230. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
You know, to a man with a heart as soft as mine, there's nothing sweeter than a touching scene.
Title: The Man Who Knew Too Much
Date Watched: 8/11/2013
Original Ranking Out of 10: N/A
Revised Ranking Out of 10: 7
Synopsis: While vacationing in Switzerland, a couple becomes involved in an assassination plot after witnessing a murder and having their child kidnapped.
The Good: Early Hitchcock shows hints of what was to come later on in his career. Some really clever pieces and nice use of set-up and pay-off. Any time Peter Lorre is in a movie, it's worth watching. Usually.
The Bad: Climax kind of lost me -- It's hard to pay attention when none of the main characters are around. Acting was kind of hokey and, though Hitchcock is Hitchcock, the filmic techniques in the 1930's were pretty rough (worse than the 1920's because they had to figure out ways of hiding the microphones).
Why Do I Own This Movie?: Barnes and Noble Criterion 50% off sale.
Should I Still Own This Movie?: Yes.
What Did I Notice That I Didn't Notice Before?: The plot doesn't hold together at all. In neither the original nor in the remake. By the end, I had a bunch of questions, mostly involving the bad guys' plan and how easily it could have been foiled.
Other Impressions: I've been on a Hitchcock kick for a while now. It's not just that his movies were revolutionary for their time, it's that they still stand the test of time so well. The original Man Who Knew Too Much is probably a little too talky to be placed alongside modern thrillers (And what was the deal in the past with villains who offer such hospitality to our heroes? Aren't they supposed to be *bad* guys?), and it lacks the ambition of the remake, but it's a fairly tight little movie and, for what it's worth, it's still effective, 80 years later.
With that in mind, this is very much a refrigerator movie -- it works while you're watching it, but later that evening while you're looking in the fridge for something to eat, your mind goes, "Wait a minute..." and you have about a million questions about the plot. For instance, couldn't the spy have just called his agency to let them know about the assassination attempt, rather than hide the paper in his shaving brush? And, knowing that somebody revealed their plans, couldn't the evil organization just schedule it for another time or place? Or let the previous plan be a decoy and knock off the ambassador on his way to the?... oh, never mind.
These are all minor issues, in the scheme of things, what a lot of moviegoers think they're being clever by pointing out. What I admired about The Man Who Knew Too Much is how it jumps right into the story without really explaining who these characters are or how they relate so that the audience gets to figure it out while the plot is in motion, rather than before. I'm still not 100% sure who benefits from the assassination, but I also don't feel like sitting through a lengthy monologue attempting to explain it.
At any rate, this is Hitchcock right on the cusp of his becoming Hitchcock. Following this movie, he made his first genuine masterpiece (in my opinion): The 39 Steps. Shortly after that, Sabotage (not a great movie, but there's an amazing and ballsy sequence in there) and The Lady Vanishes. And, then, in the 1940's, that's when he started getting *really* good.
The List
Title: The Man Who Knew Too Much
Date Watched: 8/11/2013
Original Ranking Out of 10: N/A
Revised Ranking Out of 10: 7
Synopsis: While vacationing in Switzerland, a couple becomes involved in an assassination plot after witnessing a murder and having their child kidnapped.
The Good: Early Hitchcock shows hints of what was to come later on in his career. Some really clever pieces and nice use of set-up and pay-off. Any time Peter Lorre is in a movie, it's worth watching. Usually.
The Bad: Climax kind of lost me -- It's hard to pay attention when none of the main characters are around. Acting was kind of hokey and, though Hitchcock is Hitchcock, the filmic techniques in the 1930's were pretty rough (worse than the 1920's because they had to figure out ways of hiding the microphones).
Why Do I Own This Movie?: Barnes and Noble Criterion 50% off sale.
Should I Still Own This Movie?: Yes.
What Did I Notice That I Didn't Notice Before?: The plot doesn't hold together at all. In neither the original nor in the remake. By the end, I had a bunch of questions, mostly involving the bad guys' plan and how easily it could have been foiled.
Other Impressions: I've been on a Hitchcock kick for a while now. It's not just that his movies were revolutionary for their time, it's that they still stand the test of time so well. The original Man Who Knew Too Much is probably a little too talky to be placed alongside modern thrillers (And what was the deal in the past with villains who offer such hospitality to our heroes? Aren't they supposed to be *bad* guys?), and it lacks the ambition of the remake, but it's a fairly tight little movie and, for what it's worth, it's still effective, 80 years later.
With that in mind, this is very much a refrigerator movie -- it works while you're watching it, but later that evening while you're looking in the fridge for something to eat, your mind goes, "Wait a minute..." and you have about a million questions about the plot. For instance, couldn't the spy have just called his agency to let them know about the assassination attempt, rather than hide the paper in his shaving brush? And, knowing that somebody revealed their plans, couldn't the evil organization just schedule it for another time or place? Or let the previous plan be a decoy and knock off the ambassador on his way to the?... oh, never mind.
These are all minor issues, in the scheme of things, what a lot of moviegoers think they're being clever by pointing out. What I admired about The Man Who Knew Too Much is how it jumps right into the story without really explaining who these characters are or how they relate so that the audience gets to figure it out while the plot is in motion, rather than before. I'm still not 100% sure who benefits from the assassination, but I also don't feel like sitting through a lengthy monologue attempting to explain it.
At any rate, this is Hitchcock right on the cusp of his becoming Hitchcock. Following this movie, he made his first genuine masterpiece (in my opinion): The 39 Steps. Shortly after that, Sabotage (not a great movie, but there's an amazing and ballsy sequence in there) and The Lady Vanishes. And, then, in the 1940's, that's when he started getting *really* good.
The List