Customer Reviews

Man Who Knew Too Much [VHS]

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

This entertaining thriller from Hitchcock's British period is proof that bigger budgets don't always mean better pictures. He remade this in America during the 1950's, in color no less, and while it has some fine moments also, first prize still goes to this more charming and fun to watch black and white original.

This is the film which got Hitchcock noticed and those who haven't seen the original version are urged to do so. Everything is just right in this one, from the script by Charles Bennett and D.B. Wyndham Lewis to the photography of Curt Courant, to the charming atmosphere of early 1930's Switzerland and London. Much like "Sabotage," it may be a tick behind "39 Steps," "The Lady Vanishes" and, my personal favorite, "Young and Innocent," but there isn't a lot to quibble about.

Lesle Banks and Edna Best are excellent as the carefree couple on vacation in Switzerland with their teenage daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam). That happy-go-lucky sense of living it up at dinner parties and ski resorts carried over from the 1920's will change suddenly, however, when their pal Louie is killed while dancing with Jill (Edna Best). He will have just enough breath left to give her an urgent message regarding a planned assasination of a politician which could throw the world in turmoil.

Before she and her husband can relay the message to those who need to know, however, their lively daughter Betty is kidnapped, an insurance policy against their talking. They return to London holding the key to preventing a muder, but must remain silent to save their beloved daughter. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) will not let them go on unpeeded, however, and he and Betty's uncle, Clive (Hugh Wakefield), will follow a trail that leads to a disturbed little criminal named Abbott (Peter Lorre) who tends to apologize for what he must do.

Hitchcock makes effective use of music to build a tense mood of apprehension during a concert scene at Albert Hall where the murder is to occur. While Jill is put in the untenable position of warning the victim at Albert Hall or saving her daughter, Lawrence finds Betty and uses a booldy shootout as an opportunity to help his lovely young daughter escape. Trapped on a ledge with a killer, it may be a mothor's love, and skill at skeet shooting, which will make the difference when Betty's life is hanging in the balance.

There is a nice look and atmosphere to this black and white film which makes it far superior to the 1950's remake. The terrific Nova Pilbeam would star a bit later as the grown young female lead in "Young and Innocent" and it's a real shame she did not get a chance to work with Hitch again. A very underrated film no Hitchcock fan can miss.

Alfred Hitchock may have preferred his later remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" as opposed to his early "amateur" original. But the original has a raw, murky, taut appeal all its own, and it has the veddy veddy British flavor that many of Hitchcock's early hits have. In short, it's unpretentiously enjoyable.

The Lawrence family is vacationing at a ski resort, and hanging out with a friendly Frenchman -- until their last evening, when he is shot during a slow dance with Jill (Edna Best). Bob (Leslie Banks) follows his last instructions, and finds top-secret information hidden inside a shaving brush. He's supposed to take it to the British authorities.

But what they don't realize is that a sinister man at the resort (Peter Lorre) is the leader of an enemy terrorist cell, who is planning to assassinate someone. And to keep Bob from turning in the information, they kidnap Bob and Jill's daughter. Now Bob and British intelligence must somehow free his daughter, while Jill thwarts the assassins...

Hitchcock directed a lot of spy movies, and this one is part of an early trio that includes "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes." Each one is pretty amateurish by comparison to his later works like "North By Northwest," but are still tight, enjoyable little suspense movies.

Hitchcock keeps the relatively simple plot moving along at a rapid pace, with a sense of solid suspense and often creepy dialogue ("Tell her they may soon be leaving us. Leaving us... for a long, long journey..."). It's not a slick James Bond-y flick -- the action is dirtier and misty, like the back streets of London. And the climactic scene in a crammed opera house is wonderfully chaotic.

None of the actors are really remembered now, except for Peter Lorre who plays the slimy creep to perfection. But they all carry off their parts well, with Banks and Best carrying their roles as an ordinary couple in extraordinary circumstances. They're completely believable, and a hundred percent sympathetic -- these are the people next door.

Hitchcock may not have known much about moviemaking at the time, but the original "Man Who Knew Too Much" had plenty of raw cinematic skill. Definitely a good one.

Bob and Jill Lawrence (the mostly forgotten Leslie Banks and Edna Best) are a middle-class English couple on holiday in Switzerland; Jill is a crack shot and narrowly loses a competition because of interference from their beloved daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam), but rest assured this won't stop the Lawrences from doing everything possible to save their daughter when she is kidnapped by a group of spies planning an assassination that the Lawrences have accidentally learned about. A typical Hitchcock plot in many ways, though this one is a bit different in that it is a "family" affair throughout.

The first quarter or so of the movie didn't really move all that well, with a

bit too much cuteness and exposition given the short running time, but

once the locale shifts to London and Bob decides to take matters into

his own hands the plot quickens and the film picks up considerably. The famous dentist-chair scene is as riveting as anything in Hitchcock's British

filmography, and Peter Lorre is commanding as the leader of the

desperate would-be assassins. I particularly liked the novelty of

having a great knock-down, drag-out fight with chairs and pews in a

church, and the atmosphere of the interiors in the old hideaway house,

with the (expected and foreshadowed) reappearance of crackshot Jill's

talents make for a taut and thrilling finish. A bit more judicious

editing and this might well have been a great one; as it is, well worth

seeing for Hitchcock or Lorre fans.

Be warned that this Westlake DVD doesn't offer the best-quality print - it's fuzzy and looks several generations removed from the original negative. But NO DVD available in the USA right now that I'm aware of is all that much better; most are cheapie degraded copies with hissy and indistinct sound and washed-out picture. I've read of a German disc that is vastly better, but unless you're an enormous fan you probably won't want to go to the expense of getting it. I also have the Ultimate Hitchcock Collection (6pc) and that may be the best way to go for a lot of his early British work, most of which isn't available in excellent copies or is rather expensive when it is.

I also happen to strongly prefer this 1934 British film to Hitch's 1956 remake with James Stewart and Doris Day, but that's probably a minority view - the production values on that film are much better though, and it is actually available in an excellent edition. Watching them both in a short span of time makes for an interesting comparison, in any case.

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.

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.

The audio and video of this release were quite good. It was purchased based on another glowing review of its picture and sound quality. Hitchcock re-made this film with James Stewart and Doris Day, but I have always preferred this, his original film. He used the same thrilling music for the climax at Albert Hall in both versions. I'd recommend this to any Hitchcock fan.

When faced with the same story directed by the same man, the first more than 70 tears old with somewhat dated acting and a terrible, dark, fuzzy DVD transfer (in the version I watched), and the other in color, modern and slick, glossy and entertaining, with charismatic leads and 45 more minutes of screen time, which do you watch? If it weren't for the intense and lasting irritation of seeing a first-class movie terribly presented, I'd vote for Hitchcock's 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much.

The story is the same. A couple on vacation sees a friend shot. The man gives them a message that must be delivered to Whitehall. A foreign dignitary will be assassinated during a performance in Albert Hall. The plotters, to keep the couple from stopping their plans, kidnap their child. If they deliver the message and alert authorities to the assassination, the couple's child will be killed. They decide to find their child themselves. It builds up to a crashing cantata in the Hall and then the desperate rescue of the child. Not bad at all.

In 1934 Hitchcock dishes up for us a tense thriller with the emphasis on tightly constructed sequences. The humor is there only as a counterpoint. Hitchcock moves the story briskly toward that showdown in Albert Hall, then tops that with a violent shootout that leaves bodies on the floor. Bob and Jill Lawrence (Leslie Banks and Edna Best) are an upper-class British couple, well-bred, smart, plucky and brave. Hitchcock also gives us a creepy, riveting, smiling villain in Abbott, played by Peter Lorre in his first English language film. Lorre learned his lines phonetically; he knew almost no English. Lorre focuses the film as an intense, unpredictable thriller every time he's on screen.

In 1956, Hitchcock gives us an upper-middle class American couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) with a cliché of a husband who enjoys not knowing anything about foreign cultures and an all-American corn-fed wife in serious need of medication. Hitchcock uses that extra 45 minutes on lengthy, sly humor and colorful tourist photography, neither of which advances the story. Despite Stewart's earnestly laconic performance and Day's overwrought emoting, the bones of the thriller still keep us interested. Still, I had the feeling that with the 1934 movie I was watching one of the best of Hitchcock's English movies and with the 1954 version I was watching just one of his highly professional and entertaining Hollywood hits.

To see what I mean, compare the 1934 sequence in the dentist's office - a struggle silent except for groans and the sound of laughing gas escaping - and the 1956 sequence in the taxidermist's shop. One is suspenseful, almost queasy and masterful. The other is just an excuse for a few laughs.

The clever and tense showpiece of both versions is in the Albert Hall and it works both times. The emotional conclusion, the rescue of the child, is a far different story. In 1954 we have an embassy dinner, Doris Day singly loudly and Stewart and his son walking down the stairs. It works if you have nothing to compare it with. In 1934, the nearly 15-minute shootout brings everything to a murderous climax, with ingenious rescues, violent confrontations and the emotionally satisfying fate of Abbott. His death is, well, kind of fun as well as satisfying. Hitchcock takes the time at the start of the movie to establish Jill Lawrence as a crack shot with a rifle. We learn why he did this now, and it has nothing to do with Abbott.

Peter Lorre, plus Hitchcock's way of building a clever, tense story, makes this movie a pleasure to watch. But let's not forget Leslie Banks and Edna Best. She was a competent star actress who never quite reached the top. I wonder what she might have done without such a frumpy name. She makes Jill a woman who will not have a nervous breakdown. When Jill needs to pull a trigger, she does. Leslie Banks was a fine stage actor who had a decent career in the movies. He was wounded in WWI and was left with half his face paralyzed and disfigured (not horribly but easy to notice). When he played nice guys or heroes, he showed the good side. With bad guys, he showed the damaged side. To see him use those two sides of his face as a charming host and then as a really bad guy, watch The Most Dangerous Game.

Perhaps somewhere there is a fine, restored version of this movie. If so, it would be a pleasure to watch and to own.

I liked this better the 2nd time I viewed the movie. This is the original Man Who Knew Too Much - which Alfred Hitchcock remade with James Stewart, which was the only movie he remade. It isn't as good as The 39 Steps. the acting by Peter Lorre stands out. Basically it is an assassination plot. The other actors in this are sort of 'there' whereas Lorre's role stood out. It was a little hard to follow for some reason, maybe it was the British acting style but it makes sense at the end. It is a crime espionage film. Any fan of the great Alfred Hitchcock should see this. DVD wise the print purchased was from Westlake and from what I read there print is better then Laserlight and Madacy but not as good as the Region 2 UK releases. I am happy with the transfer overall. It is not Alpha quality thank God ! :)

The Bottom Line:

The Man Who Knew Too Much is marred by the fact that none of the characters beside Peter Lorre are very interesting; if you're a fan of Hitchcock than you might want to watch it, but otherwise go for the much more enjoyable 39 Steps.