The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) User Reviews (152)

Hitch and the "Anarchist Revolt" of 1911 in London

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 2 January 2006]

In the novel, THE SECRET AGENT, Joseph Conrad had dissected the world of anarchists, double agents and spies, and police in the East End of London of 1894, the year that an attempt to destroy the Greenwich Observatory occurred. Alfred Hitchcock used Conrad's novel for his film SABOTAGE in 1936. But two years earlier he did the film THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. It was the first of two films in which Peter Lorre was directed by him. It was also the only one of his movies that he remade complete with title. But he decided to use the film to film a scene from British criminal history - the January 1911 "Siege of Sidney Street".

There had been an incident in December 1910 when several Russian aliens were involved in a burglary in Houndsditch. The proceeds of their robberies (aside from supporting themselves) helped fund anti-Tsarist activities in Russia. They killed three constables in making their escape from the shop. They were eventually tracked down to a house on Sidney Street, and fired at the police who tried to get them to surrender. The Home Secretary of the day (a politician named Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill) sent out troops, sharp shooters, and artillery. The cannon set the house on fire, and the men found inside were found to be dead. The best account of the event is Donald Rumbelow's THE SIEGE OF SIDNEY STREET called THE HOUNDSDITCH MURDERS in Great Britain.

Here, instead of radicals (called anarchists in 1911) we have foreign conspirators planning an assassination in London of a foreign head of state. Peter Lorre is the leader. Leslie Banks and his family are on vacation to Switzerland. Banks witnesses the murder of a Frenchman (Pierre Fresney, a great French star of the period - this English film is a rarity for him). Fresney reveals the assassination plot to Banks, and Lorre and his associates kidnap his daughter (Nora Pilbeam) to keep his mouth shut. But the police are aware that he heard something from Fresney, and try to pressure him to talk.

So we watch Banks try to track down his daughter (and get captured himself) while his wife goes to the Albert Hall to see what she can do.

The finale of the film is based on the Siege - with some exceptions (one of the bobbies in the Houndsditch tragedy is shot and killed in the start of the movie's version of the incident). But Hitchcock maintains the suspense to the end, when the last villain is taken care of.

It's an interesting film - not a great one. And it is somewhat different from the 1956 remake.

Sending Hitch on his way

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 14 May 2006]

Although Alfred Hitchcock made several better films than this, including the 1956 remake, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone film for the rotund master of suspense. It was the first film that got him noticed outside the United Kingdom, it led to bigger budgets for Hithcock to work with in British film industry and eventually to his departure for America.

Leslie Banks and Edna Best, Mr.and Mrs. upper class British couple on holiday in Switzerland with their adolescent daughter Neva Pilbeam. A Frenchman they befriend, Pierre Fresnay, is killed right in front of them on a dance floor and he whispers something to Banks about a planned assassination in London to occur shortly. The spies suspect what the dying Fresnay has said to Banks and grab Pilbeam to insure the silence of her parents.

The rest of this short (75 minute) feature is Banks and Best trying to both foil the assassination and get their daughter back. At the climax Best's skill at skeet shooting becomes a critical factor in the final confrontation with the villains.

Peter Lorre made his English language debut in The Man Who Knew Too Much and was very effective with the limited dialog he had. I've often wondered why Hitchcock never used Lorre more in some of his later features.

Although the 1956 version has far better production values, this version still holds up quite well and is worth a look.

Lorre learns English as Hitch continues to grow as a director

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 4 July 2017]

One of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest classics, made before he came to Hollywood. A couple's daughter is kidnapped to keep her parents quiet about an assassination plot. The couple is played by Leslie Banks and Edna Best. Banks is good in a role that's a long way from his florid performance in The Most Dangerous Game from a couple of years earlier. Best is impressive in a sympathetic turn. Peter Lorre is menacing and even a little creepy as the leader of the assassins. This was his first English-speaking role (he learned the language while filming). Nice photography from Curt Courant and some fun little creative touches from Hitchcock. The dry humor is blended nicely with the action and suspense. The cult of sun worshippers and The Royal Albert Hall scene are both worthy of Hitch's highlight reel. Perhaps one too many abrupt cuts from one scene to the next, often as a character is in mid-sentence. But clearly Hitch was still honing his craft. At least he was trying things as opposed to the static direction of many of his contemporaries.

Remade in 1956 by Hitchcock himself, with James Stewart and Doris Day. That version is more polished and "Hollywood," and is arguably the more popular of the two. Although neither film is perfect, I prefer this one. It may not have the two decades of advancements in production techniques or the bigger budget of the remake, but it has a tighter plot, shorter runtime, faster pace, darker tone, and it builds suspense without the distracting side stuff of the remake. Plus there's no incongruous scenes of Doris Day singing.

British Version is Fast-Paced, Witty, & Atmospheric

[Snow Leopard · 20 July 2001]

Both versions of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" are well worth watching, and each one has its own strong points. While this British version cannot match the Hollywood remake in terms of star power and lavish production, it has several strengths of its own: it is fast-paced, filled with wit, and nicely atmospheric. Despite being 20 years older, it is also more 'modern' in its portrayal of the woman whose child is kidnapped.

Aside from Peter Lorre, always a big plus to any movie, the cast does not have too many names that would be familiar to today's audiences, but they all are good actors who fit in well with the style of Hitchcock's British films, exuding self-control and good-natured wit even in the most trying of circumstances. Edna Best as the heroine is noticeably different from Doris Day, lacking the glamour but giving a convincing performance as a more determined, resourceful mother.

There are some interesting settings in this version, too, with much of the action taking place in some interesting buildings in a less elegant neighborhood in London. A lot of it looks a bit murky in the old black-and-white print, but in a sense even that adds to the atmosphere.

Certainly there are those who have good reasons for preferring the remake, but every Hitchcock fan should watch the original, too. Hitchcock's British films had a pleasant style all their own, and while this one might not measure up to "The Lady Vanishes" or "The 39 Steps", it's still very entertaining.

Peter Lorre - the Scene Stealer

[BaronBl00d · 7/10 · 2 July 2006]

I must confess that I rather like this earlier version more than the definitely more polished, bigger budgeted 1956 version. Don't get me wrong, that film is a fine film too, but the lower budget, the quick pace, and the presence of Peter Lorre make this one a gem. Alfred Hitchcock, the undeniable maser of suspense, shows his early skills as a director able to create suspense and engineer circumstances that affect individuals who would normally NOT be affected by them - a Hitchcock trademark. Here we have Leslie Banks and Edna Best playing the parents of a young teen girl who has been kidnapped because her parents were the last ones spoken to by a man(a friend) at a party in a European country. Intrigue abounds, the man tells Best who then tells Banks of a note in a brush handle that alerts them to some international incident that will occur in England. Well, the kidnappers alert them of what they have done and shut them up. But through parental devotion, once in England, the father begins to hunt for his daughter. This film has all those Hitchcock trademarks that we know Hitchcock for. We have the normal person(s) put into extremely difficult and complicated situations. We have expressive camera angles. We have humour amidst taut, tense action. We have good, all-around acting. Banks, just a year or so removed from his awesome portrayal of General Zaroff in The Most Dangerous Game, gives an incredibly low-key, convincing performance as a father trying to find his daughter no matter what. He is able to inject light touches of humour here and there to make his performance all the more real. Best is adequate although a bit wooden. Hugh Wakefield as the uncle is a real hoot. Cicely Oates as a nurse is also very convincing. Peter Lorre; however, solidifies his English/American career as a heavy. Coming from a Hungarian background and not able to speak English yet, Lorre learns his part phonetically - which is all the more impressive when you see his performance as a killer with little scruples yet a generous sense of humour. Lorre conveys menace in his ever-alert eyes and his almost sugary voice. Hitchcock knows just how to use him and the climatic scene really is pulled off rather well. This movie is not very long and it is a tad creaky. It has little budget as well, but it conveys lots of action and suspense and has some very good performances. The air of conspiracy, another director's trademark touch, pervades the film almost from beginning to end.

Interesting idea, not the best execution

[mstomaso · 6/10 · 6 August 2007]

Hitccock's first major release in the USA and Peter Lorre's first English-speaking role are two firsts scored by this 1934 thriller. This is, of course, also Hitchcock's first attempt to to make this film. His second, released in the mid-50s was more successful and better funded. This very British and relatively pithy film retains most of the character of Hitchcock's earlier efforts, but is lean and economical, with less camera play and simpler cinematography and pacing.

The acting is generally very good. Of the main cast, Nova Pilbeam, who plays the kidnapped daughter of Leslie Banks and Edna Best, is the only survivor today, at the age of 87. Most of the action centers on Banks,and he is fine, but (and I tend to think this is Hitchcock's doing) very emotionally compressed throughout the film. Banks' Bob Lawrence has a loving, flirty, wife (Best) and a delightful young daughter (Pilbeam). They are away on holiday in the alps when a new friend of their is shot dead while dancing with Best. As he dies, he passes along some information which creates the family's predicament. Lorre and his people kidnap young Pilbeam in exchange for Banks' silence, and he must then decide what to do. It seems that no matter what he does, his daughter is likely to die.

It is remarkable that Lorre did not even know what he was saying throughout most of this performance. The legendary actor, as usual, dominates all of his scenes and gives the film a creepy, psychotic feeling that would have been difficult to achieve without him.

The plot is a bit light on logic, but brisk, satisfyingly convoluted and entertaining. The script is OK, but often maintains too stiff an upper lip. A few opportunities for elaboration were missed - probably a limitation inherent in the original Wyndham Lewis story. I think it would have been interesting (and more credible) if the authorities had followed up on their knowledge that Banks knew something and trailed him throughout the film. This could have added an extra layer of potential suspense, mystery and obfuscation, since Best's heightened paranoia might have lead him to suspect all sorts of things about anybody keeping tabs on him.

Hitchcock definitely knew he had a potential gem here, and it is a credit to him that he revitalized the film with Jimmy Stewart in the 1950s - after establishing himself as a force to be reckoned with.

Worth seeing for Hitchcock fans and those interested in early British film as well as fans of the 1950s version. O/w only very mildly recommended.

Mystery and tension in the first international hit of the suspense magician

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 9 July 2005]

The tale deals with a marriage (Leslie Banks and Edna Best) and their daughter (Nova Pilbeam) on holiday in Saint Moritz , Switzerland . They are witnesses for the assassination of their friend Louis (Pierre Fresnay) , before giving them a message and then they become involved into a confuse and obscure international plot , concerning their abducting daughter .

The movie gets the seed in which later emerged many Hitchcock's suspense pictures . In fact , Alfred Hitchcock reverted back to the more familiar territory of a suspense/intrigue thriller after the lousy result in Walzes from Vienna (1934) . It has a typical theme of the suspense master : innocent people become caught up into a cobweb of intrigue . The film displays interesting issues and a good cast , as an excellent Peter Lorre in his first English role , he interprets a clever and uncanny villain . However , the plot isn't narrated in agility and it seems some forced . The film highlights are the following ones : the happenings at the Royal Albert Hall of London , the rescue of the kidnapped daughter in the Tabernacle of the Sun and the final showdown remembers the authentic events on riots in Sidney Street , year 1911 , where a lot of citizens died . At the time the general public loved it and obtained smash-hit . Hitchcock's remade in 1956 is considered much better and with more lavish setting and glimmer color , besides , being starred by James Stewart and Doris Day singing : Que sera , sera . Rated : Good but dated .

Solid early Hitchcock

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 24 February 2017]

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.

An important, early Hitchcock film.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 7 November 2023]

Bob and Jill Lawrence are holidaying abroad with their young daughter. The couple are horrified when a friend of theirs is shot in front of them, and their daughter Betty is kidnapped.

I just admit, I have already seen the later version from the fifties, so it's a little difficulty not to compare.

Overall, I like it, I'm not crazy about it, I can certainly appreciate the context of it, for the time it's way ahead, and in terms of Hitchcock's career, this film is one of the most important, definitely a game changer.

It's well made, nicely filmed, and features a few neat touches. If you're a fan of 1930's cinema, this will have a great appeal for you I'm sure, I find it a little raw.

It is not without a few touches of humour, the visit to the dentist is enough to make you laugh, but that chair looks like a torture device.

Leslie Banks and Edna Best are both pretty good, for me it was Peter Lorre who stole it, I thought he was brilliant.

Overall, a good piece of cinema.

6/10.

Classic Early Hitchcock...

[MovieAddict2016 · 10/10 · 10 February 2004]

Perhaps a bit hard to watch for younger generations, but this is the superior version of the yuppie couple whose only child is kidnapped and held for ransom (remade under the same title in the 50s by the same director, Alfred Hitchcock).

The film doesn't live up to "The 39 Steps" or "The Lady Vanishes" as one of Hitch's early works, but it is a superb example of classic low-budget filmmaking at its best. Yes, the effects (like the opening ski slope run) are incredibly laughable, but hey--it was filmed on a virtually empty budget by a relatively unknown director at the time with a low-budget cast in Britain.

Superb.

5/5 stars.

• John Ulmer

Not terrible, but a little dull

[KnightsofNi11 · 6/10 · 8 September 2012]

If you are traveling abroad in an Alfred Hitchcock film, chances are things are going to go wrong. Such is the case in The Man Who Knew Too Much, a very early Hitchcock film that he actually remade twenty years later. The film stars Leslie Banks and Edna Best as a couple on holiday in Switzerland along with their young daughter. Everything is going fine until a friend of theirs is murdered, and in his dying breath he tells them a crucial piece of information about an imminent assassination attempt. The couple has to keep this information safe and sound, but when they deny having any information their daughter is kidnapped and they must try to do all they can to get their daughter back and stop this assassination from succeeding.

The Man Who Knew Too Much has pretty much all the makings of a good film. It has a well thought out and well executed story, well rounded and multi dimensional characters, and with Alfred Hitchcock in the directors chair he obviously does some interesting things with the camera throughout the film. We see a variety of unique shots that would later translate into Hitchcock's overall style of filmmaking. The acting is pretty sub par aside from the great Peter Lorre, but it's not too dreadful.

The thing is, I just wasn't crazy about this film and it really didn't do much for me. The story, while neat and intelligent, is a little disjointed at times and I found myself getting lost pretty easily. The film really tries to be suspenseful, but it isn't at all. This is definitely due to the time period and how much different films were made back then, but I honestly didn't feel anything during The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Hitchcock shows that he will one day grow into a legendary director through some of the unique camera angles and movements he employs in this film, but overall I found the film to be a little lackluster. I shrugged when it was over, and I could not see myself watching this again. It's not an inherently bad film, it's just not much of anything.

Hitchcock's first film take on this tale...

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 29 January 2023]

...of a family that becomes entangled with a spy ring. Bob (Leslie Banks) and Jill Lawrence (Edna Best), along with teen daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam), vacations in the Swiss Alps where they learn of an assassination plot masterminded by the bizarre Abbott (Peter Lorre). The gang kidnaps Betty to ensure the silence of the Lawrences until the assassination, set to take place in London at the Royal Albert Hall, but Bob and Jill try to rescue their daughter first. Also featuring Hugh Wakefield, Frank Vosper, Cicely Oates, and Pierre Fresnay.

I like this more every time I see it. Peter Lorre, in his English-language debut, makes for one of Hitchcock's most entertaining villains. It's remarkable that Lorre delivered his lines phonetically, not yet being proficient in English. I also liked Cicely Oates as Lorre's coldly efficient "nurse". The film's finale, a protracted shoot-out between the gang and the police, is well done, shockingly violent for the time, and full of little visual gags.

There's also a harrowing trip to the dentist, the big Albert Hall concert scene, a quick turn by French star Pierre Fresnay as Lawrence family friend, and a dachshund. This film is inevitably compared to the 1956 remake, and I've always liked this original take more.

Hitchcock mixing Expressionism and Peter Lorre

[JuguAbraham · 6/10 · 23 April 2006]

The film is best remembered for the expressionist influences on Hitchcock surfacing in the some of the scenes that do not tend to show in the later works of the director. In this film there is the scream that is followed by a gunshot—Hitchcock used the scream to be followed by an engine whistle in "Blackmail" made earlier. In the remake of the film the aural effect gets further diluted—another evidence that the director was no longer a wide-eyed disciple of what he learned in Europe.

Details such as the chiming pocket watch worn by Peter Lorre, the close up of the villain's hair from behind his head, the close up of the teeth in front of the dentist's clinic, the visual gimmick of the camera view going off-focus to indicate the state of a character are examples of Hitchcock being influenced by early European expressionist cinema. The reversal of the role of the dentist and patient was probably the closest Hitchcock came to slapstick comedy though the entangling of the knitting as the dance went on was sheer visual entertainment.

The five hands pointing to a bullet hole in the glass pane seemed to be overdone, considering that the shot and the breaking glass is never heard by the dancers. Another strange sequence is the brawl inside the church when chairs are thrown around but no sound is heard outside.

This film is one of the few films of Hitchcock that show women as strong individuals—the others are "Jamaica Inn," "Rebecca," "Spellbound," " Easy virtue" and perhaps "Marnie." Here the leading lady is a sharpshooter, outdoing the cops at shooting. She even flirts with a man in front of her husband and daughter! Peter Lorre is as usual able to combine fear and sympathy—Hitchcock's best villains always did this ("Frenzy" and " Sabotage" are good examples as well). Lorre's role carries the film.

For that authentic '30s viewing experience, light up a cigarette and pour yourself a gin

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 28 March 2016]

The fact that Hitchcock saw fit to remake The Man Who Knew Too Much 22 years after his first attempt says a lot about his earlier rendition: it's got potential, but it's rough-around-the-edges, with too much guff to make it a wholly satisfying experience. Unsurprisingly, the 1956 version is the slicker and more enjoyable of the two films, Hitch having refined his style over the intervening decades.

The 1934 film stars Leslie Banks and Edna Best as married English couple Lawrence and Jill, who uncover a plot to assassinate a foreign diplomat, which forces the terrorists to kidnap their daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam) in order to keep them quiet. Of course, Lawrence and Jill being the protagonists in a Hitchcock film, they decide to track down their missing girl by themselves…

While not a particularly remarkable example of Hitchcock's work, the film suffering from those foibles of early film-making, stiff performances and weak pacing, as well as a shootout at the end that doesn't know when to quit, the film is still worth checking out if only to see how it measures up to the better-known remake. Banks and Best don't come out of the comparison too well, being rather bland when compared to James Stewart and Doris Day, but Peter Lorre effortlessly makes his mark as villain Abbott.

Original v. Remake?

[malvernp · 14 July 2006]

There is a long-standing tradition in film for someone to come along at a later time and feel moved to remake a movie now considered a classic.

In many cases, the remake is really nothing more than an homage to the earlier version----perhaps updated to reflect the use of color and employment of some subsequent technical advances---but with little else to offer. "Prisoner of Zenda" (1952) and the recent "Psycho" come to mind as examples of such productions.

Occasionally, the creator of the earlier film feels inspired to try to improve upon it himself. This by no means ensures success. Compare Frank Capra's "Lady for a Day" (1934) with his "Pocketful of Miracles." ((1951) On the other hand, many believe that DeMille's "Ten Commandments" (1956) is better in its story telling than his silent version made in 1923.

So much has been written about the two versions of "Man Who Knew Too Much" that there is very little one can add that hasn't been said before. Having seen them recently back-to-back, my personal opinion is that they are both flawed---but in different ways. The earlier film is quaintly primitive---particularly in matters involving continuity, use of sound, editing and other technical issues. On the other hand, the later version seems excessively padded with much extraneous material, has a male juvenile actor who is quite inferior to Nova Pilbeam in the original and has villains who lack the unique menace of Peter Lorre---with his rare combination of subtle humor, wit and terror.

In the end, the viewer is left with a sort of Hobson's Choice. Hitchcock himself said that the earlier work was that of a skilled amateur while the latter was the effort of a seasoned professional. No doubt in many ways he is right.

But there is something to be said about the sheer originality and power of a first effort----flawed though it may be. "Citizen Kane" was also the product of a skilled amateur. Could a more mature Orson Welles have improved upon it even with its flaws?

Irregular Early Work of Alfred Hitchcock

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 27 November 2009]

In St. Moritz, the British crack shot Jill (Edna Best) is competing in shooting with the foreigner Ramon (Frank Vosper). She loses the finals and she goes to a dinner party with her husband Bob Lawrence (Leslie Banks), their teenage daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam) and their fellowship friend and skier Louis Bernard (Pierre Fresnay). While dancing with Jill, Louis is deadly shot by a sniper and he asks Jill to get a shaving brush in his room and deliver to an authority in the consulate. Bob finds a hidden message inside the brush, but he receives a note informing that his daughter was kidnapped and his wife and he should not tell anything to the police. Jill and Bob return to London and the secretary of the Foreign Office Gibson George Curzon) explains that Louis belonged to the special services and was spying the attempt of assassination of a prominent European diplomat while visiting London. Bob decides to investigate a clue with his friend Clive (Hugh Wakefield) in Wapping and discovers that the murder will take place at the Albert Hall. However, he is imprisoned by the conspirators and Jill goes to the theater to avoid the crime.

"The Man Who Knew Too Much" is one of the early Alfred Hitchcock's movies and very irregular in its execution. There are brilliant moments, like the sequence in the Albert Hall or the shooting in the ending; or funny, like for example the sequence of Bob's prank in the ball with the knit line or the witty dialogs during the competition. Unfortunately, there are also some dull moments, like the scenes with the annoying Betty; or the silly fight in the church; or the lack of credit to Clive's explanation to the policemen; or why Abbot did not kill Bob and Betty. The cinematography is not good in the Brazilian DVD released by Continental distributor, but it is the only chance to see this work of Alfred Hitchcock. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Homem Que Sabia Demais" ("The Man Who Knew Too Much")

No match for the remake - but there is also no match for Lorre.

[gridoon · 7/10 · 25 September 2003]

From a modern standpoint, it's quite hard to understand why so many people claim to prefer this 1934 thriller to its 1956 remake. It's technically primitive (as is immediately evident in the opening sequence) and often clumsy, with one of the weakest climaxes in a Hitchcock film ever (a totally suspenseless shootout). However, there are some brilliant Hitchcockian touches (the singing in the church, the famous Albert Hall sequence), and, above all, there is a delicious, way-ahead-of-its-time performance by Peter Lorre - the one area where the original clearly outshines the remake. Almost every scene featuring Lorre is a highlight of this movie. (**1/2)

Peter Lorre; What a Great Villain

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 18 September 2008]

This is pretty intense movie. It moves along well, with some interesting twists and turns along the way. It contains some classic Hitchcock moves. Mainly, the crowded theatre scene. The proper British woman, wondering if she should do anything and interrupt the concert, even though her daughter's life may be at stake. As for villains, Peter Lorre and his henchmen(women) are absolutely delightful in an awful sort of way. As an American it is hard for me to have that stiff upper lip. Everyone is so controlled. Some of the humor is far fetched but much of the movie is tongue in cheek. Still, it works very well. The frontal assault at the conclusion seems wasteful, considering they had the crooks dead to rights, but one can accept it as trying to evaluate the situation. One distracting thing for me is the daughter. I've seen this film a number of times. The fact that she looks older than her mother always bothers me. She is also rather tiresome and silly. Still, this is great fun, shot well, and Lorre makes us really pull for the good guys because he is such a psycho.

WASH ME!!!

[Anne_Sharp · 7/10 · 13 September 2000]

If ever a film was in need of restoration it's this. Ironically one of the easiest Hitchcock films to see (because it's in public domain, you can usually pick up a copy in the drugstore for about $3), it's also impossible to find a print of it that's not hideous to look at and practically inaudible. For now, it still looks like the best film of Hitchcock's British Primitive period. Avoiding the clumsiness endemic to the likes of "Secret Agent" and "Blackmail" by pretty much dispensing altogether with character development or a comprehensible plot, it travels like "North by Northwest" along a series of loosely linked set pieces that without adding up to much provide an entertaining and intriguing passing show. Considerably jazzing up the proceedings is the zaftig, boyish young Peter Lorre, who with decadent charm (and not for the first or last time) transforms the putative villain into the tragic hero of the piece.

Knockabout Hitchcock Thriller.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 20 August 2008]

Hitchcock and Truffaut almost had an argument over the relative value of this (1934) version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and the 1956 remake. Hitchcock, always averse to confrontation, finally admitted that the early film was the work of a talented amateur and the 1956 version that of a professional.

For a "talented amateur," this is pretty good stuff. It's true that the later version is glossier, more tense, and edgier, but this one is a lot of fun. We don't really worry for a moment that the kidnapped child (Nova Pilbeam) of Leslie Banks and Edna Best will be harmed. Nor can we readily imagine that the anonymous ambassador will be assassinated at the Albert Hall. Leslie Banks and his pal, who are trying to locate the place in London where the child is being held, don't seem to take the threat too seriously either. Where Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day played the pursuit almost entirely straight (with the exception of one ludicrous scene in a taxidermist's shop), Banks and Buddy make wisecracks and engage in one comic adventure after another -- even a horrifying scene is the office of a sinister dentist who grins demoniacally as he intones, "That one had better come out." (Gulp.) Edna Best as the anxious mother isn't around all that much. The place occupied by Doris Day in the remake is taken by Banks' somewhat mentally stunted male buddy. You can get more laughs out of a male buddy than out of a fearful wife. You can bop the buddy over the head, hypnotize him, hit him with folding chairs, and pull his tooth. Try doing that to a near-hysterical Doris Day.

Yes, the 1956 version is a more polished film, but it's a different kind of film too. This one is almost farcical and has Peter Lorre as a suavely sneaky murderer. It has a climactic shoot out that isn't particularly well done. But they're both identifiably Hitchcockian. Take your pick. You win either way.

Vastly underrated

[zetes · 10/10 · 27 September 2002]

One of Hitchcock's best films, and entirely undervalued. I love most of Hitch's films. His bigger productions of the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s are probably best loved, but I really like his grittier, more reality-based films as well. During that period, The Wrong Man is almost entirely overlooked, despite being one of his greatest achievements. This kind of film was most common during his British career, where he had less money to work with. I myself am least familiar with the first chunk of the man's career, but I have seen enough of them. My favorite so far is definitely Sabotage (1936), which is another criminally underrated film. The first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much is a close second favorite. A terrorist group (led by Peter Lorre) kills a secret agent in Switzerland. Bob and Jill Lawrence discover that the group is planning to assassinate a foreign diplomat in London in the upcoming days, so the group kidnaps their daughter to keep them quiet. They're unwilling to tell the police about the kidnapping, and eventually take it upon themselves to find her. They have to do it quickly, for, if the diplomat is killed because they withheld information from the police, a second World War could rest upon their shoulders. The story isn't particularly complex, but Hitchcock's cinema is as spectacular as it ever was, while aiming for a low key. There are a dozen memorable scenes in the film, most notably the concert with the slowly revolving camera as Jill Lawrence scans the room for the assassin. And I love the realistic standoff near the end of the film, as the police slowly move citizens to safety as the terrorists shoot from the dark. The acting is also very good, with Edna Best (as Jill Lawrence) and especially Peter Lorre (how can you not love this guy?) standing above the rest. 10/10.

Decent Early Hitchcock

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 8 March 2012]

A man and his wife (Leslie Banks and Edna Best) receive a clue to an imminent assassination attempt, only to learn that their daughter has been kidnapped to keep them quiet.

I found this film somewhat difficult to watch, due to the poor video and especially poor sound quality. Maybe this is just the version found on Netflix and a better transfer or remaster exists. (Criterion, perhaps?) But that aside, it is a solid film and worth enjoying -- for more reasons than just seeing Peter Lorre in his first English-speaking role.

What stood out for me was what I must call the "chair fight" sequence. If you find the film lacking action, you can just watch the scene with chairs flying around and smashing on people. I mean, really, who does not want to see a chair fight?

Eye Candy

[News_99 · 10/10 · 24 October 2000]

The first time I watched this film, I could barely differentiate characters I was so unused to watching old, high-contrast B&W films. By the third time around, I had made everything out and it became one of my favorite movies of all time. The 50's remake, though James Stewart is one of my favorite personalities in the history of civilization, just isn't the same film.

First and foremost, Peter Lorre. Anyone who has seen him in M, then laments his minor roles in Hollywood films, should see this film. It's too bad that Hollywood couldn't create more roles like this for him. Abbott is one of the greatest of Hitchcock's sympathetic villains... better than Claude Rains in Notorious, better than James Mason in North by Northwest, comparing favorably to Robert Walker in Strangers on a Train and Shadow of a Doubt's Joseph Cotton, in a fraction of the screen time. He is charming, well-mannered, and portrays more warmth, humanity, and poetry in his words and actions than any of the above.

On the other hand, he is an assassination plotter and kidnapper and this is light-hearted entertainment (unlike the second version, which is all nerves and no wit).

The cinematography is wonderful. The thing I love most about very early Hitchcock is the German influence (he interned at UFA and his first film, the Pleasure Garden, was a German co-production). Of all of Hitchcock's great works, this is the one most in tune with the aesthetics of silent film, and an important benchmark for one of the few directors whose careers encompass so much of film history. Even the classic 39 Steps filmed the following year does not make such extensive use of "camera tricks" (as Hitch would come to deride them later in his career).

The closeups of Frank Vosper's hair, the pin associated with Nova Pilbeam, the POV shots of Edna Best's fainting and Hugh Wakefield tuning out at the church, the entire Albert Hall sequence... they're wonderful touches from the era of telling stories strictly through pictures that you just won't find even in Hitch's later British work. There are plenty of striking frame compositions (over the shoulder, through the gate, formations of people, and that beautiful shot towards the beginning of silhouetted father and daughter looking out the window at Mum) and revealing pans a la Carl Dreyer (my favorite are when Peter Lorre swirls from Vosper to Leslie Bank's face as the music on the radio crescendos, Banks raising a cigarette to his mouth... and at the very end with the police, camera pans to the door, rifles rise.)

Hitch also milks the soundtrack for all it's worth. The early films of both Lang and Hitch stick out for their creative and stylistic use of sound. Most overtly, M had Peer Gynt, The Man Who Knew Too Much has the Stormcloud Cantata. There are plenty of more subtle audio cues, the best of which is Peter Lorre's chiming pocket watch. Using music as a cover-up is a motif, as well as sounds of warning and interruption. Compare and contrast the instances, intelligent patterns emerge. This is one well thought out little thriller.

When the characters talk, they usually have something clever to say. Leslie Banks has the perfect voice for delivering the obligatory dry British wit... "just leave me a bone on the mat," "sir, you have beaten my wife and she has run off with another man... you are a dirty dog," and, my favorite, "has it been fireproofed?" But if Banks has the best lines, Lorre has the best speech, in the scene setting up the Albert Hall sequence. **possible spoilers on horizon** In the 50's version, this scene is purely informational, basically the villains filling in the audience on the particulars of the plot. But in the original, this is the money scene. Lorre brings in little Nova for a "touching scene" of father and daughter reunited, relates with flair and humor the assassination setup to Vosper, then the whole "Shakespeare... a great poet" speech. Nova is torn from Daddy and the scene ends with a closeup of the obviously moved Lorre, slowly casting his eyes down. Also scope that earlier quick cutaway shot of him, eyes downcast, framed by four co-conspirators. Nice composition.

Is the acting solid? Wouldn't normal people be really thrown off by these events, like in the 50's version or the more recent Ransom? Let's say the acting is great in the context of the film. Banks and Lorre, of course, carry the film. Cicely Oates is a prototypical Mrs. Danvers. Nova Pilbeam, who I never noticed much until after watching Young and Innocent, smiles, frowns, looks back and forth between adults, and cries "daddy, daddy!" to sink your heart. Lovely. Edna Best turns away from the camera to show she is crying. She gets nicely worked up in the Albert Hall sequence, but she has nothing on Doris Day in the remake (nor Frank Vosper on Reggie Nalder). But the camerawork carries the day. Kudos also to the bit parts of all the policemen at the end. The many brief but poignant (or at the very least discernible) characterizations keep us caring after the emphasis shifts from the main characters.

An extremely subjective 10 out of 10. This is not a "great film" in the manner of M or Shadow of a Doubt. It's mind and eye candy, probably best appreciated by silent film buffs. I'd recommend it to students of German expressionism, fans of early Lang, etc. And, of course, British Hitch fans shouldn't overlook this in all the accolades given to 39 Steps and Lady Vanishes. Same goes for Young and Innocent and Sabotage. Even Secret Agent has interesting things about it, though not that many and Peter Lorre is reduced to a role more like the kind he is delegated to in many a Humphrey Bogart movie.

Hitchcock's first Hitchcock.

[1930s_Time_Machine · 7/10 · 20 March 2024]

The last time I was at The Royal Albert Hall was to see KING CRIMSON. The guy next to me was very excited because we thought we were in the very same box where this film's assassin tried to shoot the diplomat from.

Not just KING CRIMSON fans but anyone who loves well-made 1930s films should enjoy this. It's not just interesting as something to compare with the "newer" version or as an example of how Hitchcock's style and techniques were evolving or as an example of British filmmaking in the 1930s. No, I can't be doing with all that 'watching this as an academic exercise' nonsense because this is just a great little picture. It's not up there with LADY VANISHES but we're in that territory.

Personally I loved his earlier picture, RICH AND STRANGE but it wasn't a typical Hitchcock movie. The rest of his early films at BIP are pretty iffy as was his first one at Gaumont, WALTZES FROM VIENNA but given the opportunity of working with the sexiest woman in the English film industry, Jessie Matthews, I can't imagine any red-blooded man in the 30s turning down that opportunity! This film however is exactly what we expect from Mr H: engaging characters, proper baddies and a witty scrip.

You aren't so much drawn into the story but rather captured by it like a fly in a spider's web. You feel part of the story and even if you wanted to you don't know how to escape. You can't explain what's happening, you can't do anything about it, you just have to accept it. You feel like you're tumbling ever faster down a mountain side, you don't know why....but there's something inexplicably reassuring in the back of your mind telling you that everything's going to be ok.

No, Leslie Banks and Edna Best aren't really familiar names and they're not particularly memorable or interesting but they're ideal for these parts as normal, fairly bland everyday people like ourselves. If these vents were happening to James Bond or Captain Kirk it wouldn't have the same impact as it would by happening to people just like us - or rather how we imagine we might have been back then. Peter Lorre however is memorable. He's absolutely brilliant as the cool laid-back psycho and even more impressive since he couldn't actually understand English!

Primitive by today's standards...inferior to Hitch's '56 remake...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 30 October 2005]

Hitchcock believed, with good reason, that his first version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH was "amateurish" (his own words) and felt he could do more justice to the story by giving it a modern remake with Bernard Herrmann's magnificent music adding dimension to the suspense.

He even used Herrmann as a conductor for the Albert Hall concert sequence--which is much more complex in execution than it is in this version and changed the setting for the story. In this version, however, that sequence is probably the most Hitchcockian of all the scenes in the movie with some clever editing touches.

LESLIE BANKS and EDNA BEST are nowhere as charismatic as James Stewart and Doris Day in the '56 version. The opening scenes are crude enough to be laughable and Peter Lorre's villainy was much more refined once he understood the English language, instead of learning his part phonetically, as he did here.

Furthermore, the shootout at the end is not only awkwardly staged but is undercut by the unrealistic sound effects of dummy bullets. Edna Best is less than convincing as a sharpshooter for that final scene. The whole rooftop scene is excruciatingly amateurish as a wrap-up for the story. Clumsy ending. And it must be said that all of the events leading up to the scene in the church tabernacle, are more than a little absurd. Hitchcock tried to get comic effect out of some of these scenes, to little effect. The strain shows.

It's a story that cried for a remake--and Hitchcock did a marvelous job of visualizing it as a highly successful vehicle for James Stewart and Doris Day years later in exotic settings and more realistic touches to the story with the villains not appearing like stock caricatures, but humanized.

Summing up: Hitchcock was right to remake it as a much better film.