Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

aramis-112-804880 Frightening in two ways. A solid cast (Coburn was always watchable) plays a cadre of professional pickpockets and petty thieves who actually live quite high off the takings. Unfortunately, the movie only comes to life when they're at work. Otherwise, it becomes a romantic-triangle soap opera that tries, and fails, to twinkle. The first way the movie is frightening is the way it fails to show any life between the (all-too-brief) pickpocketing interludes.More frightening is seeing how these people actually work (I'm sure their methods haven't changed a bundle). Back then, it was an inconvenience to replace a drivers license or other stuff . . . but the pickpockets were only after the money. Even credit cards were of limited use then. They never saw the value of a Social Security card. And everyone carried a limited amount of cash because no one had debit cards! Though an early scene shows these guys are just pickpockets with hearts of gold trying to make a living in tough times, in these days of identity theft, this gang hardly seems cuddly anymore. They are the sort of thieves who these days can cost you all your money, plus your reputation. Shakespeare saw it four hundred years ago, "Good name in man and woman . . . Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him,And makes me poor indeed."Worth watching for Coburn, and also for seeing just how these thugs can rob you without your knowing it. It's hard to believe people can actually steal your life so easily, but it's done.

TedMichaelMor This recalls pleasant French films that celebrate petty thieves and rascals. Bruce Geller obviously had great potential for other films. James Buchanan and Ronald Austin provided an entertaining and almost believable script. Michael Sarrazin unfortunately plays his role in his usual wooden, implausible style but the old masters James Coburn and Walter Pidgeon enrich with their usual nuances. Trish Van Devere almost overcomes some early ambiguities in the script.The professionalism of the cinematography by Fred Koenekamp and editing by Arthur Hilton enhance, without in any way distracting from, the narrative. The score by Lalo Schifrin does call attention to itself but, nonetheless, works.As someone who has visited Salt Lake City several times, I enjoyed that locale. Seeing some place outside L.A. helps sometimes. This is not a ground-breaking work. It is not especially ingenious. It is not reflective or thoughtful. However, the film is not trivial, except for Michael Sarrazin who seems unable to play any but flat roles. Watching this movie diverts one on a sultry summer afternoon.

mcgriswald I caught "Harry in your Pocket" on an on-demand cable channel, and I hadn't seen it since its original theatrical release. I have to say that I enjoyed it, partly because it is a great example of the early '70s antihero type of film, and because as a kid who grew up in Seattle where the beginning of the movie is filmed, it was cool to see the old buildings (long since replaced by skyscrapers) and the old restaurants like the Brasserie Pittsbourg and Rosellini's 410.Much of the film is dated, particularly the hairstyles and the clothes, but not so much that ruins the overall enjoyment of the film.Most people will enjoy the dissection of the act of pickpocketing, and the entire culture of the pickpockets, which is painstakingly explained. While amoral, the characters are likable, and the scene never gets too heavy, even though there is conflict.The ending is typically downbeat, which like "Butch Cassidy" and others was a hallmark of these antihero type of films. Strangely, the movie was marketed as a comedy, but it really wasn't, particularly by today's standards. Not hugely important or groundbreaking, just a great example of Coburn's work and similar films of that era.

Scott-Antes I liked this film, but contemporary viewers might find it somewhat less than exciting. Viewers who weren't around in the early '70s are liable to be distracted by the bad fashions and bad hair of the day, even though this film is relatively conservative in that respect. Sex and violence do exist in the film, but by today's standards are extremely mild. The main characters, in any case, are portrayed superbly. All four actors who play these roles are charismatic, each in his or her own way. I thought the ending of the film was a little disappointing, although it undoubtedly was meant to send a message. This is a film that needs to be rated according to the standards of the time. While categorized as a comedy, it is far more serious than amusing.