The Man Who Knew Too Much (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I agree with you, Crawdaddy. When I got the Hitchcock BD set from England, the first film I went to was The Man Who Knew Too Much because it's in my top five Hitchcocks and a longtime favorite. I noted the color shifting in the early scenes, and certainly there was dirt and a lack of vibrancy undoubtedly proving Universal didn't go out of its way to spruce this one up for Blu. But on my 58" plasma screen, I found it imminently watchable, and in the end I was not completely displeased with it. For me, a 3.5/5 would be most accurate.

Matt,

I never really loved this film for some strange reason. It's far from one of my Hitchcock's favorites. Maybe, it's because how stupid I thought the couple acted in regard to the safety of their family. Particularly, Stewart's character was off the chart in placing his family in danger. I always thought that I would never let my family out of my sight if something as terrible like that market place scene took place. Furthermore, with my family under police protection, I would tell them everything I know so to take the bulls eye off me and my love ones.

 

[Matt Hough]

I agree that Stewart's character makes a lot of stupid decisions especially once they get back to London, but I go with the flow - I'm not the one making the decisions, so I find the film all the more riveting because of how the dumb mistakes twist the tension and suspense into stomach-churning greatness. At least for me.

 

[Sumnernor]

I am a fan of the "Man". I frankly don't blame Stewart about keeping quiet . It is very easy to pass judgement when it is not your child. If he had gotten the call when He was in England it might be different. He got a call in a rather unciviised country and that was also a factor. The first Ambrose Chapel was done for the added suspense. I don't feel that Stewart made "dumb" mistakes. It is very easy to state than when you already know the story but I believe anyone seeing the movie for the first time will not think Stewart (or Hitchcock) were making mistakes-

 

[Robert Crawford]

I am a fan of the "Man". I frankly don't blame Stewart about keeping quiet . It is very easy to pass judgement when it is not your child. If he had gotten the call when He was in England it might be different. He got a call in a rather unciviised country and that was also a factor. The first Ambrose Chapel was done for the added suspense. I don't feel that Stewart made "dumb" mistakes. It is very easy to state than when you already know the story but I believe anyone seeing the movie for the first time will not think Stewart (or Hitchcock) were making mistakes-

I blame him for what happen before the call. He should've taken his son to the police station with him as you don't trust your child to a stranger.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Matt,

I never really loved this film for some strange reason. It's far from one of my Hitchcock's favorites. Maybe, it's because how stupid I thought the couple acted in regard to the safety of their family. Particularly, Stewart's character was off the chart in placing his family in danger. I always thought that I would never let my family out of my sight if something as terrible like that market place scene took place. Furthermore, with my family under police protection, I would tell them everything I know so to take the bulls eye off me and my love ones.

I agree with you on this film, Robert. It's never been my cup of tea for the reasons you stated, and I am a big Hitchcock fan. I always thought Hitch forced this story too much.

 

[Craig Beam]

Love the cover. Already have this title (in the Masterpiece set), however.

 

[Douglas R]

I blame him for what happen before the call. He should've taken his son to the police station with him as you don't trust your child to a stranger.

I think you've got to look at that from the perspective of 1956; a time when there was less, or at least perceived to be less, danger in society (speaking from a UK viewpoint and a child of the '50s). Also, the Drayton's were not strangers - Stewart and Day's characters had already struck up a friendship with the Drayton's at that stage. When I first saw the film a long time ago it never struck me as being unusual that they would allow their new found friends to take their son back to the hotel. However viewing it again recently, I too thought it somewhat incautious which goes to show how we have all changed in our perceptions over the years.

 

[Mark-P]

I blame him for what happen before the call. He should've taken his son to the police station with him as you don't trust your child to a stranger.

I think you've got to look at that from the perspective of 1956; a time when there was less, or at least perceived to be less, danger in society (speaking from a UK viewpoint and a child of the '50s). Also, the Drayton's were not strangers - Stewart and Day's characters had already struck up a friendship with the Drayton's at that stage. When I first saw the film a long time ago it never struck me as being unusual that they would allow their new found friends to take their son back to the hotel. However viewing it again recently, I too thought it somewhat incautious which goes to show how we have all changed in our perceptions over the years.

You're absolutely right, Doug. One needs to watch this with historical goggles. In the 1950s children roamed free in their neighborhoods and people thought nothing of asking a complete stranger to watch their kid for a minute or two. By today's standards most parents back then were downright negligent!

 

[JohnMor]

You're absolutely right, Doug. One needs to watch this with historical goggles. In the 1950s children roamed free in their neighborhoods and people thought nothing of asking a complete stranger to watch their kid for a minute or two. By today's standards most parents back then were downright negligent!

And they had already left him in the care of a TOTAL stranger the night before when the hotel arranged a babysitter while they went out to dinner.

As far as the stand alone release, I would not support it and I'm a huge Hitch and Day fan. This classic deserves better. (Of course, having the collection, I have the luxury of not going without completely.)

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think you've got to look at that from the perspective of 1956; a time when there was less, or at least perceived to be less, danger in society (speaking from a UK viewpoint and a child of the '50s). Also, the Drayton's were not strangers - Stewart and Day's characters had already struck up a friendship with the Drayton's at that stage. When I first saw the film a long time ago it never struck me as being unusual that they would allow their new found friends to take their son back to the hotel. However viewing it again recently, I too thought it somewhat incautious which goes to show how we have all changed in our perceptions over the years.

I first viewed this film back in the 60s and thought it was strange behavior then. Perhaps I'm just more paranoid than most around here.

 

[Professor Echo]

I don't ALWAYS trust RAH when he gives an uncorroborated positive review (that pastel FRENCH CONNECTION positive soured me a bit), but I do tend to put a lot of credence in his negative reviews since unlike some reviewers, I don't think he ever WANTS to give something a negative review. I won't be buying this.

 

[Robert Harris]

I don't ALWAYS trust RAH when he gives an uncorroborated positive review (that pastel FRENCH CONNECTION positive soured me a bit), but I do tend to put a lot of credence in his negative reviews since unlike some reviewers, I don't think he ever WANTS to give something a negative review. I won't be buying this.

Quite correct. No joy giving negatives.

RAH

 

[Moe Dickstein]

It's still so frustrating that my very favorite titles in the Hitch set are the ones that got the most crapped on (Marnie, Family Plot, Man).If anyone has the set, please go pull out The Trouble With Harry. Look at how AMAZING the opening shots of New England are, the rich vibrant color, the resolution in the image, the sheer beauty of that.That is VistaVision and what it can look like.Now pull out your disc of Man, realize that it is a NEWER film than what you just watched and then look at as much of it as you can stand. Sure there is wonderful resolution there, but does it look like Harry? Not even in the same galaxy.That is why it's so frustrating. If some work was done that I imagine would be not cheap but not outrageously costly was done, this film would look AS GOOD as Harry.Now try to keep telling yourself it's "good enough".I have no problem watching something that would be sub-par when it's all we have that survives, but I have a big problem with it when the materials are there to do it right.

 

[Robert Harris]

It's still so frustrating that my very favorite titles in the Hitch set are the ones that got the most crapped on (Marnie, Family Plot, Man).If anyone has the set, please go pull out The Trouble With Harry. Look at how AMAZING the opening shots of New England are, the rich vibrant color, the resolution in the image, the sheer beauty of that.That is VistaVision and what it can look like.Now pull out your disc of Man, realize that it is a NEWER film than what you just watched and then look at as much of it as you can stand. Sure there is wonderful resolution there, but does it look like Harry? Not even in the same galaxy.That is why it's so frustrating. If some work was done that I imagine would be not cheap but not outrageously costly was done, this film would look AS GOOD as Harry.Now try to keep telling yourself it's "good enough".I have no problem watching something that would be sub-par when it's all we have that survives, but I have a big problem with it when the materials are there to do it right.

Not a matter of cost, but rather changes to emulsion and processing. Many 1955 films have nice exteriors and acceptable, or nearly interiors, while '56 was far more problematic. Add to that the improper storage of the Hitchcock elements, and things get worse. Most domestic productions, 56 - 60 are gone. As were Ten and North, but Paramount and WB stood behind them, and did the right thing.Not Universal.RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's still so frustrating that my very favorite titles in the Hitch set are the ones that got the most crapped on (Marnie, Family Plot, Man).If anyone has the set, please go pull out The Trouble With Harry. Look at how AMAZING the opening shots of New England are, the rich vibrant color, the resolution in the image, the sheer beauty of that.That is VistaVision and what it can look like.Now pull out your disc of Man, realize that it is a NEWER film than what you just watched and then look at as much of it as you can stand. Sure there is wonderful resolution there, but does it look like Harry? Not even in the same galaxy.That is why it's so frustrating. If some work was done that I imagine would be not cheap but not outrageously costly was done, this film would look AS GOOD as Harry.Now try to keep telling yourself it's "good enough".I have no problem watching something that would be sub-par when it's all we have that survives, but I have a big problem with it when the materials are there to do it right.

I'm not going to dispute the difference in quality regarding both Blu-rays, but the difference in production filming for both films is about nine months so it's not newer by very much. Anyhow, I get your point, but it's still not one of the worse BDs I ever viewed.

 

[haineshisway]

You're absolutely right, Doug. One needs to watch this with historical goggles. In the 1950s children roamed free in their neighborhoods and people thought nothing of asking a complete stranger to watch their kid for a minute or two. By today's standards most parents back then were downright negligent!

Of course. People, especially those who weren't around then, which is a lot of people on this board, need to understand it was a different world then. Parents didn't smother their children with endless supervision, checking up on, every hour planned and accounted for, cell phones for the kids - I would leave the house at nine and come back at five. My mother didn't fret or worry - I LIVED, discovered, had fun. There is nothing off about the way the parents in The Man Who Knew Too Much behave. Listen, I saw the movie when it came out - I loved every minute of it because I "got" it and it was all very real to this young kid, who was around the age of the boy in the film.

It's so easy to sit today and think "I don't believe it because no parent would do that." Think again. The world didn't begin in this decade. And kids were allowed to be kids in the 1950s right through to the 1970s. After that, not so much anymore.

 

[Mark-P]

Gosh I remember being 7 or 8 years old in the 1970s and being left alone in the car at NIGHT while my parents ran errands. Today someone would probably call child protective services.

 

[Ruz-El]

I'll continue to not buy ANY Universal Hitchcock product until the problems with this transfer and the others are rectified. Criterion will get my Hitch money, they're doing splendid work the British titles.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Not a matter of cost, but rather changes to emulsion and processing. Many 1955 films have nice exteriors and acceptable, or nearly interiors, while '56 was far more problematic. Add to that the improper storage of the Hitchcock elements, and things get worse. Most domestic productions, 56 - 60 are gone. As were Ten and North, but Paramount and WB stood behind them, and did the right thing.Not Universal.RAH

But to be clear, it is possible for Man to look as good as NxNW, yes?

 

[Keith Cobby]

I am a huge fan of VistaVision and am still patiently waiting to buy the individual releases of Vertigo and Harry. I am unhappy with the poor reviews for The Man Who Knew Too Much but will probably pick it up on a price reduction. I never liked the quality of the DVD so any improvement will suffice for now.