Watch The Man Who Knew Too Much For Free

Highly Overrated But Still Good

As Good As It Gets

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

In 1956, twenty-two years later, Alfred Hitchcock filmed this story again under the same title, with James Stewart and Doris Day, and I shall review that at some point for comparison. This is the original, and it is quintessentially English in every respect (unlike the later one). The film is especially notable for the first appearance in an English language film of Peter Lorre. Hitchcock had always been an admirer of German cinema, especially of the films of Murnau, and he had spotted Lorre's performance in Fritz Lang's film "M" (1931). Lorre spoke his lines in English with a pronounced accent, because he had not yet learned the language and had to memorise the words in what was to him still a foreign tongue. His performance is brilliant, subtle, menacing and haunting. Hitchcock 'got it' and was happy to use intense closeups of Lorre's face when he was reacting without speaking, catching every gleam of his eyes and every twitch of his facial muscles, as he communicated his paranoid psychotic moods and reactions silently. Lorre's performance helped raise this film above the level of a mere suspense film to something more profound, something with a smell of sulphur about it. Hitchcock was never strong on characterisation, and he left it to his actors. In this instance, Lorre gave one of the finest performances of his career. Lorre here thrives on being allowed to pace his own silences and his own apparently random movements, to let his eyes wander round a room inexplicably, to simmer, to seethe but conceal it, to refrain from answering people, and to react in an abnormal manner to almost anything which arose in conversation. The casual way in which he announces that a young girl must die is made more chilling because he has established so thoroughly that he is entirely mad and unpredictable. The excessive politeness with which he treats people before he orders them killed is a disturbingly deranged portrayal of a gentleman, in this case a 'gentleman killer'. There is a sense in which the incompetent generals of the First World War, still fresh in everyone's memory, while minding their manners and behaving with impeccable formality, and being at the same time responsible for the deaths of millions, were 'gentleman killers'. Hitchcock's lifelong obsession with the menace which lies beneath the surface of daily life and its appearances meant that he knew that formality could disguise the greatest and most monstrous wickedness. Lorre here personifies that possibility. The child actress Nova Pilbeam is very good as the kidnapped daughter of the leading couple in this bizarre political assassination drama. She would work with Hitchcock once again three years later, in YOUNG AND INNOCENT (1937). Although she retired as an actress in 1951, Pilbeam lived to the age of 95 and only died as recently as 2015. I suppose she must have been interviewed for her memories of Hitchcock at some time or other, but if so I have never come across any account of her memories. This film begins at St. Moritz in Switzerland, not for any particular reason, but then Hitchcock films generally do dash from place to place, and St. Moritz was a favourite holiday destination of Hitchcock. A British secret agent is killed there, and as he is dying, he gasps to Edna Best, the female lead, that she must save a piece of paper hidden in his shaving brush and take it to his bosses in London. Thus she and her husband, played by Leslie Banks, become swept up in trying to prevent a plot to kill a foreign statesman at a concert at London's Royal Albert Hall (called 'A. Hall' in the secret note, which at first is thus thought to be a man's name). Vicious international spies thus threaten the peaceful existence of the couple, kidnap their teenage daughter to stop the exposing the plot, and a complex story leaps from sensation to sensation, as we have the tension rise steadily, leading up to the planned assassination. This was the first true 'Hitchcock suspense picture' in the classic sense that the public came to expect from him for the rest of his career. It is well done, tightly put together, never lets up the tension, shows Hitchcock's cinematic genius clearly, and even though it is very much a period piece, remains a powerful 'early Hitchcock' classic which is compulsive viewing.

While British couple Bob and Jill Lawrence and their daughter Betty are holidaying in Switzerland they become friends with Louis Bernard. He is then shot but before he dies he asks Bob to get a note that is hidden in his room and take it to the British Consulate. He retrieves the note but before he can do anything with it he is handed another note… this one warns him that Betty has been kidnapped and he will never see her again if he tells anybody about the content of the first note.The Lawrences return to London and are questioned by the authorities but don't say anything. A phone call then reminds them of the threat to their daughter. This is traced to Wapping where Bob ultimately finds the villains, led by Abbott who appeared friendly when they spoke to him in Switzerland. He and his associates are plotting to kill a foreign dignitary during a performance at the Albert Hall. It will require some quick thinking if Abbott's plans are to be thwarted and Betty saved.Given that this film is over eighty years old it isn't surprising that it feels a bit dated at times but not as much as one might expect. At only seventy five minutes it certainly doesn't drag but at the same time it doesn't feel rushed. The early scenes, in Switzerland, do a great job of setting up the story and introducing the key characters. Once Betty had been kidnapped the tension rose and presented a real dilemma for our protagonists; on the one hand the bad guys are threatening their daughter on the other they are told that if the assassination isn't stopped Europe could be plunged into another war. There is some good action; especially in the final shoot out. The cast is impressive with Leslie Banks and Edna Best doing a solid job as Bob and Jill Lawrence and young Nova Pilbeam doing well as Betty however it is Peter Lorre who dominates proceedings as Abbott… a surprisingly likable character given what he is doing; I'd never have guessed that he didn't actually speak English so had to deliver his lines phonetically. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to fans of older films.

British couple Bob Lawrence (Leslie Banks) and his wife Jill (Edna Best) are on a Swiss ski vacation with their daughter Betty. They befriend fellow resort goer Louis Bernard (Pierre Fresnay). Louis is shoot dead in a crowded dance floor. He passes information to the couple to get to the British Consulate. Then they get a note claiming to have kidnapped Betty. The couple returns to London without their daughter. Gibson from the Foreign Office thinks that Louis had uncovered a plot to kill a foreign dignitary but the couple won't give up the info with Betty's life on the line. Bob and his brother Clive start following the note and finds the kidnappers Ramon (Frank Vosper) and Abbott (Peter Lorre). They find out Royal Albert Hall is the location and Jill has to stop it by herself.Alfred Hitchcock's directing style is there. He's putting his camera moves into action. There are still aspects that are closer to silent pictures. Peter Lorre is the most compelling actor despite his limited English skills. In the end, this is interesting to see these camera moves but they may be distracting from the story. The work is still a little stiff. It does have the sly Hitchcock humor. This is good early Hitchcock.

A film by the great Alfred Hitchcock…sounds promising, oh yeah. But, The man who knew too much is a disappointing film. Mostly because it is, or at least try to be some kind of crime-drama-thriller film, but in the end it looks like a dull flick, and it's in most parts, even unintentionally funny. That sounds weird, talking in that way about one of the "greatest directors ever" but that's the truth, unfortunately. I am taking in consideration the fact that is a film made in 1935, but I don't know, I' ve seen before a few films made in the 30s that were actually good, but that one is just a fiasco. I mean, what was that 'chairs fight' scene in the church? I mean, really? I never laughed so hard with a scene in a non-comedy film in a long, long time. And even if wasn't by certain dull scenes, the film would still being outdated. Yeah, the time is the worst enemy of everybody. It obviously didn't stand the test of time. But okay, I liked some aspects of the cinematography, I found the shootout scene to be very well made and with some interesting use of lightning, specifically in the streets, creating some kind of atmosphere that you usually see in the films-Noir. But all in all, there Is no much to be said about that film. The story is dull, and worth noting, outdated, I didn't like the acting at all… well, it's fair to say that It's a mess of a film. 5.5/10