Newton Chayenkuwa on 24 April at 09:47Report abuse

fantastic film

Lilia Di Lauro on 03 March at 12:03Report abuse

Very interesting the music choice on this B/W movies !!! :) love it..

Lilia Di Lauro on 03 March at 12:03Report abuse

Very interesting the music choice on this B/W movies !!! :) love it..

Binam Wanem Limbu on 01 March at 11:47Report abuse

nice

Achong on 29 February at 06:31Report abuse

not yet seen, would like to download first, help me..........

Iwan tanama on 09 January at 00:29Report abuse

IS OKE

Ibe Chukwudi Mofci on 18 November at 11:19Report abuse

cool

Samuel Dovi on 16 November at 08:28Report abuse

Its a nice moving i love it

Nick Fury on 08 November at 08:25Report abuse

This is a classic, all film lovers should watch this!

FORMAN on 27 October at 10:41Report abuse

JHCG

Tilibasa Laura on 25 October at 07:20Report abuse

fain da mai intai sal vad

mianmuddsar on 28 July at 00:30Report abuse

nice....

sriskantharajah on 07 June at 08:22Report abuse

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH IT'S VERY FANTASTIC REALL FILLM

muktaakter on 23 May at 03:28Report abuse

the man who knew too much he was very intelligent.i like him

Everett Jones on 05 May at 14:34Report abuse

“Let’s say that the first version was the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional.” So said Alfred Hitchcock, speaking to his younger admirer and up-and-coming French New Wave filmmaker Francois Truffaut for the famous HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT interview book, in trying to stake out some ground and define his unusual position as the remaker of his own movie. By this time, his original 1934 THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, shot while he was still working out of his native London, had been supplanted by a bigger-budgeted, Hollywood-backed version in 1956 starring James Stewart and Doris Day. Hitchcock’s comment was not quite a repudiation of his older movie, however, so much as it was a response to his admirer’s feeling, one still generally shared by classic film fans, that the later MAN pretty well blew the first MAN out of the water. Certainly it’s true that the 1956 movie shows a director at the height of his powers, and the 1934 movie a talent still in the process of developing to that point. It could be added, however, that Hitchcock’s sheer inventiveness as a filmmaker, at any point in his career, ensures that even when two of his films share essentially the same spine of plot they can stand on their own, and that one could be watched after the other with surprisingly little repetition.

It helps that, as with most Hitchcock movies, the story is little more than a pretext for the director’s deliciously macabre sense of wit. Instead of the still-familiar Stewart and Day, the original gives us the now-forgotten starring duo of Leslie Banks and Edna Best as a vacationing upper-class English couple, Bob and Jill Lawrence, who innocently wander into the crossfire of international intrigue. Staying at a hotel in the Alps with their teenaged daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam) while Jill participates in a sharpshooting contest, they becomes friends with Louis (Pierre Fresnay), who unbeknownst to them is gathering intelligence on the planned assassination of a diplomat in London. Murdered before he can pass on what he has learned to his superiors, Louis manages to give his warning instead to Jill as he dies in her arms. The Lawrences’ lips are quickly sealed, however, when the conspirators kidnap Betty. They head back to London, as do the villains, unsure of whether to stay silent to save their daughter’s life or to act toward saving another man’s.

Despite the change in nationality for the main characters, the remake preserves the London setting, with the rationalization that Day’s character, not unlike herself, is an internationally known singer. Hitchcock and his writers also preserved a crucial aspect of how London is used in the story, namely the setting of a concert in Albert Hall for the planned hit. It’s striking, however, when seeing the less well-remembered British original how few pieces of business and detail the filmmaker carried over from one project to another. In particular, the 1934 movie stands out for being far more swiftly paced, running forty-five minutes less than its successor and in this way possibly confounding casual film viewers’ ideas of how filmmaking has evolved over time. The opening murder, later enacted as an elaborate foot-chase ending with death by dagger, plays out in the 1934 MAN in just a single shot (one later referenced in the opening of INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM). Hitchcock uses insert shots of the daughter’s belongings, such as a model train set and a little figurine, to convey the parents’ anxiety.

Looking at the two movies in concert can also be enjoyable for showing how much they were equally of their time. Stewart and Day’s characters, the McKennas, seem very much Americans of the prosperous, powerful but anxiety-laden decade of the ‘50s, perhaps a little condescending to the country they’re travelling in at the beginning (Morocco) and quick to meet crises with pharmaceuticals. The Lawrences are equally of their period, as insouciant as you’d expect from an upper-class British couple and more assured about travel abroad. With Jill’s pursuit of a stereotypically male pursuit, in the form of sharpshooting, there’s perhaps the hint of a threat to Bob’s masculinity, increased by his wife’s half-joking flirtation in front of him with the suave, Continental Louis. By contrast, James Stewart’s protagonist seems far more forthright in his sense of male privilege and upper hand in his marriage. When the story returns to London in the 1934 film, thus, there’s a stronger sense of Bob reasserting himself in his marriage as he takes the leading role in tracking down the kidnappers in their seedy London hideouts. What he discovers there also gives the movie another point of distinction, for the conspiracy’s ringleader is revealed to be none other than Peter Lorre, acting for the first time in the English language, just a few years out from his iconic performance for Fritz Lang as a creepy, yet surprisingly human, child murderer in M. Though Lang’s English was so rusty at this time that he is supposed to have learned and performed his part phonetically, his performance nonetheless stands as the creation of one of the first truly great Hitchcock villains. The movie's ending also shows off another noteworthy feature for a Hitchcock project, an extended shoot-out of a kind which he would avoid in his Hollywood films, and which today looks curiously like a 1930s version of a John Woo-style set piece. It doesn't have "Que Sera, Sera," but Hitchcock's English MAN should still be sampled by any self-styled Hitchcock aficionado.

Miro Urbo on 19 April at 01:32Report abuse

bez komentáře neumím anglicky tudíž nerozumím ani slovo!