酷到看都看不懂。一会儿是罗马自己出来像话唠一样唠唠叨叨，一会儿是书里几个不大相干人物的故事，一会儿是过去，一会儿是现在，一会儿是历史，一会儿是虚构。整本书就像是一副拼贴画一样，让人分不清哪里是头，哪里是尾，但你能清楚的辨认出这幅画的主题：他在讲述罗马是如何死亡的。
罗马已经有两千年的历史，这个时间跨度已经远远超出人类生命的感知长度，以人类的生命是无法理解一个如此漫长的生命的。对于一座两千年的城市，也许时间本就是无头无尾的，也许自身与外物本就是混沌不清的，也许死亡本就是如漩涡般旋转的体验。作者将罗马两千年粘稠的历史用力搅拌起来，文字让时空同时破碎，零散的意象飞速的旋转，让读者一头雾水又感受到些许恐惧。
作者书写的是有型的死亡，但他在序言里说自己写的其实是爱情，也许爱情和死亡本就是一回事，你不让自己死去，又如何在爱情中忘我的与他人相交融？书中的罗马并非死于突如其来的天灾人祸，他早已经历过更多的祸患，天灾人祸也从来夺不走一座城市的生命，他的死亡更微妙也更让人恐惧。世上的任何不朽都是以人类短的可怜的生命定义的，在我们的生命之外，那些不朽也在以我们无法理解的方式死亡，时间摧枯拉朽，也许时间本身也会以我们更难以了解的方式死亡。以人类渺小的生命目睹不朽的死亡，是一件何其残忍的事情，这也是这本书会让人暗暗感到恐惧的原因。
对于生死的迷题，我不想知道太多，在我这样的凡人面前揭开答案未免太过残酷。我只希望有生之年不要听闻任何一个孩子的夭折，不要看见任何一棵星星的陨落，不要见证任何一个城市的倾颓。我希望我死那一刻我所熟知的世上的一切都好好的保持原样，让我易朽的生命在他们不朽的包围下安然逝去。
如同十字路口那两棵银杏树，只要我闭上眼睛，他们随时在下着黄金雨。

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(六)：这一切都不能压下我的声音

一部非常深刻的电影，可以和《十二怒汉》并论，值得我们不时拿出来思考。
电影中凶手一再作案，黑帮抓住凶手，反映政府的无能才会导致民间势力的崛起。最后的控诉和争辩，是电影的高潮，也是它的点睛之笔，没有最后五分钟，这只是一部普通的缉凶电影而已。
印象最深的是辩方律师的“这一切都不能压下我的声音”，这才是律师的操守，尽管他视自己作文M的律师为不幸，但他仍然在为M应有的权利做抗争。这就就像医生救治自己的敌人一样可敬。
电影中关于精神病犯罪的探讨太过深刻，我不敢发言，以后慢慢思考吧。
电影中的口哨出自挪威民族乐派大师的《佩尔金特》，非常熟悉的旋律，有机会找全曲来听一下。

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(七)：几点笔记。

1.该片拍摄与20世纪三十年代，这时候德国刚开始或已经准备走上法西斯主义道路。电影中警民的不和谐实则透视了人民对政府和权威的不信任。其中警察在酒场检查妓女和男人时，是一个比较明显的政治隐喻——在当时社会环境和条件下，男人们并不完全配合警察的调查，就连身份阶层低级的妓女都对警察表现出不屑的神色和嘲笑
2,这部三十年代的有声片是对电影技术的又一次成功的革命性尝试。除了影片中 人物的口哨声等并没有多余的配乐。却能在将近两个小时时间的电影中将情节近乎完美的衔接。
3.警察和黑道分开讨论如何抓捕杀人狂时，用到的交叉蒙太奇清晰无破绽。警察开会是方桌，代表秩序和规则。黑社会成员讨论是彼此围坐在一张不小的圆桌边，在某种程度上象征着与所谓秩序的对抗。具有讽刺意味的是，他们两方讨论的话题一样——将同一人抓获
4.开场小孩们围坐在一起玩游戏的镜头由上至下俯拍，其一可将情节发生的环境进行全面的概括，其二是孩子们缺乏保护意识之下弱小的象征。有趣的是歌谣的内容，弗里茨·郎意味深长的将案情的大致通过歌谣和大人的反应呈现给观众，使观众在几分钟内就知晓了电影是基于怎样的背景和环境进行讲述的。
5.爱丽丝被凶手M带走后，镜头给了爱丽丝家中几处地方的空镜。同景别无技巧剪辑代表一种并列关系，仿佛不用刻意解释，单是从这组镜头中，观众就能明白发生了什么。
6.场面调度。

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(八)：黑道白道 盗亦有道

      这电影是第一部变态连环杀人的片吧？且不论剧情、构图、拍摄手法、演员表演等。这个第一就足够让他成为经典。
    1小时57分钟，80年前的老电影却能很吸引人。从一开演，脑袋中就不断进行对比，1931年我们中国在干什么？这你我在教科书中都学过很多遍。那时德国很强大，政治、经济、文化没的说，所以才能有第一次的二次世界大战，从电影中我们也能看出。
    变态杀人狂引起民众恐慌，警察想要抓住凶手、也必须抓住他，为此采取了“地毯式”搜索。黑道成了搜查重点，黑帮门知道自己的人是有他们自己的道义，只为财，不会如此变态（《杀手列侬》不动女人和小孩），为了自己的生意也为了社会安定黑帮老大们决定出手抓住那个杀人狂，黑帮开会的同时警察们也在开会。黑道决定发动民众甚至想到在报纸上刊登消息澄清自己与变态无关系并且抓住凶手，而白道大佬们却一副骄傲自大的嘴脸，极度不信任民众，甚至有些鄙视。嗯，电影进行到这里，我们就应该相信会越来越精彩，甚至会深信有快至人心的片段出现。
    影片接着向我们详细描绘了变态杀人狂的心理变化？反正我一直都认为变态们都是心理有问题。他从玻璃中看到了小女孩突然表情变化可能是想要杀人了，准备采取行动。他吹起了口哨（他的代表），只是这时小女孩的母亲赶到，杀人狂的行动失败，他抠抠双手（应该也是对变态的心理一种描述）来到街边的cafe，饮品从咖啡改成苦艾酒（这应该也是导演特别设计的）但是侍者给了他白兰地，没错他又开始行动了。接下来影片的高潮就来了？
    “警察们”的不负责任，是不是显得他们更愚蠢、会激起民愤？
剧情很精彩，大家一看就会明白。
    “你说权利？这里在坐的各位全都是感受法律权威的专家……”
    “我要求把我交给警察 受法院的制裁……”
不得不说太精彩了！他辩护自己不能控制，他们看得很明白，如果交给法院那么他就会以精神病的理由被释放然后继续残杀小女孩。
    “你们是谁？你们是罪犯……你们可以改过，而我呢？我是受了诅咒的么？……”哇！太佩服了！升华呀！
     最后那个变态如愿被带入正式法庭。
    “希望你们能多关心点被害人 多关心孩子”
ps 1.最开始影片中提到了变态抓小女孩并与她们发生性关系，结尾时变态自己也说只有做那事时才会内心平静。我觉得这是符合弗洛伊的那种“一切心理变态问题与精神问题都是从小受到性的影响”也就是将所有问题的源头都归咎到“性”。以前我对这种观点不是很认同，但是从影片看却是如此。
    2.影片应该也是第一次涉及精神病杀人、犯法，很精彩。对于精神病的所以然是受法律、道德律的约束，很难讲清楚，每个人心中都有自己的道律。不能说他们是坏人也不能说他们是好人，就像片中变态杀人狂的辩护也可以振振有词于情于理得到赞同，但是受害者更是无辜也是多数，到底要怎样对待这个问题？我个人倾向于把他们关起来！

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(九)：没有人可以杀人，国家也不可以。

     实在很难想象这是1931年拍的电影.
   
     很棒的一部电影，小女孩们唱着杀人歌，电影开始了，前面也没做过多的铺垫，凶手直接干掉了一个女孩，虽然没有特写，恐怕在1931年这样的电影会吓坏好多人吧。
  
    随后叙述警察追捕稍显冗长，可以砍掉部分，随后发动的丐帮追捕实在有想象力，恐怕中国观众对此应该有些共鸣吧。随后在大楼里的围捕更是高潮的开始，演员彼得·洛 Peter Lorre眼睛实在是大，和牛眼睛有的一比，躲在杂物间惊恐的眼神实在惟妙惟肖，特别是当他在偷偷摸摸的开锁的时候，突然间发现门把手自己竟然自己动了，吓的他呆若木鸡，眼睛活脱脱要掉下来一样，演技之传神，让我看的真是大跌眼镜啊。要知道这是1931年的电影。就算拿到现在他也肯定是个实力派。
    
    最后公开批斗完全是彼得·洛 Peter Lorre一个人在秀。演技同样精彩绝伦。比起现在这个随便拉个歌星当影星或随便揪个花瓶当影帝的时代要强千百倍，要知道这是1931年的电影啊！没有特技，没有特效，没有现在的后期剪辑。完全就演员+剧本撑起来的，这应该就是一部电影最本质的东西吧。
    
    最后让我大跌眼镜的就是，1931年的德国是如此先进，办公大楼，伸缩钢铁门，电钻，公共电话，与警局相连的报警系统，可爱的小人气球，送货上门的报纸杂志员，玩具店，背个背包上学的小孩，就是缺少个手机和电脑，其他什么都有了，感觉这应该是当代社会东西啊。
    看来中国人做的还是对的啊，放学一律有家长接送，哈哈！！！
      影片最后很有意思，群众要处死他，彼得·洛 Peter Lorre，为自己辩护了一大堆，批判他的人竟然还给他找了个律师，律师竟然说了：没有人可以杀人，就算国家也不可以，申请将他送给警察。最后彼得·洛 Peter Lorre被以法律之手逮捕。还出现了法庭审判。。。。更令人不可思的是1931年的德国竟然有精神病法，替他辩护的律师认为他有精神病，不应该负责人！！！！我的天啊！！！什么叫民主？1931年的民主。
    
    我真的怀疑是不是1931年的电影！！！！这让我们这个当代文明国度情何以堪啊！！！！对中国人来说，经典的不仅仅是电影本身。

　　《M就是凶手》观后感(十)：M到底是不是精神病？

M说他不记得自己犯罪，而是通过报纸才知道自己做了什么，比利好像称这为失落的时间，那他是有另一个人格？他杀了这么多小孩，如果他本性善良，那么他正常时得知自己因为病情而杀死小孩为什么不去治疗，而是一错再错继续犯罪。他到底痊愈没有？警方是根据名单来搜查房间的，他曾有精神病，既然出院了那代表痊愈了。而且他之前还写信去挑衅警察，就代表他知道自己做了什么，并没有认错，也不后悔，说明他本质就很坏。这是个开放式的结局，结尾说以百姓之名，所以真相到底是如何？《一级恐惧》里面，诺兰就装人格分裂脱罪，最后一刻才知道真相。那么M也可能是在演，演精神病为自己脱罪。主人格善良的话，得知自己的另一个人格杀了小孩后肯定会抓狂并陷入深深的自责。好想知道真相！