Customer Reviews

The Man Who Knew Too Much

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(9)
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.

(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.

Alfred Hitchcock's tenure as the "Master of Suspense" truly began with this compact 1934 thriller. After a shaky start, Hitchcock maintains the European intrigue with a series of bravura set-pieces - climaxed by the Royal Albert Hall nail-biter and a lengthy gun battle in London's East End. Peter Lorre's offbeat villainy stands out among a memorable cast. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is far superior to Hitchcock's overlong 1956 remake.

I agree with Alfred Hitchcock in his assessment that his 1956 remake of this 1934 classic was a superior movie. However, that's only when pressed. Really, despite mostly having the same story line and climactic scene at the Royal Albert Hall, they are two different films.

It's not just because one is in black and white, whereas the other is in color, or that one features British and the other American leads. It's more intangible than that. It has to do with pacing, and that this is a more tongue-in-cheek thriller than the remake. Also, while Hitch never stopped pushing the envelope on visual effects, it's so interesting watching this one, because he was learning as he made it. When Edna Best faints upon learning that her daughter (Nova Pilbeam) has been kidnapped, the camera movement simulates the room spinning round and round. It's a sort of primitive shot, one that Hitch didn't smoothly master until the 1940s. That said, it cannot be denied that Hitchcock's primary visual contribution at this point was in applying the German Expressionist montage sensibility to the British cinema, which was theretofore fledgling.

The acting is all right from the good guys, but it's the villains who are most impressive in this version. Peter Lorre as Abbott is creepy, and quite a polished actor, whereas the British actors were a little awkward in reciting their lines. Lorre was smooth, confident, volatile and simply a pleasure to watch. Cicily Oates as Abbott's religious sect "front" is simply mesmerizing when she hypnotizes Leslie Bank's comic relief friend, Clive. There are some stark Expressionistic shots of her through a glass lens, and as the light intensifies on her face, so does her perverse concentration. Almost zombie, cultlike.

The climax at the Royal Albert Hall was Hitch's largest scale set piece, a tour de force of sight and sound. Arthur Benjamin's soundtrack and his "Storm Clouds Cantata really raised the bar for movie music in those early days of sound, and even influenced Hitch's most famous composer, Bernard Herrmann, decades later when he re-scored the 1956 version. Herrmann had such admiration and respect for Benjamin's Cantata, that he used it intact, even doubling some of the parts and lengthening the score.

All of that said, don't just watch this for academic reasons. It's hugely entertaining, and has lots of great gags and suspense.

But this version still has its moments. You can easily see why Hitch loved this story enough to remake it, and once having seen both versions, will applaud his decision to do so.

The problem with this DVD is not the content, but rather the technical quality of the transfer. I have seen 8mm home movies with better production values. The sound is particularly annoying, and the video not much better.

While I can understand the many imperatives for making this version available, I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone other than a rabid Hitchcock fan, and then only for historical perspective. It is truly a shame to see such a wonderful film rendered so horribly and a stellar Director's vision, treated so shabbily.

It's probably not a great film, but it is an early creation by Hitchcock and we can already see some of his art coming out. The action has a rhythm that does not accept any slack moment. Every gesture, word or attitude of all actors are absolutely calculated to be meaningful. No waste of time, no waste of film. The story is meaningless in itself, but it was meaningful in 1934. The danger of a new war was coming and it took some courage to say so as soon as 1934, as soon as Hitler appeared. The role of Switzerland is here shown with clarity. It is a neutral country, hence a country where spies of all sorts can meet and settle their accounts. What's more, Hitchcock had a sense of humor. There are a couple of funny scenes at the beginning of the film that are quite simple and effective, but Hitchcock is already a master because it is when he makes us laugh at something that the plot thickens and the action jumps into gear. Humor is there to distract us and to make us be more surprised by the dramatic turn of events. There is also a certain distanciation between Hitchcock and the British. The scene where the poor father is trying to commuinicate with a German-speaking young Swiss cop, in English or in French, not understanding that it is German he needs is absolutely ironical. How can you pretend to be the masters of the world if you can't even communicate with people in the proper language ? And how can you keep the world safe if you can't even have some security in The Albert Hall where an assassin can enter, kill or try to kill and disappear ? And how can an assassin miss his target because one woman in the audience yells a warning ? Are assassins that emotional and influenceable ? The world is no longer what it used to be. But to apply this kind of humor in 1934 at the war danger that Hitler represented is quite amazing : it sure is a warning about what we could lose if we were not cautious, prudent, careful and vigilant : we could lose the possibility to just laugh at things, a greater loss than anything we could imagine.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

The Man Who Knew Too Much is definitely not one of "The Master"'s masterpieces. The acting isn't bad, but it moves very slowly at times and the gun fight scene at the end is not very exciting. Still, Hitchcock's mediocre films are usually above average when compared to other films. You should also take into account that this movie was made in 1934. The picture and sound are certainly watchable, though don't expect the same quality as many of the Hitchcock titles released by Anchor Bay. It's a fairly good value for the price. Any avid fan of Hitchcock should definitely pick this one up.

Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!

i have to admit right away that i am no fan of doris day, but, having said that, if you view both of these movies back to back and consider the age of the first one, you will find it to be far superior. the acting is better, the story is more tightly woven, and the ending is great--lots better than doris and her que sera....