bbmtwist
Chronologically this is the third of Hitchcock's suspense masterworks (after THE LODGER and MURDER!) and comes at the beginning of the last third of his UK work.It is a well-paced thriller with a now famously well-known set up. Common man becomes inadvertently drawn into a world of crime. Here a couple learn of an assassination plot and are silenced by the kidnapping of their daughter. Hitchcock himself remade this 22 years later and 45 minutes longer. The plot of Depp's NICK OF TIME also borrows the same narrative.Early on a clever joke involving a piece of knitting sets up a series of laughs, interrupted by the murder. There is the clever switch around of lethal dentist and searching father; the communication of instructions masquerading as hymn lyrics; a fight involving mission chairs; the villain visibly touched by the reunion of father and daughter; the classic Albert Hall assassination scream; the use of a chiming watch to betray its owner – all these are brilliant bits of business introduced by Hitchcock to make the narrative unusual, interesting and wrought with unexpected turns.The whole business except the rescue of the daughter is accomplished at the one hour mark with the remaining fifteen minutes involving the final stake-out, shoot-out and rescue. It is the second use of a rooftop scenario (after BLACKMAIL) to end a Hitchcock film.Most telling is the performance of Peter Lorre as the villain. While all the other actors are playing with great earnestness, Lorre is laid back, nonchalant, careless with ease, making his particular villain a stand-out among the genre. Had there been film awards in those days, his performance would have deserved a nod in the best supporting actor category.It is quite briskly resolved at exactly 1:15. A top notch Hitch suspense thriller and still highly enjoyable.
ElMaruecan82
Saw the original, saw the remake, well, let's just say that If Hitchcock remade his own movie, that might be because he felt that some aspects were too dated or far below the level of perfectionism upon which he built his reputation.To give you an example: there's an overlong chair fight which is so bizarre and grotesque you don't know if you're supposed to laugh or to be thrilled, I guess it was meant to be funny, but it's like Hitchcock never knows exactly where to go. And even comedy requires a good timing in the execution so I couldn't believe my eyes and had to rewind the scene. When Lawrence (the father played by Leslie Banks) gets his friend Clive off the temple, he's hit on the shoulder, he freezes and then acts as if he was hurt in the head. I know this is the 30's, and I didn't let modern standards affect my opinion, the ski accident was quite well made for the time and at least Hitch had the guts to try something, Pierre Fresnay's death scene was awkward but it could work, and I didn't have a problem either with Edna Baker's fainting and hitting the floor with her arm first, but that chair moment, as trivial as it was, was too much for me. All right, there can be mistakes in movies, but not in something of the caliber of "The Man Who Knew Too Much".See, it's precisely because I was drawn by the film that I'm so critical. I loved the witty interactions within the couple, especially in these awesome scenes where Jill was both flirting with the ski champion and teasing Lawrence. And talk about Hitch's mischievous mind, just when we had enjoyed the little knitting prank, the murder happens and the story picks up and, unfortunately, this is where the movie gets itself in the situations where the likeliness of goofs and mistakes increases. But it's a shame because the beginning is so beyond the 30's standards that I felt disappointed when it became as cheesy and laughable as a 30's film. So if we feel the film is dated, it's precisely because it starts with non-dated elements. And one of the most modern aspects is Peter Lorre, who, half a century before Alan Rickman in "Die Hard", plays the sophisticated and friendly-at-first-sight villain, getting more and more sinister as the plot advances. Peter Lorre is half the rating the film gets.And his performance is so immense it dwarfs all the others, which were good actually. Edna Best had that average type look that magnified her strength as a mother, making her revenge at the end even more savory, going from "Never raise any children" to holding her traumatized girl in the arms, and Nova Pilbeam was actually quite convincing in the daughter's role, I've seen kids acting worse in later movies so let's give her the credit for that. I also discovered a new actress, Cicely Oates who played the intimidating Nurse Agnes, and I was saddened to know she passed away the year of the film's release; it's a pity because she could have been a great Mrs. Danvers, and I just love the eyes of Lorre witnessing her sudden death during the shootout. She and the actor who played the killer were worthy additions to an already complete villain... which leads me to the most problematic character: the father.I have nothing negative to say about Leslie Banks, but I have nothing eulogistic either, from his constant frowning in the first act, he struck me as a continually malcontent character, one who considered his wife a burden more than anything else, but after the kidnapping, nothing really seemed to affect him. Granted he was supposed to be the stronger one, but I wish he could display more emotional range, even in the most critical situations, his expressions were the same, as if he deliberately chose the one that could pass everywhere, whether during a shootout or over the course of his investigation. Speaking of this investigation, I know Hitch has a wicked sense of humor and it was fun to hear that Clive guy scream at the dentist, being hypnotized or the two men using exchanging crucial instructions while pretending to sing, but I couldn't buy that from a father whose daughter's life was at stakes. Oh well, let's just say it was fun, but for the sake of the dark atmosphere and the whole black-and-white thing, they should have stuck to a more sinister tone, even the dentist's scene is quite under-exploited when you consider its potential. It's only near the end, just when you think the climax would consist on the cymbal crashing and the attempted murder that the film delivers a terrific shootout sequence, and quite a violent one, that had many cops getting killed (which was quite new for the time). But the gunfight goes so long that again, it allows some goofs and mistakes to be done, especially the laughable way the characters die. It's all in the execution, and I guess Hitch was only warming up before starting to be more perfectionist in his work.By the way, am I the only one who finds the film a bit prophetic, as it centers on the assassination of a Head of State during an official visit, in 1934, the same year the King of Yugoslavia was assassinated during his visit in France, and it was the first time the camera's eye caught such an event. Speaking of this, would really a man like the father not know about Sarajevo and the Archduke assassination that lead to World War 1 as the script suggests. I mean the film was made at a time where everyone lived the Great War, so I find it highly unlikely that people wouldn't know about its starting point, especially for a man who was supposed to know too much
TheLittleSongbird
The remake needs to be re-watched by me, from memory it was more polished than this film with the better production values, had two great lead performances, a fun scene with the taxidermist and the plot is more fleshed out due to a longer length, but it also wasn't as witty or suspenseful as this, the child was an annoyance and the Que Sera Sera song was unnecessary. This said, the remake does need to be re-watched to see whether that's correct or not. This film is not perfect, and is not as good as The 39 Steps, Sabotage and especially The Lady Vanishes of the 30s British period Hitchcocks but is definitely worth seeing still. It did come across as too short, so the story had a tendency to be rushed and convoluted, and there are times where the action was on the stiff side. The Man Who Knew Too Much is well made still, the settings and locations are a wonder to behold and fit the story like a glove while the photography is atmospheric and professionally done. The music from Arthur Benjamin has a haunting sweeping quality, not among the all-time great Hitchcock film scores but very competent and fits the mood of the film well. The script has a fresh wit and the gallows humour that it's laced with is still humorous and holds up relatively well, the scripting for the more suspenseful scenes is good too and doesn't detract. The story is not perfect, but is mostly interesting and suspenseful, with some great scenes like the chair scene, the dentist scene and the climax. The cast are good generally, Peter Lorre is the definite standout managing to be creepy with a dose of humanity also. Leslie Banks carries the film well, a deliberately emotionally compressed performance but not a wooden one. Edna Best is moving and sympathetic in her role, while Hugh Wakefield is a hoot. Nora Pilbeam did come across as an annoying brat at first but as she grew more resourceful and somewhat feisty she does become less so. All in all, classic Hitchcock it isn't quite, but very good Hitchcock it is. 8/10 Bethany Cox
