I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Boring

Best movie ever!

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

The Man Who Knew Too Much has a solid story going for it. Even though this was Stewart's fourth film with this director, Doris Day was a surprising choice for this role, and Hitchcock had never worked with her previously, so I was very curious about this film. Like many of Hitchcock's films during the 50's this one looks fantastic. I especially enjoyed the scene in the Ambrose Chappell Taxidermist shop. Day is actually very good in this film and I have to wonder why she and Hitchcock never worked together again. Stewart is also good but to me he played the character as someone who is perpetually annoyed throughout most of the film, which was an unfortunate decision. The cast is rounded out with interesting and memorable supporting characters. Despite all of the good this film contains I also felt that several of the scenes were a bit drawn out, and collectively they contributed to the uneven and often times lack of pace to this film, which ultimately left me underwhelmed and disappointed.

Director: ALFRED HITCHCOCK. Screenplay: John Michael Hayes. In VistaVision and Technicolor. Photography: Robert Burks. Film editor: George Tomasini. Music: Bernard Herrmann. "Storm Cloud Cantata" by Arthur Benjamin and D.B. Wyndham Lewis. Songs by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans. Art directors: Hal Pereira, Henry Bumstead. Set decorators: Sam Comer, Arthur Krams. Costumes designed by Edith Head. Make-up: Wally Westmore. Assistant director: Howard Joslin. Sound recording: Paul Franz, Gene Garvin. Associate producer: Herbert Coleman. Producer: Alfred Hitchcock. Universal DVD rates 9/10.Copyright 1955, renewed 1983 by Samuel, Inc. New York opening at the Paramount: 16 May 1956. U.K. release: 30 July 1956. Australian release: 3 August 1956. Sydney run at the Prince Edward (9 weeks). 120 minutes.SYNOPSIS: In order to ensure the parents' silence, spies kidnap a child.COMMENT: Which version do you prefer? I'm going to make myself unpopular by saluting the 1934 film which—once the action moves to London—has an alarmingly gritty feel to it, a realistic atmosphere that transcends all the otherwise transparent plot devices to make the story chillingly suspenseful. I'm inclined to echo the ecstatic reviews accorded "The Man" by the New York press of March, 1935. The movie is short, sharp, cogent, powerful, with stand-out performances from Edna Best, Peter Lorre, Frank Vosper, Cicely Oates, Henry Oscar, and in a brief part (and his only English-language movie), Pierre Fresnay. Oddly, Hitch has no cameo in this version, but executive producer Balcon is briefly on-screen instead. He's the patron wearing glasses sitting behind the intended victim at Albert Hall. By contrast, this re-make often seems overblown and oddly, equally synthetic in its opening scenes. Although it runs much longer than the original, it has less action and its villains simply don't stand comparison, despite the sterling efforts of Miles and de Banzie.Carelessly dubbed Gelin and obvious padding with Mowbray and Brooke are likewise big drawbacks. However, this version does build to a more extended, more potent Albert Hall climax, and also revels in superior production values.

I am a big fan of Hitchcock but this is far from his best work (Vertigo, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Psycho, Rebecca, The Lady Vanishes, 39 Steps, Foreign Correspondent, Young and Innocent and Notorious).It has some interesting sequences, such as the murder of a spy in a crowded square but not before he passes a message to Dr McKenna (Stewart); the Draytons' unexpected abduction of Hank; the doctor medicating his wife so she is not too taken aback by her son's abduction; Day singing "Que sera, sera"; and the nicely wrapped up and humorous ending, in contrast with the rather dull dialogue that pervades the entire film (Dr McKenna saying that his son can spell difficult words but stumbles with a word like dog, is a really corny attempt at humor).I found the famous Albert Hall sequence a damp squib. The orchestra plays for too long a not very interesting musical piece, and the would-be killer turning his gun at the moment of shooting requires far too much suspension of disbelief (not to mention that no human eyes, not even Day's beautiful blue eyes, could spot a gun protruding from behind dark curtains some quite considerable distance away, in a crowded Albert Hall).The original, 1934 version, also did not amount to much, with only Peter Lorre's darkly menacing voice standing out in my memory, but the 1956 version is much too long by at least 20 minutes and, frankly, I have never understood why Hitch went back to such turgid material. Worse than this only Stage Fright, Topaz and Under Capricorn. A distinctly average 5/10.

Where do I start: When I was just a little boy, I asked my mother what will I watch? Will it be scary, will it be funny…and here is what she said to me. Watch, "The Man Who Knew Too Much – Too Much", the flick was directed by Hitchcock and the ending will scare the pants off. But it did not – did not…yet…still ended up being loads of fun. Ah well - what will be will be. Meh – I can do this so long and then I lose track. Two of my favorite stars tackle this masterpiece head-on, escorting it to the big screen; delivering a spine-tingling white-knuckle ride of a masterpiece. I have always liked James Stewart and Doris is – well – just plain outstanding. For some, "Que Sera Sera," might have been over-sung, but I didn't think so. She has such a beautiful voice, and this was designed for her songbird voice. OK – enough babble. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. As in all the Alfred Hitchcock productions I have seen, this does not disappoint. The acting is superb and the directing is ahead of its time. I highly recommend this thriller to everyone.