Rating: 
Summary: An Oldie but Goodie!
Review: 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>
Rating: 
Summary: Watch It Without Compareing It!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but I still like the remake more
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but I still like the remake more
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The egg is hatching
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Classic Early Hitchcock!
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Good thriller
Review: The first time I saw this film I was disappointed with all the hype I had read about it. Having seen the 50's remake (which didn't invite comparison), didn;t help much either. But successive viewings of the original have changed my mind. Many great scenes and surprises await the first-time viewer: the chair fight in the chapel, the visit to the less-than-helpful dentist, the shootout, the concert hall sequence, and much more. This film is full of life. It has been said that this film and the remake are identical in many ways. All I know is that I see them as different films, the first being more lively and humorous, while the second is more polished and suspenseful. They're both fine films, and should be seen and compared.
Rating:
Summary: Watch It Without Compareing It!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Not Hitchcock's best, but still worth a look
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Spellbinding
Review: This film is one of Hitchock's best. This remake is compelling and very enjoyable. Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day make a wonderful pair. The singing of Doris Day is as usual impecable and enhances the picture. I would recomend this film as very watchable and re-watchable.
|
