The man known as the Sultan of Suspense had made a few movies prior to 1934. But it was "The Man Who Knew Too Much" that got Alfred Hitchcock a lot of attention. The 1956 version starring Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day is the more famous one, but this one still bears watching. For the most part I didn't see connections to other Hitchcock movies, but there was one thing. Nurse Agnes reminded me of Mrs. Danvers in "Rebecca" (Hitch's first movie in the United States): the black dress, the soft and eerie voice, and the tendency to manipulate people.Anyway, it's a fine piece of work. Peter Lorre is perfect for his role. I recommend the movie.Sarajevo. They probably had no idea that a few decades later that city would be the scene of another massive war.PS: producer Michael Balcon is the maternal grandfather of Daniel Day-Lewis.

I have to wonder if I'd think differently of this film had I seen it before the 1956 film. But, such is the course that life can take, I saw the one with Morroco, James Stewart and Doris Day, and Que Sera Sera first. Though that film may have more of the polish of a seasoned professional in 1956 (in contrast to the young upstart proving himself all over after a string of flops in 1934), it benefits greatly from a longer run-time to give more meat on the bones of the story, and a tighter grip on the suspense.Nevertheless, the original film that one could argue got the career of Alfred Hitchcock much on a roll in the 1930's has much to recommend it for. In this story that starts off in Switzerland - "Brotherly Love" except for certain foreign travelers - and a surprise bullet during a dinner party that kills a French spy (with the final words spoken to Jill (Edna Best), on holiday with her husband Lawrence (Leslie Banks) and child and sets a chain of events that leads to kidnapping, an assassination attempt during classical music concert and "Sun Worshipers", it's usually never less than riveting.The director keeps the pace fast - maybe too fast, one could argue. For filmmaking that is so rich and tightly edited and composed with a rhythm that feels just right when Hitchcock and company get into the set pieces, such as the dentist office or the Sun Church, or that final stretch in the gun battle, certain other scenes just feel... flat. All of the main actors are adequate, but it's hard to argue if one prefers this version Banks over Stewart, or even Best over Day. They aren't bad actors in the slightest, but there's little in the way of any personality about them. Best is at her best, so to speak, during that Albert Hall number - actually, I'll give it, she is up to everything else in that sequence and is great.If the plot doesn't leave much room to breathe or anything in the way of character development (different than bits of behavioral humor, which do connect more often than not), there is one ace in the hole for Hitchcock: Peter Lorre. After seeing him in M, he knew he found his Abbot (yeah yeah, odd name, but whatever, this ain't a comedy in THAT way). It's astonishing to read that Lorre didn't know English very well at the time and did the performance phonetically; the way he speaks is cutting at every turn, and he sets the tone for his group of criminals out to wreak havoc on spies and diplomats. He's... cool for such an evil bastard: when the father is anxiously hurling chairs in the church at the other bad guys to get his daughter back, Lorre just leans back on a wall and watches as it happens, knowing it'll play itself out in its way. When things cool down just a bit, he goes face to face with the hero. Close-ups, so intense, with a cigarette always dangling just a little.This is such iconic work for this actor - among his very best, and making it a memorable heel in the Hitchcock canon - that one can (almost) forgive any other flaws in the script, such as rushed exposition, or kind of dropping doing anything with the daughter after a set up with her in Switzerland that made her seem fairly interesting for a minute or two. There's a reason Lorre is on the poster and not Leslie Banks: by the end, it's not like we exactly *want* him to get away, but... the guy's a force of nature, let's put it that way. The Man Who Knew Too Much, both versions, are crackerjack pieces of suspense (with occasional surprise, and there's a difference between the two) and it's admirable how coiled the suspense gets for when it pops.This Hitch guy, watching this, he's going places...

While on a family vacation in Switzerland a couple and their daughter ge. t thrown right into some international intrigue,, as a spy is at the same winter lodge they are at,, as the spy is shot,, he hands off pertinent information to the man. in order to make sure that the man doesn't reveal the information he has just gotten regarding an assassination attempt,, the unknown assailants kidnap the family's daughter, assuring them of silence,, well the couple just don't wanna stand for this ,, and start to look for clues where the kidnappers are holding their daughter,, and meanwhile, they are also looking into the plot of the assassination attempt,, very well done Hitchcock film.. love the first shot,, of the man coming down the downhill... when the dog runs out onto the slope... great tracking shot... wonderful movie.

The remake needs to be re-watched by me, from memory it was more polished than this film with the better production values, had two great lead performances, a fun scene with the taxidermist and the plot is more fleshed out due to a longer length, but it also wasn't as witty or suspenseful as this, the child was an annoyance and the Que Sera Sera song was unnecessary. This said, the remake does need to be re-watched to see whether that's correct or not. This film is not perfect, and is not as good as The 39 Steps, Sabotage and especially The Lady Vanishes of the 30s British period Hitchcocks but is definitely worth seeing still. It did come across as too short, so the story had a tendency to be rushed and convoluted, and there are times where the action was on the stiff side. The Man Who Knew Too Much is well made still, the settings and locations are a wonder to behold and fit the story like a glove while the photography is atmospheric and professionally done. The music from Arthur Benjamin has a haunting sweeping quality, not among the all-time great Hitchcock film scores but very competent and fits the mood of the film well. The script has a fresh wit and the gallows humour that it's laced with is still humorous and holds up relatively well, the scripting for the more suspenseful scenes is good too and doesn't detract. The story is not perfect, but is mostly interesting and suspenseful, with some great scenes like the chair scene, the dentist scene and the climax. The cast are good generally, Peter Lorre is the definite standout managing to be creepy with a dose of humanity also. Leslie Banks carries the film well, a deliberately emotionally compressed performance but not a wooden one. Edna Best is moving and sympathetic in her role, while Hugh Wakefield is a hoot. Nora Pilbeam did come across as an annoying brat at first but as she grew more resourceful and somewhat feisty she does become less so. All in all, classic Hitchcock it isn't quite, but very good Hitchcock it is. 8/10 Bethany Cox