Customer Reviews

Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A very poor transfer of a very good film.Laserlight have done nothing to restore the print.The picture is dark and washed out.The sound is also very poor.The story has some great scenes,such as the finale in the hall where the assassination attempt takes place,but you have to watch a muddy picture with crackling sound.Wait for another version to come out.

It is hard to overstate the importance of this film, for The Man Who Knew Too Much catapulted Alfred Hitchcock into the ranks of the directing elite and did much to define the very genre of the suspense thriller. The fact that Hitchcock remade this 1934 film twenty-two years later should in no way be interpreted to mean that this original version is an inferior film. Hitchcock may have looked upon the original as the work of a "talented amateur," but critics and fans hail the film as a great success that showed the master truly coming into his own - thanks in no small part to his being given almost complete control of the project.

The Man Who Knew Too Much is a very British film, as personified by the suave, cool, and urbane hero who keeps a stiff upper lip throughout his ordeal. And quite an ordeal it is, as he finds himself hip-deep in a diplomatic brouhaha that could conceivably start another war. It all starts innocently enough, on a family vacation in Switzerland. Bob Lawrence (Leslie Banks), his wife Jill (Edna Best), and their daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam) are having a grand old time, even enjoying the company of a Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Pierre Fresnay). Then Bernard is killed (in a wonderfully subtle way), and his dying words charge Bob to find a hidden document in his room and take it to the British Consul. The bad guys, led by Abbott (Peter Lorre, in his first English-speaking role), are right behind him, though, and prevent him from delivering the important message by kidnapping his little girl. The Lawrences return to Britain without Betty; unable to tell the authorities the truth, Bob sets out to find and rescue his little girl on his own and stop the planned assassination of an important diplomat if he can - but his daughter's safety comes first. The film builds to a wonderfully suspenseful scene as the assassin takes his place, but the movie doesn't end there. The completely satisfying conclusion comes only after a protracted shootout between the cops and the bad guys.

It's a wonderfully made film featuring a tight plot, a number of budget-friendly camera tricks (quite impressive for 1934), and great performances all around. Leslie Banks is wonderful as Bob Lawrence, but Peter Lorre pretty much steals the show. It has been many years since I saw the 1956 remake starring Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day, so I can't really compare the two versions of the film. Many Hitchcock fans have a special regard for the original, though, because this film provides us with a glimpse at the legend that is Hitchcock in the making. Even if you're not a Hitchcock fan (if that is even possible), watch it for Peter Lorre - he is nothing less than the icon of polite, soft-spoken villains.

Happy young English couple Bob and Jill Lawrence go on holiday to St Moritz with adorable daughter Betty. Nice Frenchman Louis makes friends with them. He dances with Jill of an evening. Suddenly a bullet comes through a window and Louis is dead. Dying, he directs Jill to the shaving brush in his bedroom. There is a message concealed there that must be delivered to the British Consul. Bob finds the message but before he can deliver it he gets another: We have your little girl. Keep your mouth shut or else. Back in Britain, the Foreign Office cotton on that the couple are sitting on some information and urge them to part with it. There is an assassination attempt afoot on some visiting foreign bigwig and Louis' note is essential to averting it. Bob and Jill keep mum but Bob heads down to the back streets of Wapping to follow a lead on where his daughter might be...

It's classic early Hitchcock. It's also classic rather later Hitchcock as it's the one movie of his own that Hitchcock remade, directing a much glossier version in 1956 with James Stewart and Doris Day. Hitchcock was a lot better at remaking Hitchcok than Gus van Sant will ever be but the original is a real joy. It's set in the glorious world of 1930s British Hitchcock movies, a world of plucky stuff-upper-lipped British people, sinister foreigners (here in particular the great Peter Lorre at his most magnificently malign), men from the foreign office with bowler hats, burly coppers, mysterious goings on, secret agents, dastardly shootings, dark, shadowy staircases, hidden messages and, of course, this being Hitchcock, grand set-pieces: here a brilliant scene at the Albert Hall where the assassination is planned for a climactic moment in a concert when the percussion will mask the sound of the gun. It's not a masterpiece like "the Thirty-Nine Steps" or "The Lady Vanishes" but it is palpably from the same stable and, from start to finish, an enormous pleasure to watch.

I just rented a movie of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the 1934 version with actor Peter Lorre. Although it is really old, it is still a very good and entertaining movie!
Although I enjoyed the movie's suspense and sometimes humor (like the father of the kidnapped girl and his friend were singing along with the others but they were really telling what they saw to solve the girl's disappearance), I have noticed two things interesting about this movie:

1. When the father and his friend went to the dentist's office (they obviously knew that a henchman works there), I got a good look at an actual 1930s dentist office! It looks dark and crude compared to today's dental offices. The instruments looked scary, and what I have noticed is that the dentist never used novocaine! But he did use "gas" trying to knock out the father (but failed, since the dad knew the dentist was a henchman -- the father instead knocked out the dentist!)....but what got me was that the gas tank looks old-fashioned.

2. Remember how the 1939 movie "Gone With the Wind" shocked movie watchers with the word "damn", that was said by Rhett Butler? Ok, THIS MOVIE I am talking about was in 1934...and there are the word "damn" that was said TWICE!! Why weren't the movie goers shocked then?? This must not have been a popular movie at the time.
If you haven't seen this movie, go watch it! It is NOT a boring movie, but a good one, even though it was made in 1934! <smile>

Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.

Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. Hitchcock himself wasn't completely satisfied with his work, so he remade the film, this time with a better cast, and with more experience under his belt. However, this first version is one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.

Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.

I very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.

(The DVD version that I am reviewing is the Laserlight release, featuring the introduction by Tony Curtis. All remarks concerning the quality of the disc refer to this edition.)

I found THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH to be a bit of a mixed bag. The first half appears choppy and uneven. Things happen without much motivation and the cast seems to confused as to what exactly is going on. Some of the more experimental scenes and moments just did not seem to work terribly well. The direction is unsteady and a touch confusing at times - I'm still not sure what happened during the opening ski scene and I couldn't figure out why a skiier, when suddenly confronted with a child running in front of him, would just scream and cover his eyes.

However, at about the midway point, the film settles down and becomes quite entertaining. There are some masterfully suspenseful sequences such as the assassination attempt during a concert and a long shoot-out with the police. Hitchcock managed to milk the suspense for all it's worth without once taking it a moment too far. Peter Lorre deserves a lot of credit for crafting a role that initially isn't terribly exciting and infusing it with just the right amount of necessary style. His character is a joy to watch and Lorre steals every scene that he is in. He gets all the best lines and manages to create a character that's chilling even while he's laughing hysterically at his henchmen.

The DVD itself is not bad. The picture seems fine and the audio is quite good. I'm sure that there are better prints available than this, but for the extremely low price, it's a bargain. The bonus footage is a trailer for Alfred Hitchcock's SABOTEUR and is a fairly forgettable extra. And Tony Curtis didn't wear his black, leather gloves for the opening and closing remarks, which is always a good thing.

I understand why people would compare this and the brilliant remake- I DO TOO!!! But one should watch it every once in a while without compareing it. I saw this version first so I couldn't compare it and I found it to be a real gem. No, not as good as others butnotable Hitchcock. This tale of the kidnapping of a young girl (played by "Young And Innocent"'s Nova Pilbeam)in an attempet to keep vital information about an assasination from being told by the pearents who came upon the information by mistake.

It is very enjoyable and has some creative camera and montage work in it. Such as when the mother reads the letter telling her that they have her daughter the camera spins really fast and she faints. There are of course others as well.

This really is a great movie and if you haven't seen it you should check it out.

Don't even think about buying the James Stewart / Doris day version until you've seen this film. With all the padding (not to mention Doris Day's singing) missing from the original version, the pace is faster and story more exciting. Peter Lorre is on top form and even the Albert Hall scene is more exciting than in the remake. This is definitely one of Hitchcock's best pre-war films - easily on a par with 'The 39 Steps' and 'The Lady Vanishes'.

This film is well-made, and rather interesting, but for one who has seen both versions of that film (the second from 1956 starring James Stewart and Dorris Day), this film contains all the symptoms of lack of experience as a director that Hitchcock tried to avoid when he chose do remake it. The famous climax scene (during a concert in the Royal Albert Hall) is too short to fulfill the tension and horror that the main actress, Edna Best, experiences. Also the attempts to save the child that has been kidnapped, by firing at Peter Lorre, the bad guy, and eventually the success in invincing him, are mediocrately put. It seems that Hitchcock has left the ending as it is just to show the spectators that everything is back to normal. He could have cut the last 20 minutes, and thus leave us with a "gout d'encore".