Alfred-Hitchcock Movie Reviews
Related Subjects:
Alec-Guinness
More Pages: Alfred-Hitchcock Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
More Pages: Alfred-Hitchcock Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
VHS movie reviews for "Alfred-Hitchcock" sorted by average review score:
Sabotage / The Man Who Knew Too Much
Released in VHS Tape by Madacy Entertainment (22 October, 1993)
Starring: Sylvia Sidney and Oskar Homolka
Average review score: 
Good films from The Master; dubbed from a submaster.Both of these films are good early Hitchcock, but Saboteur is a slower, more character-driven drama in the same vein as The 39 Steps, with just a touch of Suspicion thrown in. Sylvia Sidney turns in a great performance as a woman who only thought she knew her husband. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1935) is a fast-paced, witty film with an emphasis on action and suspense, and for my money (not much in this particular case) is miles ahead of the 50's remake in every way except for the cast. Still, any movie with Peter Lorre as a primary villain is going to hold my interest. If you enjoy The Lady Vanishes by Hitch, you'll love this movie, too. From a technical standpoint, the quality of these tapes is not very good, so deduct a star if you are demanding in viewing public domain-style VHS. But they are watchable, and hey, you'll save some ching.
Under Capricorn
Released in VHS Tape by Vid-America (20 March, 1992)
Starring: Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, and Michael Wilding
With the long-take experiment of Rope still fresh in his mind, Alfred Hitchcock turned his attention to romantic melodrama: Under Capricorn, a novel of 1830s Australia. Having little of the usual suspense to rely on, Hitchcock used the elegant long-take method to draw out Ingrid Bergman's harrowing performance. As a fallen aristocrat who married a former stable boy (Joseph Cotten) and moved Down Under, Bergman gives a fine portrayal of a woman hemmed in by a sour marriage and a guilty secret. The actress also felt hemmed in by Hitch's elaborate camera movements; she hated them. This expensive picture flopped on its first release, but it has a hypnotic flow despite a tendency toward talkiness. Hitchcock fans will recognize, beyond the details of plot, a couple of the director's key motifs: the jaundiced view of marriage, and the anxieties underlying social status. And, of course, the worship of an actress. --Robert Horton
Average review score: 
For the curious onlyA period piece directed by Hitchcock? Yes, it is a surprise. It wasn't the first though (the dreadful Jamaica Inn was Hitch's first period piece) It must have surprised Hitch as well. While produced by his own company (Transatlantic Pictures), Under Capricorn would seem a natural choice for David O Selznick as producer but all wrong for Hitchcock as director.
Yes, the material might seem appropriate for Hitch given the themes explored but this romantic melodrama was really quite a stretch for him as a director. The experience here certainly made his later works richer (such as Vertigo) but, on the whole, Under Capricorn was clearly a learning experience for Hitch.
The performances are grand and as florid as one might expect given the material. The screenplay by James Bridie (with considerable rewriting by Hume Cronyn)leaves Hitch in a lifeboat without oars; Hitch pretty much goes nowhere over the course of the film's 116 minutes. Unfortunately, this expensive miscalculation would do in Hitch's Transatlantic films (Rope was the first Transatlantic production and, despite some obvious flaws, is a much better film).
Hitchcock's caution backfired during shootingThe former reviewer is right, of course: UNDER CAPRICORN was not produced by Selznick, as I wrote in my first comment, but by Hitchcock himself. I was led to this error because the sight of Margaret Leighton and Joseph Cotten in those costumes and on those sets reminded me so mucn of GONE WITH THE WIND and DUEL IN THE SUN.
The film is watchable, no question. There is no such thing as an "unwatchable" Hitchcock film. The cinematography (By Jack Cardiff, who also made THE RED SHOES and BLACK NARCISSUS) is attractive and Ingrid Bergman is very moving, especially in the scene where she pulls herself together and makes an attempt to run the household. The kitchen-maids, used to Leighton's strict rule, disobey, and Bergman realizes that she has no authority in her own house. Leighton strides to Bergman's bedroom and systematically exposes her and her bottles in front of her guests. But this is probably the only good scene in the entire film.
The fact that Hitchcock produced it himself, explains much of the film's shortcomings: He wanted to play it safe, because his own money was at stake. UNDER CAPRICORN must have looked terrific on paper, but his caution during shooting robbed the story of everything that must have attracted him in the first place. And he fails with one of the most potent subjects: mesalliance. A society lady marries her stable-boy, suffers under the loss of her social position and drowns her sorrows in the bottle. An interesting premise, but Hitchcock fails completely to elucidate their complex relationship. Hasn't Cotten every reason to be depressed since his wife considers him so obviously as her punishment? And what would have happened after all those years of his (not so selfless) self-sacrifice, if Bergman had refused to meet her part of the deal? Hitchcock answers no questions, and his gingerly approach paralyses the film to such a degree that the potentially most interesting scenes are not even shown: Bergman and Cotten were too grown up to play teenagers, and Hitchcock was unwilling to curtail their precious screen-presence for a flashback with younger actors. So they simply tell their story to the patiently listening Michael Wilding, and instead of psychology, the director resorts to a gunshot to bring the film to a conclusion. And that's it, plotwise.
UNDER CAPRICORN could have had the drama of WUTHERING HEIGHTS or the comedy of THE PRINCESS AND THE SWINEHERD. Hitchcock prevents the story from gliding into parody, but his direcion is heavy-handed and maladroit. The film lacks dynamism: Other stars in Hitchcock films, like James Stewart or Anthony Perkins were not exactly hyperactive, either, but the director explored the dark obsessions beneath their apparent phlegm. In Bergman and Cotten he had top actors, but he was too afraid to rely on their talent, and pushed them around like pawns instead. UNDER CAPRICORN may look like a masterpiece when compared with all those "Hitchcockian" thrillers made by the master's clones. But the director of VERTIGO & Co deserves to be measured by the standart he set with his best films, and in this context UNDER CAPRICORN is not worth more than a 3/5.
eva25at is ignorant...First of all this is NOT a Selznic picture. Hitchcock was free from his contract with selznic after "The Paradine Case." Hitchcock produced this under his own Transatlantic Productions.
Selznic didn't have the remotest thing to do with this movie! No this isn't as good as most Hitchcock movies but it is entertaining.
Selznic didn't have the remotest thing to do with this movie! No this isn't as good as most Hitchcock movies but it is entertaining.
Man Who Knew Too Much
Released in VHS Tape by Timeless Video, Inc (04 February, 1994)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Released in VHS Tape by Madacy Entertainment (14 April, 1998)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.
Man Who Knew Too Much
Released in VHS Tape by Alpha Video Distributors (27 November, 2001)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.
Man Who Knew Too Much
Released in VHS Tape by Celebrity Duplicatin (22 March, 1935)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.
Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Released in VHS Tape by Connoisseur/Meridian Films (19 October, 1994)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.
Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Released in VHS Tape by United American Video (08 October, 1998)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.
Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Released in VHS Tape by Jef Films Int. (14 May, 1998)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.
Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Released in VHS Tape by Laserlight Video (19 June, 1998)
Starring: Leslie Banks and Edna Best
Alfred Hitchcock himself called this 1934 British edition of his famous kidnapping story the work of a talented amateur, while his 1956 Hollywood remake was the consummate act of a professional director. Be that as it may, this earlier movie still has its intense admirers who prefer it over the Jimmy Stewart-Doris Day version, and for some sound reasons. Tighter, wittier, more visually outrageous (back-screen projections of Swiss mountains, a whirly-facsimile of a fainting spell), the film even has a female protagonist (Edna Best in the mom part) unafraid to go after the bad guys herself with a gun. (Did Doris Day do that that? Uh-uh.) While the '56 film has an intriguing undercurrent of unspoken tensions in nuclear family politics, the '34 original has a crisp air of British optimism glummed up a bit when a married couple (Best and Leslie Banks) witnesses the murder of a spy and discovers their daughter stolen away by the culprits. The chase leads to London and ultimately to the site of one of Hitch's most extraordinary pieces of suspense (though on this count, it must be said, the later version is superior). Take away distracting comparisons to the remake, and this Man Who Knew Too Much is a milestone in Hitchcock's early career. Peter Lorre makes his British debut as a scarred, scary villain. The print of the film used in the DVD release is serviceable and probably comparable to an average 16mm classroom or museum presentation. The DVD also includes a Hitchcock filmography, trivia questions, a director biography, and scene access. --Tom Keogh
Average review score:
Classic Early Hitchcock!Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!
A CULT FILM FOR ALL THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.
Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. However, it's one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.
Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock.
Good, but I still like the remake moreI very much enjoyed this at times expressionistic Hitchcock picture, but I think the remake outdoes it. The remake is far more engaging for the first 2/3rds, however, after the sublime theatre sequence his 1956 remake begins to suffer from a weak script. The ending with Doris Day singing that annoyingly obvious marketable song bugs me. The 1934 film ends on a much more bitter, violent level that is much more suitable to the tone of the picture than the 1956 version. Overall though, the 1956 version is better, except for the ending, however, I love the 1934 complete with a wonderful performance from the great, late Peter Lorre.