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.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Kinley
This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows
ThurstonHunger
Recommended by a friend with kids, I'd actually never seen this Hitchcock film and had been thinking maybe we should check some of his stuff out.As others indicate, this is not a typical Hitchcock film, more in tune with his TV show if you've ever seen that. Anyways my kids (14 years old) enjoyed this film, they do have a sense of humor somewhere between mordant and morbid so bear that in mind. They enjoyed the comedy here and the cleverness to the story.The film has a strong stagey feel, and some of the concocted dialog that I connect with older films, and I think my boys liked just fine. As a product of the 50's the film although fatal in some ways, never feels dangerous. So the odd humor is not really all that jarring (Shirley MacLaine's hyper-quirky character was the most jarring, and yet in an endearing manner.) Edmund Gwenn as the captain feels very much like a cartoon character composite, though he predates almost all that my boys have seen.Sex and death have long been constants in the universe, in this film they are handled rather tidily. As for teens, and maybe many viewers, there's something about being in on a secret with the characters on screen that in particular really resonates with some (one of my boys in particular.) I'd extend the recommendation made to me to you, based upon the above. As a bonus, it is the first time that Hitchcock worked with Bernard Herrmann.
Filipe Neto
Hitchcock bet heavily in this film: a cast of perfect unknown, an unusual plot and a cascade of black humor made with charm and class. All put together and hardly even looks like a movie by the renowned master, but it is. I've never laughed so hard at a movie made by him, and that was a very interesting and enjoyable surprise. The plot is based on the discovery of a corpse by an occasional hunter who, thus, believes he has killed him by accident. However, a lot of people end up getting involved and, some time later, there is an improvised gang bet on hiding the body, buried and unearthed several times. And still some say that the dead rest in peace! Of course, being a British movie, everything is done in a formal, polite way and always between a tea and a card game. This way of being is part of the joke. Target of a bad marketing strategy when it was released, the film has been misunderstood by the general public since then becoming, perhaps, one of the most forgotten films of this famous filmmaker's work. Anyway, it's a funny movie. It should be seen as a black comedy, not as a thriller or mystery movie. Its not a masterpiece, its not his best film, but still deserves to be watched.
edwagreen
Nothing could save this awful 1955 film, even the all-star cast. Go know that the two Mildred's-Dunnock and Natwick would appear in the same picture and still have such a dud in the offering. These 2 veteran crones of films actually look pretty young for 1955, but the idea that a man would come after Natwick in a physical manner causing her to hit him over the head with a shoe is far-fetched. Dunnock is spared because she appears briefly in the film as a grocery store owner whose son ins the deputy sheriff and quite suspicious of what is going on.Edmund Gwenn is the old sea-captain who thinks he has killed Harry by accident. Natwick sets him straight and Shirley MacLaine plays the woman who married Harry after his brother was killed. MacLaine reminded me here in far better films-"Some Came Running," and "The Apartment."It takes a doctor to straighten out what really happened to Harry, but the trouble is not with him but with rather ridiculous writing.
writers_reign
In 1952 Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac published a novel entitled Celle qui n'etait plus (She Who Was Not) somehow it came to Hitchcock's attention and seeing the potential for a film he tried to buy the rights but was beaten by Henri-Georges Clouzot (Hitch had more luck with another Boileau-Narcejac title D'entre les morts (1954) which he turned into Vertigo. However he was not only an indifferent film maker but a bad loser so he shot Celle qui n'etait plus anyway and released it the same year as Clouzot released his version, Les Diaboliques. In a clumsy attempt to muddy the water Hitch shot The Trouble With Harry as ho-hum comedy rather than the classic thriller that Clouzot released as Les Diaboliques. By far the best thing about Harry is the location shooting in Vermont. The casting was eclectic to say the least with acting honours shared between the two great Mildreds - Natwick and Dunnock - of American stage and screen, Edmund Gwenn phoning in his 'quaint' persona, Royal Dano about as far East as he can get from his natural habitat the Western and two mediocre efforts from John Forsyth and Shirley MacLaine. The peripatetic corpse is present in both films and for good measure Hitch has Harry end up in the bathtub as did Paul Meurisse. See it for the foliage
