Harry in Your Pocket

1973 "If you only have eyes for her... If you just bumped into a stranger... If suddenly you develop sex appeal... You've got... "Harry In Your Pocket!""
6.3| 1h43m| PG| en
Details

A master thief and his drug-addicted partner teach two aspiring crooks how to steal wallets.

Director

Producted By

United Artists

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much
ThiefHott Too much of everything
Nayan Gough 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.
Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
tomsview Before "The Sting", "House of Games" or "The Grifters", there was "Harry in Your Pocket".When amateur thief, Ray Haulihan (Michael Sarrazin) teams up with Sandy Coletto (Trish Van Devere), they get the chance to work in a 'wire mob' with a couple of pickpocket pros: Harry (James Coburn) and Casey (Walter Pidgeon). At first, Harry, who has many rules, only wants the attractive Sandy to provide distraction while he picks the pockets of his marks, but soon Ray learns the trade and their lives become entwined, leading to big changes for them all.This is an absorbing movie with a moral dilemma at its core. As the movie plays out, both Ray and we, the audience, learn the art of pickpocketing, and we end up on the side of the likable, but disconcerting set of criminals. As the team plies their trade, there does not seem to be the slightest degree of remorse over their victims. Although they only target wealthy-looking marks, our moral judgement is also suspended; when one of the team is caught through an accident, we feel that he is the victim.Sandy and Casey are the warm heart of the film while Ray and Harry test each other for alpha male status – and Sandy. Ray is the novice who does not seem entirely suited to a life of crime. Harry is beyond cool. Steve McQueen was the 'King of Cool' at the time, but Coburn, wearing Ray Bans as though he was born with them on, gave him a run for his money with this film.Interesting locations along the West Coast of the U.S. and Canada open the film out. Lalo Schifrin contributed a breezy score that accompanies the well-choreographed stings on the streets – the lightness of the score also seems to give us permission to identify with the crew.This may have been the first film to feature this kind of con to such a degree. A similar wire mob sequence was one of the best things in 2015's "Focus" with Will Smith and Margot Robbie. In that film, the veteran con artist also teaches the novice how to be successful in a life of crime – it's a formula that worked well for both films."Harry in your Pocket" is over 40 years old now – credit cards were just beginning to replace cash – but it doesn't seem particularly dated. It's a movie that still won't disappoint too many people.
Milan Harry in your pocket is not a lost masterpiece but more of a lost movie of the decade that was famous for it's crime genre cinema. It's one of the better Coburn films of the 70's and pretty decent all around. All four principal characters take the equal burden of the story, which never becomes boring, predictable or tedious. There are some great scenes that show us the tricks of the trade, but every bit of it remains interesting to the end. Walter Pigeon and James Coburn lead the way in a story of life on a day to day basis, never looking beyond tomorrow, and doing a job that might just take you down in flames, so enjoy it while you can. And they do, best clothes, best hotels, best food and coke, but never in one place for more than a week. Michael Sarrazin and lovely Trish Van Devere are great as well as a no future lovers who immerse themselves in Harry's combustible world of fast money and quick pleasures. The job is risky and takes it's toll, that's how it goes and the ending serves the story. I don't know why this movie wasn't released on DVD but it surely deserves the attention of all fans of 70's cinema. Find and enjoy.
thinker1691 Many an actor dreams of having a mixed repertoire of characters which he has play throughout his career, eventually becoming exclusively his. Doubtless, a few wish they could shed certain character images as they have become synonymous with and is difficult to shake it loose. This rarely ever happened to actor James Coburn. Here is one film which many of his fans never seen. In this film called "Harry In Your Pocket " he naturally plays the master pickpocket called Harry. In his travels he encounters a street thief named Ray Haulihan (Michael Sarrazin) and his beautiful partner Sandy Coletto (Trish Van Devere) who are looking to upgrade their ability as thieves. At first Harry and his aging partner Casey (Walter Pidgeon) are simply amused with the pair, but later, they become a foursome which becomes quite formidable. Refused by Harry to teach him the art of pickpocketing, Ray convinces Casey to teach him for a cut of the take as Casey has a Cocaine habit to support and one which eventually leads to tragedy. Once Harry learns of the young couple operating without him, he acquiesces and becomes their leader with one important rule, 'Harry never holds'. With the trio now planning to take on a grand event in New Orleans, they have no idea the police are awaiting them. With the rare appearance of Walter Pidgeon this movie is sure to become a classic in years to come. Exceptional feature. ****
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.