Watch The Man Who Knew Too Much For Free

Good movie but grossly overrated

Good concept, poorly executed.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

I was shocked and disappointed by the many negative reactions among the recent user reviews of this film, Hitchcock's only remake of one of his own works. No film is perfect and many successful suspense movies have holes in their plots, as this one does, but these lapses had no impact on my overall appreciation for this one-of-a-kind remake. I liked the original version as well, which featured an unforgettable female protagonist, played by Edna Best, who was a sharp shooter rather than a professional singer, and an early setting in Switzerland rather than Morocco. One reviewer here went so far as to claim that the first half of this version was NOT produced on location in Morocco. Then where was the first half filmed? Dearborn, Michigan?In spite of several plot holes and a generally weak, if not lame, script, the excellent direction, the solid camera work, the fascinating location scenes in both Marrakech and in London, and the wonderful work by leads James Stewart and Doris Day overcome all of the obvious weaknesses. Stewart's performance alone is worth watching as he runs the entire gamut of emotions from start to finish. His awkwardness and physical discomfort at the Moroccan restaurant, and the gradual discovery that his son has been kidnapped are examples of his very natural and superb acting. The scene in the taxidermy shop was hilarious. Remember the stuffed birds in the office of Norman Bates? Very Hitchcockian, eh? Hitchcock picked Day for the role of Jo McKenna when he saw her in "Storm Warning", one of her few dramatic roles. Considering her good work in both dramas and in films such as "Love Me Or Leave Me", it's a pity that she didn't appear in more substantial films. As much as I love her, many of her films were just plain silly, and she clearly had much more potential than most of the nonsensical work that had been thrown at her. Jo's anguished reaction to son Hank's kidnapping was quite convincing. In real life, Day decided to commit herself to the cause of animal welfare when she observed how cruelly the animals were treated on the Moroccan set of this film. Among the plot lapses was the McKennas' decision to leave Hank with strangers in a totally unfamiliar and foreign place such as Marrakech, Morocco. I was seven years old in 1956, and my parents would have never done that even during those far more innocent times and in far more familiar locales. I also didn't understand why the thugs didn't decide to kill Ben McKenna after the worshipers left the chapel. If the object of the kidnapping was to make sure that Ben wouldn't reveal the assassination plot, their problem would have been instantly solved, and they were certainly ruthless enough to knock him off right then and there. Then came "Que Sera Sera", a song that I detest, and if that didn't ruin the film, nothing else could, including twelve, long minutes of a lackluster classical piece at Albert Hall that should have been shortened significantly. As to Bernard Herrmann's musical score, it sounds very similar to his music in Hitchcock's other classics "North By Northwest" and "Vertigo" with very little variation. Speaking of "Vertigo", does Miss Day's gray suit look at all familiar to you? And I am sorry that I missed the director's trademark cameo appearance at the market in Marrakech, but I'll try again during the next viewing, and there surely will be another opportunity because, regardless of its many imperfections, I still love this movie as well as the original 1934 version.

Was that how husbands treated their wives in the 1950's? This tells the story of an American couple on holidays in Marrakesh. The family stumbles an international conspiracy ring involving multiple murders. What disturbed me was how Ben handles the kidnapping of his son by first keeping it from his wife and then bullying her to take pills before telling her what happened. It's like he doesn't trust her to remain calm. He has no respect for her career and seems at times annoyed at the fact that she even had a life before Mrs McKenna and doesn't seem the least bit interested in moving to New York to help her promote her career. It's like she's expected to bow down to his will and be happy with that. Even though Jo does prove resourceful in discovering the location where her son is being held captive.Not one of my favourite Hitchcock movies but worth a watch.

In the fifties, Alfred Hitchcock decided unwisely to remake this film in colour, with unlikely and ineffective lead actors, but it is nowhere near as good as his original film THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934, see my review). The female lead is, of all people, Doris Day. And the male lead is drawling, yokelish James Stewart. Perhaps the bosses at Paramount exerted a nefarious influence, or perhaps Hitchcock went temporarily mad, in deciding upon this casting. Although the film does contain numerous excellent 'Hitchcock moments' and 'Hitchcock touches', the film itself is a failure because of all the other things wrong with it, not least suddenly turning into a musical from time to time. Having Doris Day repeatedly performing her famous song 'Que Sera Sera' in the film with her voice loud enough to shatter a glass, in the mist of a supposed suspense film, is so nonsensical and ludicrous that one despairs. Perhaps it had been demanded by her in her contract. The story this time does not start, as in the earlier film, in St. Moritz in Switzerland, but instead in Morocco. Stewart and Day, together with their young son, are on a tourist bus to Marrakesh. They are intentionally portrayed as being 'as American as apple pie', innocents abroad in fact (as Mark Twain would say). The little boy, though mercifully not chewing bubblegum, looks outside and says: 'Oh look, a camel.' But as we later learn that they have already been in Casablanca, they would have seen plenty before this one. These innocents abroad are befriended on the bus by a Frenchman who, it turns out, speaks fluent Arabic and is familiar with the area. Later in the simulated Marrakesh marketplace, the innocents abroad are puzzled by a police chase. A man in Arab clothes is running but has been stabbed in the back, and he staggers towards Doris Day and collapses. James Stewart holds him and his fingers rub against the man's face and brown makeup comes off on his fingers, leaving a streaked face, showing that the man was only disguised as an Arab and is in fact the Frenchman from the bus. (This is one of Hitchcock's famous 'images', out of which he built his films. He would think of a streaked face first and then construct a story around it. His instinct was always to go for images which were visually shocking and find explanations for them later.) The man whispers something in Stewart's ear and dies. Stewart jots it down in a notebook. (There is no message hidden in a shaving brush this time, as was the case in the 1934 film.) Day and Stewart had earlier been befriended at their hotel by a British couple named the Draytons, played by Bernard Miles and Brenda de Banzie. They have been accepted by Day and Stewart as a sweet and friendly couple, so they entrust Mrs. Drayton to take their son back to the hotel while they go off to make a statement to the police. But the Draytons are not what they seem. They are in fact sinister baddies masquerading as a sweet British couple. They kidnap the boy and disappear, fleeing the country for London. (This is the fifties, before all the identity checks.) The finest performance in the film is by Brenda de Banzie as Lucy Drayton. She makes a tremendously effective villainess. This leaves Stewart only with the secret message of the dying man to guide him, suggesting he 'see Ambrose Chappell' in London. So he and his wife rush off to London and look in the phone book where there is an Ambrose Chappell listed at Burdett Street in Camden Town, who turns out to be a taxidermist, providing some comic scenes with stuffed animals, but he is a false lead. They then discover that there is an Ambrose Chapel which is a religious chapel, not a person, and so they investigate that. It turns out to be where the 'Draytons' are holed up with the kidnapped son, with Mr. Drayton acting as a preacher for a strange religious sect, and he and his wife live in the adjoining house. One thing leads to another, as Hitchcock might say. The Royal Albert Hall as a location for a plan to assassinate a foreign prime minister remains the same as the plot of the earlier film version. The British filming was actually done on location, unlike the Moroccan filming. Hitchcock always liked any opportunity to film his beloved London. The man who died in Marrakesh asked Stewart to try and prevent the assassination. But how is he to do this? It is about to happen at any moment, and he is more concerned with saving his son from the kidnappers. Will the son be saved? Will the assassination be prevented? If only the suspense of this film had been undiluted, as in the original. But no, we have Doris Day singing 'Que Sera Sera' again, accompanying herself on the piano, and although this is ingeniously woven into the fabric of the story which ensues, really somebody has got this all wrong! The one thing which must be said in amelioration is that Doris Day actually does some effective acting in her role, and if only she had left it at that and not tried singing as if she were in a musical, the film would have been less of a nonsense than it is. One must decide whether one is either making a suspense film or one is not, and this time no one could make up his or her mind. So what a sad contrast this Hitchcock effort is with the earlier superb version! The final scene of the film is however a master's ironical touch.

Where do I start: When I was just a little boy, I asked my mother what will I watch? Will it be scary, will it be funny…and here is what she said to me. Watch, "The Man Who Knew Too Much – Too Much", the flick was directed by Hitchcock and the ending will scare the pants off. But it did not – did not…yet…still ended up being loads of fun. Ah well - what will be will be. Meh – I can do this so long and then I lose track. Two of my favorite stars tackle this masterpiece head-on, escorting it to the big screen; delivering a spine-tingling white-knuckle ride of a masterpiece. I have always liked James Stewart and Doris is – well – just plain outstanding. For some, "Que Sera Sera," might have been over-sung, but I didn't think so. She has such a beautiful voice, and this was designed for her songbird voice. OK – enough babble. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. As in all the Alfred Hitchcock productions I have seen, this does not disappoint. The acting is superb and the directing is ahead of its time. I highly recommend this thriller to everyone.