The Man Who Knew Too Much

Oh not even Hitchcock can escape the pacing trap of a 70 odd minute movie. Peter Lorre reminds me of the prototype of Mads Mikkelsen

I'm not too fond of the remake. In this version, the child is not annoying, and the wife is played by a more likeable actress. The pacing is MUCH better, except the gun fight at the end gets a little tiresome. The main problem with this version is Banks; much stiffer than Stewart and he plays the character with an aloofness that may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but pales in comparison to Stewart's passionate desperation. On the plus side, though, this version is way funnier.

Hitchcock was right to redo this film in the 50s, although the original does boast a frightening Peter Lorre and a chair fight in a church!

I like Hitchcock's visual directing but the usual suspense isn't there and apart from Lorre acting isn't that great.

Not bad, although I thought some of the acting was a bit hammy and the pacing felt a bit off at times. The shoot-out scene at the end was faintly ridiculous, too, but Peter Lorre is fantastic and the film contains a ton of Hitchcock's trademark visual flourishes - I particularly liked that one shot of all the fingers pointing at the bullet hole.

Technically, it's aged badly, as poor sound editing and awkward scene cuts abound. An ill-paced story (see the sudden jump back to London) with a muddy premise (why did they need to kidnap her again?) and scenes more confusing than tense (see the unintentionally funny chair fight) don't help, and neither does the mediocre acting (Lorre is a good villain, but the protagonists don't grab you). A terribly repetitive climactic shoot-out scene is redeemed only slightly by its surprising female hero.

Considered a classic by many, but didn't hit for me. It's okay, but I was increasingly aware of a lack of concern with the events unfolding by almost all of the characters (except Betty), and especially Leslie Banks, who plays it more or less mildly bemused. Lorre's interesting, as you'd expect. Scenes that should have been full of suspense handled by Hitchcock are almost dull. Characters seem unhurried and moving in slow motion. When no one in the movie seems to care, it was hard for me to.

Peter Lorre in all of his creepy glory is the reason to tune in. There are some pretty good set pieces, but much of this early Hitchcock is disjointed to an odd degree.

A very short runtime makes this film feel faintly incomplete, perhaps deprived of dimensional characters, detailed spy games, and a more satisfying resolution. Then again, its focus on the bare essentials is strong. The scenario is engaging, it's quite funny and full of creative set pieces, the cinematography is inventive, and Peter Lorre's hairstyle is about 75 years ahead of the curve. Even lesser, comparatively primitive Hitchcock is still incredibly entertaining.

Some sequences that were like oh yeah this is a Hitchcock but most ya bore. I don't get the chair fight

73.875

Senaryonun içerdiği şık noktalara rağmen, açılış ve uzun final sekansı arasında geçen süre arasında bir aceleye gelmişlik hissi var. Hitchcock'un oturtacağı tarzına dair ipuçları veriyor vermesine ama kendisinin İngiltere dönemi işlerinin dahi en iyilerinden biri değil.

A rather fun early Hitchcock, showcasing many interesting relationships and visuals (the plot, literally, unravels...)

rare case of glacial gunfight

B+

78.50

68.1

Hitchcock dives into the shadowy underbelly of London and delivers a great crime thriller, one sporting a fine evil performance by Peter Lorre. The finale was ripped off by Wes Anderson for The French Dispatch, but hey if you're gonna steal, take from the best.

Get through the clumsy first half and there is a fine cynical gangster movie to enjoy (a nice Royal Albert Hall set piece included).

Hitchcock's original British version of this thriller is superior to his subsequent glossy American remake in almost every way. A lot of the silly plot absurdities of that version are handled better here where the plot is tighter and the character motivations handled a little better. Peter Lorre is a huge asset here and he's really superior to the bland, faceless conspirators in the remake. It's also really great to see Banks playing a hero for a change.

With a little more polish, The Man Who Knew Too Much might rank among Hitchcock's best films. Lorre is badly out-acting everyone else involved and the scenes of tension are pure Hitchcokian masterclass but everything else in between is largely so-so. The plot has excellent ideas that just fizzle out or involve developments that go nowhere. I still think it's probably worth watching because you can see Hitchcok's development as an early director as he continued to refine his craft.

Strange that this bland and silly story would enamour Hitch enough to remake it - neither version can overcome the problem that the kidnapping never carries the high stakes it should (comically so in this version thanks to Banks' maddening indifference) and the villains' motives are difficult to parse or understand. I'm not entirely sold on either version but would put the remake slightly ahead for Stewart and Day; Lorre is perhaps the unwitting star attraction here as the slimy chief villain.

Very similar to what I thought about The 39 Steps, but way more unpolished and jerkier plot. Still neat characters, but not as interesting of scenery. Final scene shoot out and final shot taken to save the daughter were very awesome.

1956 film was maybe my 1st Hitch and might still prefer it, but this is so good - Lorre's doomed terrorist plotting to kill a diplomate, mom firing rifle shot that saves her daughter, orchestra sequence leading to the shot - mom shouts and ruins the shooter's aiming -, violent final shootout on the streets, dozens of bodies falling. Also, so funny - chair war at the worshippers of the sun's church, Clive and dad singing what to do, mom saying 'never have children' in the start before the kidnap.

At times a dull, British slog, Peter Lorre saves the day, as does a room full of chairs.

Lorre is easily the most memorable thing about this. Hitchcock has already established both his best and his worst sides; thrilling setpieces, dry humour ("My darling!" "My love!" "My lunch.") and some really convoluted and bizarre plotting that mostly serves to get the characters from one scene to the next. At just over 70 minutes this barely has time to breathe, up until the Mabuse-ish shootout that stops the plot cold. But hey, five-minute chair fight, you can't complain.

A simple story but with a nice brisk runtime. I felt Hitchcock's signature suspense despite one or two of the main characters not seeming too concerned with terrible, frightening things happening to them. It has been too many years since I have seen the remake for me to really compare the two, but this one is worth a watch. Peter Lorre as the villain is fun.

Wonderful early thriller from Hitchcock, with a nice understated tone.

A Hitchcockian Hitchcock movie! There are moments where I felt it was lacking something interesting early on, but then Hitchcock would do something absolutely amazing. Two scenes. The church scene is both very dark and funny at the same time. Extremely British with it's black humor. And even more incredible - The Royal Albert Hall scene.... Just WOW!!! Hitchcock made a suspense scene like no other at that time. The timing was perfect. It just grabs you. Hitchcock had found his calling.

Way too talky and boring for me. Hitch apparently felt the same way, and his remake with Jimmy Stewart is much tighter and more exciting.

Highly enjoyable and far superior to the sequel.

Star Rating: ★★

A little too short and muddled, but some good early Hitchcock.

Hokey and really dated. Too much talking and not enough to look at. It's also boring and I needed subtitles for half of the stuff that was said.

Good assassination attempt film from Hitch.

now, where have i seen this before? it's engaging enough, but there's not much else happening. not a phrase i'd hope to get used to, but i think i preferred the hollywood remake.

Above average but nothing that special, not just because every aspect of it has since turned into cliche, but also all the abductions and intrigue and shooting just get tired pretty quickly. I actually liked the beginning of it, before the first shot was fired and it turned into a thriller. Lorre is as iconic as ever in the role of the villain.

The characters are mostly caricatures and a lot of the incidents seem unjustifiable, however the intriguing plot, short duration and quick pace ensure "The Man Who Knew Too Much" emerges as a tense and unmistakably Hitchcockian offering.

A lot to like despite its overall lack of polish. It's made of great sequences with a remarkably simple and effective build at the beginning. The best Hitchcock movies tend to involve ordinary folks in extraordinary circumstances, and this is no different. Lorre outclasses everyone, though.

It's definitely not as accomplished as Hitchcock's later films, loosing its tension and falling a bit flat once it gets the climactic and drawn-out gunfight. There's some good stuff up until then, such as Lorre being a suitably evil villain. Also CHAIR FIGHT!

No, not the best by any means, but even Hitchcock had to start somewhere, right? Worth watching just to see Peter Lorre at his creepy, bug-eyed best.

Um, not good. For starters, the characters are totally unhinged by reality. After a mother receives a call from her kidnapped daughter, her husband's response in an attempt to console her is "steady, old girl." My God. Also, at one point the main character is in a hotel room where he shouldn't be, and hears people coming in. He hides in the bathroom, and how does he escape? He takes the door leading from the bathroom to the outer hall of the hotel. Overall, not a very substantial film.

78.500

"This is a suberbly structured thriller whose excellence is aided and abetted by a spirited cast."

Hitchcock at his best. Simply superb storytelling.

Great film.

Good, but I'm glad Hitchcock re did this with Stewart.

Sort of a witty movie with some funny scenes, but not one of Hitchcock's best suspense films.

É aqui que vemos pela primeira vez Hitchcock moldando sua sagacidade, humor e suspense na forma que ficaria famoso nos EUA, mas também vemos com facilidade porque ele quis fazer um remake que se tornou mais grandioso.DVD Versátil O Cinema de Hitchcock

Peter Lorre carries this.

WEIRD, esp. the cult sequence, which begins with the first(?) laugh-out-loud scene of hitchcock's oeuvre and is wholly dependent on plot points that Hitch allegedly, and hilariously, abandoned due to a lack of "plausibility". the movie is hitch doing lang of course; a sound film where the sound only emphasises the silence, complete with lorre embarrassingly upstaging everyone without knowing a word of english. the assassination is glorious--can't wait to see how the much-debated remake compares.

Not terrible, but British cinema wasn't that great back then. Or later... or ever really. But Hitchcock definitely stood out, which is why Hollywood wanted him.