The Man Who Knew Too Much

The Man Who Knew Too Much Photos

View all photos

Cast & Crew

James Stewart

Dr. Ben McKenna

Doris Day

Jo McKenna

Bernard Miles

Edward Drayton

Ralph Truman

Buchanan

Daniel Gélin

Louis Bernard

Mogens Wieth

Ambassador

Alan Mowbray

Val Parnell

Hillary Brooke

Jan Peterson

Christopher Olsen

Hank McKenna

Reggie Nalder

The assassin

Richard Wattis

Assistant manager

Noel Willman

Woburn

Alix Talton

Helen Parnell

Yves Brainville

Police inspector

Carolyn Jones

Cindy Fontaine

Patrick Aherne

Handyman (uncredited)

Betty Baskcomb

Edna (uncredited)

Leo Gordon

Chauffeur (uncredited)

Louis Mercier

French policeman (uncredited)

Anthony Warde

(uncredited)

Alfred Hitchcock

Director

Charles Bennett

Writer

D.B. Wyndham-Lewis

Writer

John Michael Hayes

Writer

Alfred Hitchcock

Producer

Ray Evans

Original Music

Robert Burks

Cinematographer

George Tomasini

Film Editing

Henry Bumstead

Art Director

Hal Pereira

Art Director

Sam Comer

Set Decoration

Arthur Krams

Set Decoration

Edith Head

Costume Design

Show all Cast & Crew

Critic Reviews for The Man Who Knew Too Much

Audience Reviews for The Man Who Knew Too Much

• Jan 17, 2017

  Has excellent moments but also a few implausible scenes. Nonetheless, performances are super and Hitchcock lovers won't be disappointed.
  

  Super Reviewer
• Mar 22, 2014

  I'm telling you people, this man just knew way too much... probably because he's already done this before. Yeah, it's not like this happens all that much, but it's trippy something awful whenever a filmmaker does, in fact, remake his own film, especially when it's kind of an inconsequential-seeming remake. I mean, come on, Alfred Hitchcock, you big wimp, when Cecil B. DeMille revisited "The Ten Commandments", he took a silent film and pumped up the budget, length and overall scale overwhelmingly. Granted, this remake really changes up the tone, setting and certain plot points, so it pretty much is overwhelmingly different, but the fact of the matter is that Hitch could have turned this mama into one heck of an epic, and let me tell you right now that it's... probably a good thing that he didn't. Yeah, this is just about a guy getting wrapped up in some murder plot (Jeez, are we sure that this is Hitchcock's only remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much"?), so I don't know what this remake has to say that the first one didn't... I reckon because I didn't see the original. Yeah, folks, the quality of this film in comparison to its source material is mighty debatable, but if nothing else can be agreed upon, it's that people remember this version better, either because the dirty secret of the film industry is that people really do prefer younger films, or because debuted Doris Day's "Whatever Will Be, Will Be (Que Sera, Sera)". Oh, well, it must be the latter, because that song is pretty much more famous than any interpretation of this subject matter, but this film is pretty good, even though it couldn't quite clean up certain problems this time around. It's not talked about much, but with this film, in a lot of areas, Alfred Hitchcock really started to show progress in the evolution of his audacity as a dramatic storyteller, and such effectiveness, not in visceral tension, but in dramatic tension really drives the final product, yet there are those times in which Hitchcock seems to be pulling back, slipping into certain classic Hollywood dramatic superficialities that would be easier to forgive if they didn't mark a certain tonal unevenness. At the very least, the tonal inconsistencies make it a little difficult to buy into the morally pressing and thematically weighty storytelling elements that the dramatic establishes so firmly so often, and it doesn't help that momentum goes shaken by times in which the film jars its focus upon plotting segments of relatively less urgency that overstay their welcome. Yes, the unevenness really thrives on certain segments' sticking around for too long to be easily brushed off by focal shifts, and for this, a lot of blame must be placed on the film's length of exactly two hours, which is reasonable, but still rather questionable, as John Michael Hayes' and Angus MacPhail's script gets to be a touch excessive with its material and filler, much of which is not simply repetitious, but lacking in kick by its own individual right. I wouldn't say that there a lot of natural shortcomings to this film, as this story concept is consistently meaty enough for the final product to be relatively easily interpreted into a consistently meaty drama, but if there a lulls to momentum on paper, then the execution stresses them with moments of limpness to a usually firm grip on tonal and structural tightness. If nothing else places bumps upon this film's dramatic path, it's simply the conventions, because no matter how refreshing this film is in plenty of areas as a drama that could very well have been a fair distance ahead of its time, when it hits tropes, it hits them hard enough to plague the complex narrative with hints of predictability. This familiarity, like the other flaws, does not devastate the full bite of the drama, but also like its fellow shortcomings, it softens teeth enough for you to feel as though some potential goes unfulfilled, occasionally to the point of establishing glimpses into an underwhelming affair. Of course, make no mistake, I really do stress, "occasionally", for although the film has lapses in momentum, it engrosses much more often than it doesn't, and even appeals visually. Though not as reliant on visual style as certain other Alfred Hitchcock dramas of this much thoughtful delicacy, this film is still quite the looker, with frequent Hitchcock collaborator Robert Burks delivering on subtly and handsomely gritty coloration that catches your eyes and the somewhat bleak tone of the thriller, while fine framing helps in immersing you. Aesthetically, the immersion value is particularly worthy, as the film's Morocco setting feels distinguished as visual style brings life to it and firmly catches your attention with style, while substance secures your investment. Even in concept, the film's narrative, heavier and juicier than the story of its source material, engrosses with conflicts surrounding grand conspiracy and intimate mystery which goes anchored by human themes, until you're left with a thoroughly promising dramatic story that John Michael Hayes and Angus MacPhail both shake and do justice with a script that, despite its unevenness, excessiveness and conventions, delivers on clever dialogue and thoughtful, extensive exposition whose layered depth captures a sense of humanity to characterization, and a sense of chilling subtlety to the intricate political conflicts. If no one else sells the weight of this dramatic thriller, it is, of course, Alfred Hitchcock, whose direction has plenty of style, as I said earlier, but is also particularly realized in its utilization of Hitchcock's legendary thoughtful storytelling, which is controlled enough to keep the slower spells adequately entertaining, and inspired enough to make the more dramatically meat moments near-profoundly effective. As I said earlier, there is a certain unevenness to the film's urgency, as Hitchcock cannot completely brush away the usual dramatic limitations of the 1950s, but it is ultimately very refreshing to see just how effective this film gets to be, as an intriguing political thriller and a provocative character study. The film is driven by its attention to the delicacy of humanity and the harshness of certain disturbing mysteries, often of a political nature, so, of course, what can really make or break the effectiveness of this film is the acting, and Hitchcock, realizing this, gets really solid performances out of most everyone, especially the leads, with Doris Day capturing the emotional layers of a respectable woman who must face horrible dangers placed upon her loved ones, while leading man James Stewart showcases his classic and unfortunately under-seen dramatic subtleties to capture the intensity of a good man who may find his morality jeopardized by disconcerting circumstances. Day and Stewart, upon really fleshing out their performances, are utterly powerful and anchor the most effective points in the drama, and yet, they consistently impress, just like the other performances, found on and off of the screen, that make the final product not only rewarding through and through, but possibly one of Hitchcock's relative best films. In conclusion, there are certain dramatic limitations and inconsistencies to focus and pacing that join conventions in thinning a sense of momentum, sustained enough by handsome cinematography and locations, thoughtful writing, effective direction and a pair of powerful performances by Doris Day and James Stewart to secure 1956's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" a thoroughly compelling and often even gripping dramatic thriller that transcends its shortcomings to rank among Alfred Hitchcock's stronger projects, and reward by its own right. 3/5 - Good
  

  Super Reviewer
• Mar 29, 2013

  Top notch Hitchcock film. Gotta love the Cold War if Dorris Day's in it!
  

  Super Reviewer
• Jun 16, 2012

  Very suspenseful and scary at times, but it's still flawed
  

  Super Reviewer