Diagonaldi Very well executed

Ploydsge just watch it!

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

robert-temple-1 In 1956, twenty-two years later, Alfred Hitchcock filmed this story again under the same title, with James Stewart and Doris Day, and I shall review that at some point for comparison. This is the original, and it is quintessentially English in every respect (unlike the later one). The film is especially notable for the first appearance in an English language film of Peter Lorre. Hitchcock had always been an admirer of German cinema, especially of the films of Murnau, and he had spotted Lorre's performance in Fritz Lang's film "M" (1931). Lorre spoke his lines in English with a pronounced accent, because he had not yet learned the language and had to memorise the words in what was to him still a foreign tongue. His performance is brilliant, subtle, menacing and haunting. Hitchcock 'got it' and was happy to use intense closeups of Lorre's face when he was reacting without speaking, catching every gleam of his eyes and every twitch of his facial muscles, as he communicated his paranoid psychotic moods and reactions silently. Lorre's performance helped raise this film above the level of a mere suspense film to something more profound, something with a smell of sulphur about it. Hitchcock was never strong on characterisation, and he left it to his actors. In this instance, Lorre gave one of the finest performances of his career. Lorre here thrives on being allowed to pace his own silences and his own apparently random movements, to let his eyes wander round a room inexplicably, to simmer, to seethe but conceal it, to refrain from answering people, and to react in an abnormal manner to almost anything which arose in conversation. The casual way in which he announces that a young girl must die is made more chilling because he has established so thoroughly that he is entirely mad and unpredictable. The excessive politeness with which he treats people before he orders them killed is a disturbingly deranged portrayal of a gentleman, in this case a 'gentleman killer'. There is a sense in which the incompetent generals of the First World War, still fresh in everyone's memory, while minding their manners and behaving with impeccable formality, and being at the same time responsible for the deaths of millions, were 'gentleman killers'. Hitchcock's lifelong obsession with the menace which lies beneath the surface of daily life and its appearances meant that he knew that formality could disguise the greatest and most monstrous wickedness. Lorre here personifies that possibility. The child actress Nova Pilbeam is very good as the kidnapped daughter of the leading couple in this bizarre political assassination drama. She would work with Hitchcock once again three years later, in YOUNG AND INNOCENT (1937). Although she retired as an actress in 1951, Pilbeam lived to the age of 95 and only died as recently as 2015. I suppose she must have been interviewed for her memories of Hitchcock at some time or other, but if so I have never come across any account of her memories. This film begins at St. Moritz in Switzerland, not for any particular reason, but then Hitchcock films generally do dash from place to place, and St. Moritz was a favourite holiday destination of Hitchcock. A British secret agent is killed there, and as he is dying, he gasps to Edna Best, the female lead, that she must save a piece of paper hidden in his shaving brush and take it to his bosses in London. Thus she and her husband, played by Leslie Banks, become swept up in trying to prevent a plot to kill a foreign statesman at a concert at London's Royal Albert Hall (called 'A. Hall' in the secret note, which at first is thus thought to be a man's name). Vicious international spies thus threaten the peaceful existence of the couple, kidnap their teenage daughter to stop the exposing the plot, and a complex story leaps from sensation to sensation, as we have the tension rise steadily, leading up to the planned assassination. This was the first true 'Hitchcock suspense picture' in the classic sense that the public came to expect from him for the rest of his career. It is well done, tightly put together, never lets up the tension, shows Hitchcock's cinematic genius clearly, and even though it is very much a period piece, remains a powerful 'early Hitchcock' classic which is compulsive viewing.

bbmtwist Chronologically this is the third of Hitchcock's suspense masterworks (after THE LODGER and MURDER!) and comes at the beginning of the last third of his UK work.It is a well-paced thriller with a now famously well-known set up. Common man becomes inadvertently drawn into a world of crime. Here a couple learn of an assassination plot and are silenced by the kidnapping of their daughter. Hitchcock himself remade this 22 years later and 45 minutes longer. The plot of Depp's NICK OF TIME also borrows the same narrative.Early on a clever joke involving a piece of knitting sets up a series of laughs, interrupted by the murder. There is the clever switch around of lethal dentist and searching father; the communication of instructions masquerading as hymn lyrics; a fight involving mission chairs; the villain visibly touched by the reunion of father and daughter; the classic Albert Hall assassination scream; the use of a chiming watch to betray its owner – all these are brilliant bits of business introduced by Hitchcock to make the narrative unusual, interesting and wrought with unexpected turns.The whole business except the rescue of the daughter is accomplished at the one hour mark with the remaining fifteen minutes involving the final stake-out, shoot-out and rescue. It is the second use of a rooftop scenario (after BLACKMAIL) to end a Hitchcock film.Most telling is the performance of Peter Lorre as the villain. While all the other actors are playing with great earnestness, Lorre is laid back, nonchalant, careless with ease, making his particular villain a stand-out among the genre. Had there been film awards in those days, his performance would have deserved a nod in the best supporting actor category.It is quite briskly resolved at exactly 1:15. A top notch Hitch suspense thriller and still highly enjoyable.

ElMaruecan82 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

Syl Sir Alfred Hitchcock later remade this film version but this is worth seeing. Peter Lorre is one of my favorite character actors who plays a villain here. I just love Lorre's voice. Edna Best and Leslie Banks play a couple whose teenage daughter is abducted for ransom. The film might be dated but it is worth watching his earlier work. This film shows the dark side of human nature. The scene in the church where it's first to be authentic but is actually a front turns to be dark comedic in the film. We don't see women involved in such illegal and immoral activities. The cast here are mostly known for British theatrical backgrounds. Nova Pilbeam plays the kidnapped daughter. Hitchcock was known for bring his usual favorite actors and actresses in his films . They may not be leads but they're always welcome to me.