• The in medias res opening is a dazzler- a long tracking shot through a cluttered (stunning mise-en-scene) basement. There are bicycle wheels in the frame, lights hanging in the foreground, objects- it’s Ozu and it’s Von Sternberg—film never really hits those heights again though
  • Lang does paranoia so well- atmosphere- dire circumstance—perhaps only Polanski can match
  • It’s a decent-sized ensemble and a procedural study of a corrupt mind—Fincher could make this film
  • Mabuse as a character is utterly fascinating. He creates chaos, is brilliant, fear and anarchy—clearly an influence on Nolan and Ledger’s “joker” in The Dark Knight
  • Heavy and effective superimposition usage- like Lang’s Destiny (1921)—the scene of Mabuse’s reveal is horrifying
  • The study of the mind—M from Lang in 1931—the idea of “superhuman” a precursor to Hitler, the Nazis
  • Man in-scene flashbacks which is an interesting stylistic choice
  • The man of evil who is unseen behind the curtain- Mulholland Drive
  • It’s a sequel- yes- even in 1933—the 1922 original Mabuse: The Gambler – a superior film but this is one is rock solid, too
  • Great scene and shots of head masks and artwork— skulls- all in the professor’s office
  • Lots of inflation and currency exposition- this is grounded in a very real 1933
  • From the ensemble the Tom and Lilly love story is weak
  • Great parallel editing sequence cutting back and forth to Tom and Lilly slowly drowning as their room fills up with water, this manipulation of space and time is Spielberg, it’s Nolan- it’s Dunkirk
  • A stunning fire explosion set piece finale- looks like it influenced Walsh’s White Heat in 1949
  • Ominous open ending- plague
  • If you hadn’t seen the original you might think that sound is the reason this is so verbal and heavy on exposition—it’s plotted—but that’s the story- and it’s similar to the 1922 silent film
  • HR- top 10 of the year quality