The Man Who Knew Too Much Reviews

More mastery from the master

Alfred Hitchcock's more assured telling of a film he made twenty-one years earlier is infinitely superior to the original. Hitchcock said himself that his first version was the work of an amateur, and although it certainly isn't a bad film, he does appear to be right. That being said, this remake, although definitely better, still isn't among Hitchcock's best work. That's certainly not to say that it isn't good, it's just more than a little overindulgent, and that drags it down. Hitchcock seems all too keen to drag certain elements out, and these are parts of the film that aren't entirely relevant to the plot, which can become annoying. Some of these dragged out sequences, such as the one that sees James Stewart and Doris Day eating in a Moroccan restaurant are good because it helps establish the different culture that our American protagonists have found themselves in, but for every restaurant scene, there's an opera sequence and it's the latter that make the film worse.

The plot follows a middle-aged doctor and his wife that go to Morocco for a holiday with their young son. While there, they meet a French man on the bus and another middle-aged couple in a restaurant. However, things go awry when the French man dies from a knife in the back, shortly after whispering something to the doctor. The holiday then turns into a full blown nightmare when the couple's son is kidnapped, which causes them to cut it short and go to London in order to try and find him. The film has a very potent degree of paranoia about it, and it manages to hold this all the way through. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that this is the most paranoid film that Hitchcock ever made. Like most of Hitchcock's films, this one is very thrilling and keeps you on the edge of your seat for almost the entire duration, with only the aforementioned opera sequence standing out as a moment in which the tension is diffused. There is also more than a little humour in the movie, which gives lighthearted relief to the morbid goings on, and actually works quite well.

The original version of this story was lent excellent support by the fantastic Peter Lorre. This film doesn't benefit from his presence, unfortunately, but that is made up for by performances from the amazing James Stewart, and Doris Day. James Stewart is a man that is always going to be a contender for the 'greatest actor of all time' crown. His collaborations with Hitchcock all feature mesmerising performances from him, and this one is no different. (Although his best performance remains the one in Mr Smith Goes to Washington). Stewart conveys all the courage, conviction and heartbreak of a man that has lost his child and would do anything to get him back brilliantly. In fact, that's one of the best things about this film; you are really able to feel for the couple's loss throughout and that serves in making it all the more thrilling. Doris Day, on the other hand, is a rather strange casting choice for this movie. She's definitely a good actress, but she's more associated with musicals and seeing her in a thriller is rather odd (even if she does get to flex her vocal chords a little).

As I've mentioned; this is not Hitchcock's best film, but there's much to enjoy about it and although I'd recommend many Hitchcock films before recommending this one, I'll definitely give it two thumbs up as well.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Visually exciting but over-deliberate in places

The Man Who Knew Too Much is a remake of Alfred’s Hitchcock’s 1934 original, filmed at Lime Grove Studios London, and remade in 1956 by Hitchcock himself.

The remake is a very American affair starring classic American actors Doris Day and James Stewart. Made in 1956, the time of the Suez crisis in Egypt, and filmed in Marrakech, London and Paramount Studios in Hollywood, the film centres on Day and Stewart as they search for their abducted son.

The picture uses the classic Hitchcock situation of normal and moral people caught up in trouble and forced to get themselves out of it through their own means and without any help from the relevant authorities. Similar to the wrong man situation, also heavily used by Hitchcock, Day and Stewart are innocent people forced to do remarkable things on their own.

The film contains classic Hitchcockian moments such as a climatic spectacle at the Royal Albert Hall, the barrel of a gun beautifully protruding from behind a deep red velvet curtain and a scene where the camera zooms out when a villain enters the room, creating the sinking feel in one’s stomach and visually depicting the fear of Stewart’s character.

Just like the film, the score is also covered from the original film and plays a huge part in the final scene. Further music is supplied by Doris Day who sings Que Sera, Sera which is actually a plot point and just about acceptable however, her singing was probably as hip as a black and white television in the 1950, but in the 21st century it all sounds very dated indeed. The inclusion of the song may have been to satisfy the Doris Day fans and appeal to a wider middle American audience as I doubt Hitchcock would have wanted the implausibility and sentimentality associated with it.

Other aspects of the film and story telling can also seem implausible and over-deliberate and the ending is rather abrupt, however Day’s and Stewart’s performances are top class and the film moves along at a satisfactory pace.

Aged well with thoroughly gripping ending

As with many of Hitchcock's film, this has aged well; it is a classic plot with a climatic ending and lots of memorable scenes.

The film gets off to a slow start; although one that is in places an amusing look at western travellers.

Typically for Hitchcock the film is full of intrigue and mystery, although is a fairly basic and not hugely complicated plot (for twists and turns you're better off with "Rear Window". James Stewart plays, well, James Stewart in a Hitchcock film, but plays the part well.

The climax of the film is wonderful; gripping and thrilling. It's sort of a two-part ending, woven in firstly with a grandiose musical event; watching this build up you realise why Hitchcock is referred as "The Master of Suspense". The secondly climax is a more sedate, but equally thrilling sequence, with the famously mournful rendition of "Que Sera Sera". Doris Day, playing the mother, is cast well; her Character's fame adds something to the film, but this song (which was written for the film and even won an Oscar) really adds something to the ending.

Well put together, with some fantastically composed imagery, scenes and sequences. I believe it does draw out much of this from the 1930s version, also by Hitch, but having not seen it, I'm going to suspend judgement. Certainly, I'm sure this 1950s version is more accessible to most viewers.

Great intrigue and suspense

The story is quite straightforward: an American family on holiday in Morroco find themselves accidentally trapped by a set of political assasins. With excellent dialogue, top actors and a solid story, Hitchcock has managed to build a movie which keeps you on the edge of your seat. A great movie to watch on a Saturday night!

Still works after 50 years

This is one of my favorite Hitchcock movies, probably second after NBNW. James Stewart is perfect as the american doctor who receives some secret information whilst on holiday in Marocco. The suspense builds from there, and in classic Hitchcock style, builds right until the very end. Very enjoyable movie and a must see for all Hitchcock fans.

Classic Hitchcock

If you enjoyed Vertigo and Rear Window, you'll like this. Starring the great Jimmy Stewart, this story will keep you guessing and on the edge of your seat until the very end.

Hitchcock remakes his own film with good results

Hitchcock remakes his own film with generally laudable results, not too much of a surprise, really: great cast, with James Stewart and Doris Day doing the bereaved parents shtick pretty well, a good premise, bigger budget, Hitch at the helm- it couldn’t really go wrong, and it didn’t.

All things considered though, it’s nothing to write home about, and there are moments when the story seems pointlessly drawn out just for the purposes of suspense. Still, the finale in the Albert Hall is among Hitch’s best set-pieces, and, even if it’s not quite as good as the original, it steams ahead at a steady pace and is rarely dull.

Not the usual Hitchcock standard

I've tried to judge this film verus other Hitchcock films as its the only real comparison you can make due to his directorial genius. As a result it gets 3 stars as I don't think it as good as some of his other films, namely North by Northwest, Vertige and Rear Window.

The film stars James Stewart as Dr Ben McKenna who is on holiday in Morrocco with his wife and son when their lives are turned upside after the death of a French spy. McKenna's son is subsequently kidnapped and its a race against time for the family to find the boy whose fate is linked to an assassination plot.

Placed against other films of its type, its a gripping film and very enjoyable. James Stewart is brilliant as ever (without doubt one of the best actors of the 20th century) and Doris Day plays the frantic mother with great skill. However, the plot drags a bit in places and the film seems overly long.

You can't beat the classics...

This film was good, solid entertainment.

The performances were very good and the plot did well to keep the audience involved and anticipating the next unfolding.

If you like the older B&W movies - this should definately be seen.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Great to be in Hollywood

That might have been Hitchcock's comment about working in the USA and I don't think anyone would try to argue that, in general, the English films such as 'Secret Agent', '39 Steps', 'Lady Vanishes' are better films than most of his Hollywood output. His skills as a technician flourished in the American studios with bigger budgets and superior technical resources. If we so wish we can compare the English and American versions of this film. For me, this is perhaps the least interesting of the 1950's films and the British original is one of the least interesting of the 1930's films. Admittedly, the 1950's was the decade that brought us 'Strangers on a Train', 'Vertigo', 'Rear Window' and 'North by Northwest'; all superb films that can be watched more than once. And, I suggest, all better than any of the 1930's English films. This version suffers from being overlong and does not benefit from moving the early action from St Moritz to Marrakech. We do get a delightful performance from James Stewart; a big plus from the generally stuffy performances of the English version. You can rent both and see what you think.