The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The first must-see film of the year.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This is one of the scariest movies I have seen. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It is scarier then A Nightmare on elm street. It also scarier then Friday the 13th part V a new beginning. If you like really scary movies you will like this movie.

One of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest classics, made before he came to Hollywood. A couple's daughter is kidnapped to keep her parents quiet about an assassination plot. The couple is played by Leslie Banks and Edna Best. Banks is good in a role that's a long way from his florid performance in The Most Dangerous Game from a couple of years earlier. Best is impressive in a sympathetic turn. Peter Lorre is menacing and even a little creepy as the leader of the assassins. This was his first English-speaking role (he learned the language while filming). Nice photography from Curt Courant and some fun little creative touches from Hitchcock. The dry humor is blended nicely with the action and suspense. The cult of sun worshippers and The Royal Albert Hall scene are both worthy of Hitch's highlight reel. Perhaps one too many abrupt cuts from one scene to the next, often as a character is in mid-sentence. But clearly Hitch was still honing his craft. At least he was trying things as opposed to the static direction of many of his contemporaries.Remade in 1956 by Hitchcock himself, with James Stewart and Doris Day. That version is more polished and "Hollywood," and is arguably the more popular of the two. Although neither film is perfect, I prefer this one. It may not have the two decades of advancements in production techniques or the bigger budget of the remake, but it has a tighter plot, shorter runtime, faster pace, darker tone, and it builds suspense without the distracting side stuff of the remake. Plus there's no incongruous scenes of Doris Day singing.

In honor of Alfred Hitchcock's birthday I decided to sit down and watch one of his earlier films, the original The Man Who Knew Too Much. it's nowhere near as polished as his later classics but there is still some entertainment to be had. The premise is very similar to what he tackled in later ventures. It deals with a man and his family who get caught up in a murder and end up 'knowing too much'.One of the problems early on in the film is that most of the leading men all look similar. That is, except for the brilliant Peter Lorre. His character is filled with mystery so I wont spoil anything but I think he was the main bright spot in the film. He stole every scene he was in and then some. Leslie Banks was very reminiscent of Fred MacMurray in Double Indemnity with his vulnerability but also how slick he can be as well. The plot of the film ends up being a bit too convoluted for a Hitchcock film, but I was nonetheless impressed by some of the feats he was able to pull off in such an early time in his career. The main one being the end gun battle. Now, the actual scene itself is far bigger than the actual film, so it can seem out of place. But you have to commemorate Hitchcock on his ambition here.So I enjoyed my time watching the film although it's not constructed very well at all. I give Hitchcock a pass and just hope when I watch his own remake of the film it turns out better.+Impressive for a 1934 Hitchcock film +Lorre's performance -Slow at times &convoluted plot 6.7/10

An interesting oddity is my take on this film. Acting is generally poor, especially Edna Best (an early example of a Hitchcock blond) , who behaves like a silent movie star out her depth in talkies. The pace is often pedestrian although I did enjoy "The Siege of Sidney Street" like finale. At times, the despicable foreign baddies and the oh so respectable goodies talk to each other as though attending a genteel cocktail party. Some of the deliberate humour is well done, although some scenes such as the chair fight are unintentionally hilarious. Like many Hitchcock films, across his career, there are moments of movie brilliance and others of almost amateurish ineptitude. Worth a look for a rather portly Peter Lorre whose hair and teeth are a joy to behold!Brief real-life views of 1930's London also interesting.