Excellent but underrated film

Absolutely Brilliant!

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Saw the original, saw the remake, well, let's just say that If Hitchcock remade his own movie, that might be because he felt that some aspects were too dated or far below the level of perfectionism upon which he built his reputation.To give you an example: there's an overlong chair fight which is so bizarre and grotesque you don't know if you're supposed to laugh or to be thrilled, I guess it was meant to be funny, but it's like Hitchcock never knows exactly where to go. And even comedy requires a good timing in the execution so I couldn't believe my eyes and had to rewind the scene. When Lawrence (the father played by Leslie Banks) gets his friend Clive off the temple, he's hit on the shoulder, he freezes and then acts as if he was hurt in the head. I know this is the 30's, and I didn't let modern standards affect my opinion, the ski accident was quite well made for the time and at least Hitch had the guts to try something, Pierre Fresnay's death scene was awkward but it could work, and I didn't have a problem either with Edna Baker's fainting and hitting the floor with her arm first, but that chair moment, as trivial as it was, was too much for me. All right, there can be mistakes in movies, but not in something of the caliber of "The Man Who Knew Too Much".See, it's precisely because I was drawn by the film that I'm so critical. I loved the witty interactions within the couple, especially in these awesome scenes where Jill was both flirting with the ski champion and teasing Lawrence. And talk about Hitch's mischievous mind, just when we had enjoyed the little knitting prank, the murder happens and the story picks up and, unfortunately, this is where the movie gets itself in the situations where the likeliness of goofs and mistakes increases. But it's a shame because the beginning is so beyond the 30's standards that I felt disappointed when it became as cheesy and laughable as a 30's film. So if we feel the film is dated, it's precisely because it starts with non-dated elements. And one of the most modern aspects is Peter Lorre, who, half a century before Alan Rickman in "Die Hard", plays the sophisticated and friendly-at-first-sight villain, getting more and more sinister as the plot advances. Peter Lorre is half the rating the film gets.And his performance is so immense it dwarfs all the others, which were good actually. Edna Best had that average type look that magnified her strength as a mother, making her revenge at the end even more savory, going from "Never raise any children" to holding her traumatized girl in the arms, and Nova Pilbeam was actually quite convincing in the daughter's role, I've seen kids acting worse in later movies so let's give her the credit for that. I also discovered a new actress, Cicely Oates who played the intimidating Nurse Agnes, and I was saddened to know she passed away the year of the film's release; it's a pity because she could have been a great Mrs. Danvers, and I just love the eyes of Lorre witnessing her sudden death during the shootout. She and the actor who played the killer were worthy additions to an already complete villain... which leads me to the most problematic character: the father.I have nothing negative to say about Leslie Banks, but I have nothing eulogistic either, from his constant frowning in the first act, he struck me as a continually malcontent character, one who considered his wife a burden more than anything else, but after the kidnapping, nothing really seemed to affect him. Granted he was supposed to be the stronger one, but I wish he could display more emotional range, even in the most critical situations, his expressions were the same, as if he deliberately chose the one that could pass everywhere, whether during a shootout or over the course of his investigation. Speaking of this investigation, I know Hitch has a wicked sense of humor and it was fun to hear that Clive guy scream at the dentist, being hypnotized or the two men using exchanging crucial instructions while pretending to sing, but I couldn't buy that from a father whose daughter's life was at stakes. Oh well, let's just say it was fun, but for the sake of the dark atmosphere and the whole black-and-white thing, they should have stuck to a more sinister tone, even the dentist's scene is quite under-exploited when you consider its potential. It's only near the end, just when you think the climax would consist on the cymbal crashing and the attempted murder that the film delivers a terrific shootout sequence, and quite a violent one, that had many cops getting killed (which was quite new for the time). But the gunfight goes so long that again, it allows some goofs and mistakes to be done, especially the laughable way the characters die. It's all in the execution, and I guess Hitch was only warming up before starting to be more perfectionist in his work.By the way, am I the only one who finds the film a bit prophetic, as it centers on the assassination of a Head of State during an official visit, in 1934, the same year the King of Yugoslavia was assassinated during his visit in France, and it was the first time the camera's eye caught such an event. Speaking of this, would really a man like the father not know about Sarajevo and the Archduke assassination that lead to World War 1 as the script suggests. I mean the film was made at a time where everyone lived the Great War, so I find it highly unlikely that people wouldn't know about its starting point, especially for a man who was supposed to know too much

In honor of Alfred Hitchcock's birthday I decided to sit down and watch one of his earlier films, the original The Man Who Knew Too Much. it's nowhere near as polished as his later classics but there is still some entertainment to be had. The premise is very similar to what he tackled in later ventures. It deals with a man and his family who get caught up in a murder and end up 'knowing too much'.One of the problems early on in the film is that most of the leading men all look similar. That is, except for the brilliant Peter Lorre. His character is filled with mystery so I wont spoil anything but I think he was the main bright spot in the film. He stole every scene he was in and then some. Leslie Banks was very reminiscent of Fred MacMurray in Double Indemnity with his vulnerability but also how slick he can be as well. The plot of the film ends up being a bit too convoluted for a Hitchcock film, but I was nonetheless impressed by some of the feats he was able to pull off in such an early time in his career. The main one being the end gun battle. Now, the actual scene itself is far bigger than the actual film, so it can seem out of place. But you have to commemorate Hitchcock on his ambition here.So I enjoyed my time watching the film although it's not constructed very well at all. I give Hitchcock a pass and just hope when I watch his own remake of the film it turns out better.+Impressive for a 1934 Hitchcock film +Lorre's performance -Slow at times &convoluted plot 6.7/10

An interesting oddity is my take on this film. Acting is generally poor, especially Edna Best (an early example of a Hitchcock blond) , who behaves like a silent movie star out her depth in talkies. The pace is often pedestrian although I did enjoy "The Siege of Sidney Street" like finale. At times, the despicable foreign baddies and the oh so respectable goodies talk to each other as though attending a genteel cocktail party. Some of the deliberate humour is well done, although some scenes such as the chair fight are unintentionally hilarious. Like many Hitchcock films, across his career, there are moments of movie brilliance and others of almost amateurish ineptitude. Worth a look for a rather portly Peter Lorre whose hair and teeth are a joy to behold!Brief real-life views of 1930's London also interesting.

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