User reviews

It's well known that Alfred Hitchcock had a penchant for casting icy blondes as his leading ladies, but it's often forgotten Doris Day was once one of them. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, the pronunciation of which was forever immortalized by Robert Osbourne, she's married to James Stewart, another of Hitchcock's favorites. In a rare dramatic turn, Doris shows her hidden talents. There's a famous and heart-wrenching scene that's nearly impossible to watch without a tissue handy. Doris and Jimmy's son has been kidnapped, and Doris is having a meltdown. James injects her with a sedative because he's a doctor and believes that's the best way to help her, and she hysterically cries until she passes out.

While Doris usually gets all the acting praise from this movie, it's probably because everyone expects James Stewart to be great in a Hitchcock film. But let's not forget he was the other actor in that difficult scene, watching and deciding how to help his wife. He's wonderful in this movie, but if you know and love him like the rest of the country, it's not really a surprise.

The Man Who Knew Too Much isn't the most famous Alfred Hitchcock movie out there, but it's absolutely worth watching. It has Doris's quintessential song "Que Sera Sera" and she also credits it with spawning her lifelong devotion to animals. Plus, it's pretty suspenseful, a necessity in a Hitchcock movie. There are exotic locations, good-looking leading actors, murder, and intrigue. What else do you want?

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.

I hadn't seen it since I was in college. I remembered it like a fun, absurd movie. Now in 2018 what hit me the most was the wife played by Doris Day. She is spectacular and the absurdity becomes totally real just by looking at her. James Stewart is great of course but he seems to be the foil here rather than the center that keeps us connected to that essential leap of faith. The scene in which he gives her the tranquilizers before telling her the terrible news. What Doris Day manages to do with her character is extraordinary. Brenda de Banzie is a terrific villainess and Bernard Herrmann's score another major plus. I'm sure that even my grandchildren's grandchildren will talk about The Man Who Knew Too Much and about Doris Day.

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.

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.

..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.

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.

I'm not sure why I didn't have a more enthusiastic reaction to The Man Who Knew Too Much. Hitchcock is the director that got me interested in classic cinema, and Rear Window, Notorious, Psycho, The Birds, Rebecca, and The Lady Vanishes are all among my favorite movies. It's a globe-trotting adventure with all the tension, intrigue, assassinations, conspiracies, and suspense you could want, but there's something about it that just didn't really catch my interest until the last 30 minutes, or so. The ending is great, but the rest of the movie was just missing something, in my opinion. 

The problem certainly wasn't with the two lead actors. James Stewart gave another great performance under Hitchcock's eye (he was my favorite Hitchcock leading man), and Doris Day was charmingly determined and convincing as a confused wife  and mother, desperately searching for her son. 

The Man Who Knew Too Much certainly isn't a bad movie (is there such a thing as a bad Hitchcock movie?), and I expect that other people might have a more favorable response to it than I did. I suspect this is just one of those times when a good film just doesn't completely "click", with me, for whatever reason. I recommend it to anyone who is interested, though.

In 1956, Alfred Hitchcock owed a film to Paramount Studios and was given the task of remaking not just any film, but one of his own. That film was his 1934 movie "The Man Who Knew Too Much" which starred Leslie Banks and Edna Best as vacationing parents who unwillingly become involved in an international espionage involving an assassination plot. In order to keep their mouths shut, foreign spies kidnap their daughter and hold her hostage. Hitchcock was in no particular hurry to tell the same story again, but he did owe Paramount a movie and proceeded to do it again. But like a professional, he did not simply tell the same story. He used the same plot and circumstances, but generated a newer, better film with a fresher story from his 1934 hit. This time casting the always competent James Stewart and the lovely Doris Day as the vacationing parents and having a son – not daughter –being kidnapped, Hitchcock created one of his most underrated films that I think deserves to be placed alongside his lists of masterpieces.

This was the third of the four movies that Hitchcock made with James Stewart and this is the one that is the least dark and the most free-spirited. It is not a dark, twisted movie like "Vertigo" or "Rear Window" nor is it as good as the said features, but it's one of the director's most thoroughly enjoyable movies. It takes a serious tone, but also has carefully placed moments of comedy that do generate laughs. Hitchcock was a gifted and versatile filmmaker who has entries in his filmography that should accommodate for all mainstreams in the audience. And for those who just want Hitchcock as an exciting, adventurous level, this is the movie I recommend.

Part of the reason why I enjoy this more than the original is that I like the parents in the movie more. We get more three-dimensional development from them this time and we sense the struggle to find their son and possibly save a diplomat's life if they can. The movie is held up by the performances by James Stewart and Doris Day. This is the least dark Stewart was in the four movies he had with Hitchcock and it's probably the most conventional performances he did for the Master of Suspense, but nevertheless a very good one. He is totally believably and competent as the frantic, but cool-headed father in love with his family. But what shocks me so much is that in reviews, people oftentimes overlook Doris Day, who I think is just as good as Jimmy Stewart. I'm enthralled by the enthusiasm and the energy that she puts behind her performance. Yes, Day is beautiful, but she's also a more than competent actress who carries out her scenes, especially her emotionally and distressful ones with absolute perfection.

If there is a weakness in the movie, it does relate to the villains whom we don't see very often, but that's part of what makes this movie work. Because we don't see the villains often, we sympathize and follow the parents played by Stewart and Day better than if we toggled frequently between both sides. Hitchcock always liked to play against conventions and it shows here. That's another one of the minor differences this has from the original, which did jump between parties more often.

And if you're seeking Alfred Hitchcock performing his art of suspense…you will find it here, never you fear. Hitchcock believed in a theory called pure cinema, in which you did not need sound or dialogue, merely images to generate any emotion. And there is one very famous scene in this movie taking place at the Royal Albert Hall in London, which proves this theory. Hitchcock tells us what to look for – but not the protagonists – and this builds up tension that can go on for as long as he wants to. The scene goes on for twelve minutes – twelve minutes – and every moment of it is sheer suspense coupled with powerful emotion. And there's no dialogue. The sound is dominated by the music. It's very much like watching a silent movie. And it's the most powerful scene in the picture.

The original "The Man With No Name" is one of the most interesting examples of Hitchcock's career as an amateur, but the remake, done by a professional, is vastly superior and infinitely entertaining. If I do have a complaint, it's the last thirty seconds of the movie which wrap up a little suddenly, but the previous two hours were so much fun I easily forgive that and enthusiastically shell out my highest rating. "The Man With No Name" is one of Alfred Hitchcock's most entertaining pictures.

James Stewart and Doris Day are a family on vacation in Morocco where they encounter a mysterious Frenchman in a bus, an English couple in their hotel, a stabbing in the Square in Marrakesh and their son being kidnapped.

They find themselves in an assassination plot as events shift to London and ultimately to a finale at the Albert Hall and then an embassy of an unnamed country.

This colour version of a film is a remake of Hitchcock's earlier work and was shot on location in Morocco and London but the constant filmed backdrops is off putting. At first I thought the film was shot in a Hollywood back-lot but it really is Marrakesh.

The film takes time to get going as we have scenes establishing Muslim culture in Marrakesh such as how to eat local cuisine before the mystery starts to unravel.

Both Stewart and Day are convincing as the anguished couple especially Stewart who quickly works out what happened to them in Morocco and the couple decide to investigate with the clues they have in search for their son.

Maybe the mystery that leads to them finding their son and even taking them to the assassination is rather easily done when they seem to be getting no help from the police and rather punctures the tension.

Bernard Herrmann appears as himself in the Albert Hall sequence where the assassination attempt is linked to a concert but the film just does not hang together so well. Like the constant mixing of location filming and backdrop footage the film comes across jarring.

It does happen, once in awhile, that a remake emerges as a far better film than the original, which is true of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, which not only changes many of the plot twists but also changes the setting to a more exotic one in Morocco.

The script is much more detailed and wittier than the original, giving charismatic roles to JAMES STEWART and DORIS DAY as the American husband and wife who learn about an assassination plot and then have to spend the rest of the story trying to rescue their son from the would be assassins.

Not surprisingly, Day does get a chance to have her way with a song and in this case it's a good one, Que Sera, Sera, which went on to become a huge recording hit for her. But the musical sequence that dominates the film and provides its most climactic moment is the Albert Hall sequence using "Stormcloud Cantata" (with Bernard Herrmann conducting) and the famous symbols that are about to clash, timed with the assassin's shot.

Photographed on location in gorgeous Technicolor, with a good score by Herrmann and an intelligent script by John Michael Hayes, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH is superior entertainment from "the master of suspense".

Especially worth noting are the sinister performances by BRENDA de BANZIE and BERNARD MILES as the kidnappers and DANIEL GELIN as the man in the marketplace whose death puts the whole story into gear.

Trivia note: Hitchcock himself called his early version "the work of an amateur" and got his wish to do a remake at a time when he was doing his best work.

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!

I was shocked and disappointed by the many negative reactions among the recent user reviews of this film, Hitchcock's only remake of one of his own works. No film is perfect and many successful suspense movies have holes in their plots, as this one does, but these lapses had no impact on my overall appreciation for this one-of-a-kind remake. I liked the original version as well, which featured an unforgettable female protagonist, played by Edna Best, who was a sharp shooter rather than a professional singer, and an early setting in Switzerland rather than Morocco. One reviewer here went so far as to claim that the first half of this version was NOT produced on location in Morocco. Then where was the first half filmed? Dearborn, Michigan?

In spite of several plot holes and a generally weak, if not lame, script, the excellent direction, the solid camera work, the fascinating location scenes in both Marrakech and in London, and the wonderful work by leads James Stewart and Doris Day overcome all of the obvious weaknesses. Stewart's performance alone is worth watching as he runs the entire gamut of emotions from start to finish. His awkwardness and physical discomfort at the Moroccan restaurant, and the gradual discovery that his son has been kidnapped are examples of his very natural and superb acting. The scene in the taxidermy shop was hilarious. Remember the stuffed birds in the office of Norman Bates? Very Hitchcockian, eh?

Hitchcock picked Day for the role of Jo McKenna when he saw her in "Storm Warning", one of her few dramatic roles. Considering her good work in both dramas and in films such as "Love Me Or Leave Me", it's a pity that she didn't appear in more substantial films. As much as I love her, many of her films were just plain silly, and she clearly had much more potential than most of the nonsensical work that had been thrown at her. Jo's anguished reaction to son Hank's kidnapping was quite convincing. In real life, Day decided to commit herself to the cause of animal welfare when she observed how cruelly the animals were treated on the Moroccan set of this film.

Among the plot lapses was the McKennas' decision to leave Hank with strangers in a totally unfamiliar and foreign place such as Marrakech, Morocco. I was seven years old in 1956, and my parents would have never done that even during those far more innocent times and in far more familiar locales. I also didn't understand why the thugs didn't decide to kill Ben McKenna after the worshipers left the chapel. If the object of the kidnapping was to make sure that Ben wouldn't reveal the assassination plot, their problem would have been instantly solved, and they were certainly ruthless enough to knock him off right then and there.

Then came "Que Sera Sera", a song that I detest, and if that didn't ruin the film, nothing else could, including twelve, long minutes of a lackluster classical piece at Albert Hall that should have been shortened significantly. As to Bernard Herrmann's musical score, it sounds very similar to his music in Hitchcock's other classics "North By Northwest" and "Vertigo" with very little variation. Speaking of "Vertigo", does Miss Day's gray suit look at all familiar to you? And I am sorry that I missed the director's trademark cameo appearance at the market in Marrakech, but I'll try again during the next viewing, and there surely will be another opportunity because, regardless of its many imperfections, I still love this movie as well as the original 1934 version.

Alfred Hitchcock saw this remake of his 1934 film as a more professional job, and thus an improvement. It's certainly more polished, and pitched for maximum audience engagement, yet also a tad off the high standard the Master was setting for himself by the 1950s.

Dr. McKenna (James Stewart) and his wife Jo (Doris Day) are vacationing with their boy in Marrakesh when they become witnesses both to a murder and to a secret so dangerous their boy is kidnapped to secure their silence. Can they save their child by themselves? And will they be able to prevent the crime from happening without costing their son his life?

It's tough to discuss this movie, since so much that happens in it is better seen for the first time with minimal foreknowledge. Rest assured that there are some fine setpieces on display, and that Hitchcock is indeed very clever with his camera and his way of building suspense.

Yet the film seems less than completely successful. For one thing, there's an unusually slow build-up, almost a Hitchcock loyalty test, in the first thirty minutes of the film, with some particularly strained bits of comedy around a Moroccan restaurant. There are more than the usual number of plot holes and improbable coincidences on display here.

The biggest problem I have are with the two leads. While Day shows us she can be more than a perky comedienne in her more demanding scenes, both she and Stewart seem uncomfortable in their roles. The McKennas appear at times to be a singularly unhappy couple: he a domineering type who doesn't like the fact his wife was a famous singer known by something other than his last name; she a paranoid hysteric prone to winding her husband up unnecessarily. The idea of their domestic misery is gently presented ("Ben, are we about to have our monthly fight?") and then just as quickly abandoned, ironically after a scene where he arguably pulls a rather cruel stunt to keep her in line.

I'm not sure if this George-and-Martha-type film would have been better than the one I actually saw, but it would give us more of a rooting interest in the McKennas getting their act together while saving their son. Here, in the main, they are played so squarely they seem more likely to hail from Disneyland than Indianapolis.

But give the second hour credit for being one of Hitchcock's best. It could have used a bit more humor, but there's ample misdirection and a mischievous spirit guiding the proceedings. Add to that one of the great climaxes of any suspense film here, ironically not a climax here but a set up for another which is almost as good. The villains are appropriately seedy, if lacking the menacing charm of Peter Lorre in the 1934 version.

If you are a fan of Doris Day or her hit song "Que Sera, Sera," you may enjoy this film even more than I did. As a Hitchcock enthusiast, I was entertained enough not to mind the feeling of shallowness. Hitchcock was a master of surfaces as well as depth; you get a riveting example of the former here.

Had never watched a Doris Day movie before. She shines in this film and certainly can be seen as a woman taking the lead long before that was the norm. Beautiful scenes filmed in Marrakech & the final scenes as the couple work to try & find their son are convincing, suspenseful & wonderful all rolled into one.

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.

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.

I know that this film is not considered to be one of Hitchcock's great works, but it will always hold a special place in my memory as it was the first of his movies that I ever saw.

Since then I have seen some of his more acclaimed movies such as 'Psycho', 'Rear Window', 'North By Northwest' and 'Notorious'. Although I admired those films a great deal, for me this 50's remake of 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' still embodies the reasons why he is known as the 'Master of Suspense'. So many of his classic touches are there and although they were perhaps done better in other films, this was my first exposure to his genius.

Perhaps this isn't VINTAGE Hitchcock, but it certainly is TYPICAL Hitchcock.

Many other IMDB users seem to prefer the original 1934 version to this one. While I don't doubt that the older version is a fine movie, I doubt that I will enjoy it unless it's released on DVD. The video casseste picture and sound quality on other Hitchcock movies I've seen from that era have often degraded to such an extent that viewing the films often becomes a chore rather then a pleasure. Anyone else have that problem as well?

Has to be one of the corniest of the thrillmaster's films. Really dumb, droll, and boring. Just a pathetic, poorly filmed production. The scene showing the hitman blowing his job and taking a tumble was totally unrealistic looking. Even worse was Stewart handily disarming the thug on the staircase - absolute rot! And what was Doris Day doing in this movie anyway? I really, really hate that song!