IMDb user comments for
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 15:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

147 comments in total

---

39 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
Star Power Carries the Remake, 23 July 2001
Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio

Both versions of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" have their strong points, and are well worth watching. This 1950's remake is carried mostly by its star power, with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day being convincing and very sympathetic as the parents of the kidnapped child. It also has more lavish settings and better (not just because it is color) photography than the earlier version. On the other hand, it lacks the wittiness of the British version, and moves more slowly.

The remake spends much more time setting up the story than the original did, with the family spending a lot of time on their vacation in Morocco before the crisis occurs. It makes possible some colorful scenery and settings, and allows you to get to know the family a bit more, although the quicker pace in the original established more tension and kept your attention throughout. The Albert Hall sequence works well in both films, with this one having the added bonus of allowing the audience to see Bernard Herrmann, who wrote so many great scores for Hitchcock's films, conducting the orchestra.

Despite having essentially the same story, the two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" have a much different feel. Which one you prefer is largely a matter of taste - while neither is usually considered among Hitchcock's very best, they are both good movies with a lot of strong points. Take a look at both if you have the chance.

---

33 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Que Sera Sera, 23 May 2006

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

The original The Man Who Knew Too Much brought Alfred Hitchcock acclaim for the first time outside of the United Kingdom. Of course part of the reason for the acclaim was that folks marveled how Hitchcock on such a skimpy budget as compared to lavish Hollywood products was able to provide so much on the screen. The original film was shot inside a studio.

For whatever reason he chose this of all his films to remake, Hitchcock now with an international reputation and a big Hollywood studio behind him (Paramount)decided to see what The Man Who Knew Too Much would be like with a lavish budget. This is shot on location in Marrakesh and London and has two big international names for box office. This was James Stewart's third of four Hitchcock films and his only teaming with Doris Day and her only Hitchcock film.

I do wonder why Hitchcock never used Doris again. At first glance she would fit the profile of blond leading ladies that Hitchcock favored. Possibly because her wholesome screen image was at odds with the sophistication Hitchcock also wanted in his blondes.

Doris does some of her best acting ever in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her best scene is when her doctor husband James Stewart gives her a sedative before telling her their son has been kidnapped by an English couple who befriended them in Morocco. Stewart and Day play off each other beautifully in that scene. But Doris especially as she registers about four different emotions at once.

Day and Stewart are on vacation with their son Christopher Olsen in Morocco and they make the acquaintance of Frenchman Daniel Gelin and the aforementioned English couple, Bernard Miles and Brenda DaBanzie. Gelin is stabbed in the back at a market place in Marrakesh and whispers some dying words to Stewart about an assassination to take place in Albert Hall in London. Their child is snatched in order to insure their silence.

For the only time I can think of a hit song came out of a Hitchcock film. Doris in fact plays a noted singer who retired from the stage to be wife and mother. The song was Que Sera Sera and I remember it well at the age of 9. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing it in 1956, it even competed with the fast rising Elvis Presley that year. Que Sera Sera won the Academy Award for Best Song beating out such titles as True Love from High Society and the title song from Around the World in 80 Days. It became Doris Day's theme song for the rest of her life and still is should she ever want to come back.

In fact the song is worked quite nicely into the plot as Doris sings it at an embassy party at the climax.

Instead of doing it with mirrors, Hitchcock shot the assassination scene at the real Albert Hall and like another reviewer said it's not directed, it's choreographed. You'll be hanging on your seats during that moment.

This was remake well worth doing.

---

36 out of 56 people found the following comment useful :-
The master of thrills delivers another thrilling masterwork....almost, 9 December 2004

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England

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.

---

23 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
A thrilling climax at London's Royal Albert Hall..., 2 July 2003

Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Many people have the irritating habit of dying before completing a vital message, thus confusing the hero, not to mention the audience...

Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and his wife Jo, a former musical star (Doris Day) are vacationing in Morocco with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen), when they meet Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, a British couple (Brenda de Banzie and Bernard Miles). They are also befriended by a charming Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin), who invites them to dinner but then cancels at the last minute...

The MacKennas go to a restaurant and end up having their meal with the Draytons, when they spot Louis Bernard...

The next day in the market place, they are caught in an assassination intrigue... While they are wandering in the local market, the crowds suddenly scatter to reveal an Arab fleeing from his pursuers... Dr. McKenna stands amazed as the Arab falls into his arms, a knife sticking out of his back...

Gulping his last breath, the dying man mutters some words and collapses... Dr. McKenna is completely taken aback when the Arab's hood falls from his head and he is revealed as Bernard in disguise... McKenna is left knowing too little, but as far as the assassins are concerned, too much...

To prevent Dr. McKenna from revealing what he knows, the conspirators kidnap his son as a hostage... The film is primarily concerned with the dilemma of kidnapping—how to get the little boy back safely... The subplot about the assassination is just the setup...

The film is a breathless escapade... The death of Bernard comes suddenly and points out that death comes when we least expect it...

Stewart is charged with emotion as the Midwestern doctor, accidentally involved in political intrigue... His perceptive facial expressions and indignant delivery made him convincingly human—a person we could easily identify with... It is his temperament that actually sets the pace for the entire film...

By 1956, the lovely Doris Day had won increasing esteem as an actress as well as a singer... She had been particularly strong opposite James Cagney in the Ruth Etting's biopic, 'Love Me or Leave Me,' but she was still unsure of her basic Thespian talents...

The casting of character actor Reggie Malder as the assassin, is brilliant... The man looks like a menace and his effusive portrayal radiates evil...

---

23 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
Perfect., 18 December 2002
Author: sibisi73 from United Kingdom

All the trademark Hitchcock elements are in place yet again, for a wonderful example of crowd-pleasing from the man who knew better than anyone just how to work an audience. James Stewart, everyone's perfect everyman returns to familiar ground, with the perfect wife (Doris Day, perfect casting), and perfect family. Into this chocolate box world is thrown some dangerous information, and a downward spiral of kidnap and murder.

As usual, there are the elaborately staged set-pieces, and the intimate psychoanalysis that you would expect. Here, the assassination sequence in the Royal Albert Hall provides the former - a beautifully choreographed blend of music and images building to the pivotal crash of cymbals, and the scenes in Morocco the latter, as our couple become obliviously embroiled in international espionage. It is hard to find fault with any of Hitchcock's contrivances (using the Oscar-winning 'Whatever Will Be' as a plot device to get Doris singing is almost too much, but forgivable), and the the whole cast are superb, giving incredibly naturalistic performances - see the scene in the Moroccan restaurant, which almost seems ad-libbed.

One of Hitchcock's best.

---

18 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Americans abroad, 3 November 2005

Author: jotix100 from New York

Alfred Hitchcock shows originality in the remake of his own 1934 British film, "The Man Who Knew Too Much". This 1956 take on the same story is much lighter than the previous one. Mr. Hitchcock was lucky in having collaborators that went with him from one film to the next, thus keeping a standard in his work. Robert Burks did an excellent job with the cinematography and George Tomasini's editing shows his talent. Ultimately, Bernard Herrmann is seen conducting at the magnificent Royal Albert Hall in London at the climax of the picture.

James Stewart was an actor that worked well with Mr. Hitchcock. In this version, he plays a doctor from Indiana on vacation with his wife and son. When we meet him, they are on their way to Marrakesh in one local bus and the intrigue begins. His wife is the lovely Doris Day at her best. She had been a well known singer before her marriage and now is the perfect wife and mother. The film has some good supporting cast, Brenda DeBanzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gelin, Alan Mowbray, among others, do a great job in portraying their characters.

Although this is a "light Hitchcock", one can't dismiss it as a failure. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a change of pace for Hitchcock's fans.

---

16 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Under-rated suspense masterwork., 16 January 2001
Author: Glenn Andreiev (gandreiev@aol.com) from Huntington, NY

When you start watching the 1956 version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, you'll think it's a minor work by Alfred Hitchcock. The countless scenes showing a lovely, but buffoonish vacationing American couple (James Stewart, Doris Day) seem to lead nowhere. But, hold on, about thirty minutes into the film, during a very dreamlike murder sequence (which takes place in bright sunlight, and involves blue paint) the film really takes off. Personally, I find the opening "character development" sequence between protagonists James Stewart and Doris Day very charming. It sets you up for the second and third acts of the film. You get to like this couple so much, you are raelly rooting for them as they try to rescue their kidnapped son amidst a plot to assassinate a visiting diplomat. Of course, the high-point of the film is the assassination itself, a twelve minute wordless sequence. Hitchcock beautifully brings us back to silent film! The ending, which involves a rescue at an embassy, is wonderfully silly and tense. For those not familiar with Hitchcock, this is Hitchcock's own remake of a film he made under the same title in 1934 in England. This is one of my favorite Hitchcock films. It's proof that this master loved his audience and wanted to keep them thrilled!

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
A Highly Entertaining Thriller, 6 July 2000

Author: Chris Thomas (mr_chris@theglobe.com) from Kentucky, USA

Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including "Rear Window", "Dial M For Murder", "Vertigo", and "To Catch A Thief", as well as this film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, "Yes, dear", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm.

There were some really clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly. It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder).

Some little touches that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog, especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in "To Catch A Thief"); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of "Spellbound", also).

All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch. It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films ("Vertigo", "Strangers on a Train"), but all the same it is one of my top five Hitchcock masterpieces.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Handsome Hitchcock thriller, but far too doddering..., 16 October 2007

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

Alfred Hitchcock's remake of his own 1934 suspense-drama comes dangerously close to being an hysterical melodrama instead of a thriller, as The Master of Suspense is far too leisurely in working this convoluted plot up to a boil. American couple James Stewart and Doris Day (a convincing husband and wife) are swept up in an assassination plot while vacationing in Morocco, and are frantic when their young son is kidnapped. Despite Hitch's usual class and an exceptionally handsome production design, the film has few thrills. Scenes drag on interminably, the characters mumble and shoot terse looks at each other, but the threads of the story are kept far too opaque, and only the star-leads are able to hold interest. Doris introduces the big hit song "Que Sera, Sera", which serves as a plot-function and yet gets perhaps too much screen-time here. **1/2 from ****

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Hitchcock! - The Musical, 7 August 2006

Author: laika-lives from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

A film that tends to get buried under prejudice and preconception - It's a remake! Doris Day is in it! She sings! - Hitchcock's second crack at 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is his most under-rated film, and arguably a fully fledged masterpiece in its own right.

This is, in more ways than one, Doris Day's film. Not only does she give the finest performance of her career, more than holding her own against James Stewart, but the whole film is subtly structured around her character rather than his. This is, after all, a film in which music is both motif and plot device. What better casting than the most popular singer of her generation? Consider: Day's Jo McKenna has given up her career on the stage in order to settle down with her husband and raise their son. This seems to be a mutual decision, and she doesn't appear to be unhappy. But look at the way Stewart teases her in the horse-drawn carriage over her concerns about Louis Bernard, implying that she is jealous that Bernard wasn't asking her any questions about her career. This is clearly a recurrent joke between them - she responds with a 'har-de-har-har' that denotes the familiarity of this gag, suggesting that she has a certain latent resentment about her confinement, and that they both realise it.

After their son has been kidnapped, Stewart insists on doping her before giving her the news. This is a cruel scene, brilliantly played by both actors, which illustrates the power imbalance in their marriage - he is seeking to control and subdue her reactions, in essence using his professional knowledge to suppress her voice in the marriage just as his medical career has suppressed her singing career.

The potency of that voice is demonstrated in the Ambrose Chapel sequence, when she has to reign in its highly trained clarity and volume to blend in with the congregation of female drudges - they almost act as a warning of what will become of her if she continues to suppress her talent. At the Albert Hall, it is her need to cry out, to exercise those impressive lungs, that saves a man's life, and in the Embassy finale, it is her talent and reputation that allows them to locate their son. By contrast, all of Stewart's masculine activity is counterproductive - his visit to the taxidermist is a dead end, he gets left behind at the church whilst everyone else moves on to the Albert Hall, and his efforts there only succeed in getting the assassin killed, thus depriving the Police of potentially useful information. It is only when his action is joined to his wife's voice, in the rescue of Hank from the embassy, that he actually succeeds in doing something useful.

Far from being forced into the film to give Day an opportunity to sing, 'Que Sera Sera' acts as the first musical device in the film, foreshadowing the nightmare that is about to engulf the McKennas; 'the future's not ours to see' indeed. It also neatly prepares the way for the finale, in which the close bond mother and son share through music will allow Doris to save the day.

The most famous sequence in the film makes music the central feature - the build up to the assassination attempt in the Albert Hall. This lengthy wordless sequence may be the single most extraordinary thing Hitchcock committed to film, the ultimate expression of his belief that films should be stories told visually. We see people conduct conversations in this sequence, but we never hear a word they say. We don't need to - the images say everything. It is also his most exquisite suspense sequence, with the pieces moving slowly into place as the music builds. The editing is incredibly tight, matched to the music perfectly. There isn't a frame out of place - anything that doesn't relate directly to the assassination is giving the viewer a sense of the environment, the geography in which all this is playing out. It builds slowly, but by the end the suspense is nearly unbearable. When Jo screams, it isn't just a relief for her, but for the audience.

The Ambrose Chapel sequence is witty, and particularly effective for anyone who has had to sit through a service at a particularly stick-in-the-mud Nonconformist church. The Embassy sequence seems a little flat after the Albert Hall one that preceded it on first viewing, but second time around actually seems more effective, with the final walk at gunpoint really benefiting from the gorgeous use of Day singing in the background, reminiscent of the music-as-ambient-noise in 'Rear Window'. The score as a whole is subtle, allowing the music from on-screen sources to be foregrounded effectively.

Bernard Miles is a low-key villain, a little banal, but with a dry wit. He's outshone by Brenda de Banzie as his wife, who walks a fine line between sinister and sympathetic. Just look at the way she smokes a cigarette whilst her husband preps the assassin - her stance is pure gangster's moll, belying the Middle-England exterior, but she clearly has a soft side, and possibly maternal feelings towards Hank.

Stewart is excellent, although if Hitchcock really did always cast him as 'Everyman', as the Director's daughter seems to think, then it confirms that Hitchcock had a cynical view of his audience. Stewart played a hypocritical intellectual who espoused fascist ideology in Rope, a voyeur who mistreated his girlfriend in Rear Window and an obsessive necrophiliac in Vertigo. Day is nothing short of phenomenal. Just look at her reaction to the news that her son has been kidnapped - she never overdoes anything, but neither does she sell it short. This is one of Hitchcock's most emotionally effective films. He never lets us forget what the stakes are for the McKennas; they feel the most fully human of all his central characters.

---

---

Page 1 of 15:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history