The Man Who Knew Too Much

1956

Action / Drama / Thriller

Plot summary


Uploaded by: FREEMAN

Top cast

Alfred Hitchcock Photo
Alfred Hitchcock as Man in Marrakesh Marketplace
James Stewart Photo
James Stewart as Dr. Benjamin McKenna
Carolyn Jones Photo
Carolyn Jones as Cindy Fontaine
Doris Day Photo
Doris Day as Josephine Conway McKenna
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
975.77 MB
1280*694
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
2 hr 0 min
P/S 0 / 6
1.88 GB
1920*1040
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
2 hr 0 min
P/S 1 / 14

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by AlsExGal6 / 10

I know this is an unpopular opinion BUT...

..to me The Man Who Knew Too Much is nothing more than Hitchcock's often repeated theme of mistaken identity or guilt by association. The bad guys see Stewart with the government agent and they just assume he (Stewart) has some relationship with him. And they don't know if in his dying moment the agent passed any information on to Stewart. He did say a few words, but Stewart has no idea what its all about.

It could have ended right there but when the bad guys kidnap Stewart's child, he has no choice but to get involved and solve the mystery. And he's caught between working with the bad guys or the cops. Sounds like North By Northwest, Saboteur, I Confess (a definitely underappreciated Hitchcock film),and Strangers On A Train. Ordinary man in extraordinary situation.

Hitchcock returns to familiar collaborator Jimmy Stewart, who never disappoints, especially when working with Hitch. And Hitchcock needs Stewart's acting talents, because this remake of his 1934 film may be more polished, but it also seems more dragged out than the original.

Hitchcock sticks his neck out a bit by casting Doris Day as Stewart's wife, but the two of them share a believable rapport as husband and wife, and she displays a more impressive range than in some of the fluffy romantic comedies with which she is more generally associated.

Reviewed by The_Void8 / 10

The master of thrills delivers another thrilling masterwork....almost

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.

Reviewed by MartinHafer7 / 10

very entertaining but I liked the original more in many ways,...

This isn't among my favorite Hitchcock films, though I must admit it's still pretty good. Among the things I really liked were the presence of Jimmy Stewart (he always improves even the most mediocre material) and the incredibly scary looking assassin (who looks like a skeleton with just a thin layer of skin stretched over him). Although it cost the studio a lot of money, I didn't particularly care for Doris Day in the film--she seemed to weep a lot and belts out "Que Sera" like a fullback. Yes, I know that she was supposed to sing in that manner, but this forever made me hate this song. Sorry.

The other complaint, though minor, I had about the movie was that it was a little "too polished" and "Hollywood-esque". The original version (also done by Hitchcock) just seemed a lot grittier and seedier--and this added to the scary ambiance.

Read more IMDb reviews