BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

poetcomic1 I can see no point in going over yet again why this film delights me and as for those who despise it - a shrug of the shoulders. The whole tone of the film is set in the titles with the delicious combination of Bernard Hermann's crisp score and a quirky very 'New Yorker' cyclorama of Saul Steinberg cartoons. The credits are astonishingly chic and ahead of their time. Steinberg was one of the top New Yorker cartoonist and Hitchcock was a lifetime fan of the New Yorker humorists and wit. Shirley Maclaine, fresh from Broadway reveals her natural, quirky quality in this first film - one can already glimpse the consummate actress of The Apartment. I have always treasured the 'two Mildreds' (Natwick & Dunnock) in almost any film that gies them screen time. Mildred Dunnock was a true 'Actors Studio' founder and she brings her skills to the role though Hitchcock purported to dislike the Actor's Studio methods, watch her throughout this film as she brings an extra layer of emotion to virtually every scene she is in.

HotToastyRag The real trouble with Harry is that Alfred Hitchcock decided to make a movie about him. Come on, Al, you walked right into that one.I'm not an Alfred Hitchcock fan. Three years of film school taught to revere and appreciate the "master of suspense", but I could never force myself to like his movies. I find them incredibly slow and boring. The Trouble with Harry is no exception. It's very slow, boring, and wordy. There's a dead guy. His name is Harry. Let's spend two hours talking about it.The only reason to watch this movie, besides if you're a Hitchcock fan and actually like his movies, is Shirley MacLaine. This was her first movie; she was plucked from obscurity and made into a star overnight. Well, that's not exactly true. You know that famous story about the understudy who got her big Broadway break when the main actress broke her foot and couldn't go on? That understudy was Shirley MacLaine. Because of her debut onstage in The Pajama Game, she was signed to Paramount Pictures and was subsequently cast in The Trouble with Harry.

zkonedog There is no questioning the fact the Alfred Hitchcock is an incredible filmmaker. Unfortunately, even his deft hand is not able to turn "The Trouble With Harry" into anything more than a curiosity.For a basic plot summary, "The Trouble With Harry" is a comedy about a body ("Harry") that just doesn't seem to want to go away. One day, in the middle of the New England countryside, a man is found sprawled out in a scenic valley. Over the course of the film, as many as four different people lay claim to the death of "Harry", with the truth only coming out in the end.The "trouble" (pun intended) of this movie is that it is so utterly ridiculous as to have no possible avenue of true success. Hitch does his best to inject the goings-on with some nice tongue-and- cheek humor & one-liners, but in a story as asinine as this one, not even ten Hitch's could make it a classic.The acting, led by the quartet of Edmund Gwenn, John Forsythe, Mildred Natwick, & Mildred Dunnock, is so-so. I very much enjoyed some characters, while others leave quite a bit to be desired here. For those interested in a bit of casting trivia, this movie features a young (we're talking short pants here) Jerry "The Beaver" Mathers in one of his first film roles. It also introduces Shirley MacLaine in her very first feature film part.Overall, "The Trouble With Harry" is a curiosity at best. A few lines will make you smirk, Hitch's deft touch will keep you to the end, but the film is, at its core, just too ridiculous to ever really be considered great.

SnoopyStyle Captain Wiles (Edmund Gwenn) is out shooting rabbits and finds a well dressed Harry Worp shot dead. He figures that he accidentally killed her and tries to hide the body. Harry's estranged wife Jennifer Rogers (Shirley MacLaine) is brought to the body by her son Arnie and she's glad he's dead. She thinks that she killed Harry as well as spinster Ivy Gravely (Mildred Natwick). Artist Sam Marlowe comes along and tries to help Captain Wiles and the others as they try to hide the situation from Deputy Sheriff Calvin Wiggs (Royal Dano).It's a black comedy from Hitchcock except I found none of it that funny. The situations are quirky but the characters aren't particularly comical. The start is rather boring with the constant stream of odd characters. It seems to be trying way too hard especially with the guy reading the book or the tramp who takes the shoes. It's bad slapstick or bad something. The story gets even more boring with all the talking. My eyes glazed over and I don't recall half of Jennifer's story. None of the characters truly interested me. The multiple burials and reburials are almost funny. That's the best I can say about the movie.