Harry In Your Pocket

There have been plenty of heist movies over the years and plenty of con game movies. But for those interested in a form of theft that’s more of a cross between a robbery and a grift, the choices are far more limited. In fact, you can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of pickpocket movies that have been made and still have enough left over to lift a wallet. Among the most stylish of these is 1973’s “Harry in Your Pocket,” a film that works better as a primer on the artistry of the wire mob than as a drama or caper movie.The wire mob is an organized gang of pickpockets and accomplices that rob unsuspecting marks of their pokes (wallets). These are just a few of the terms that viewers will pick up by watching “Harry in Your Pocket.” The Harry in question is played by James Coburn, and he’s such a smooth pro that he’s never been arrested. As the film begins, he arrives in Seattle and teams up with old vet Casey (Walter Pidgeon) to assemble a crew. Although Harry and Casey could seemingly have their pick of pros, Harry soon settles on Ray (Michael Sarrazin), a somewhat clumsy novice, and his girlfriend, Sandy (Trish Van Devere). It’s pretty clear to everyone that the reason the couple is along for the ride is that Harry has the hots for Sandy.The plot of “Harry in Your Pocket” is relatively basic, and it all revolves around the rivalry between Harry and Ray for Sandy’s attention. However, that triangle is pretty much absent for the film’s middle hour, most of which serves as a tutorial on pickpocketing. Since an entire snatch takes up maybe 30 seconds, the movie features many of them, shown in sequence, and all of which follow the same basic scenario. Ray and Sandy distract the mark momentarily, usually by employing Sandy’s obvious physical charms or by one or both of them “accidentally” bumping into the target. Then Harry, the “cannon,” swoops in and takes the wallet, following which there are a series of handoffs before Casey finally makes off with it. Surprisingly, seeing some 20 or so variations on what is essentially the same theme never becomes boring here. Nor does the lengthy training montage that precedes the thefts, as Ray and Sandy learn their trade. That’s in large part due to Lalo Schifrin’s bouncy score.“Harry in Your Pocket” was the only feature film directed by Bruce Geller, best known as the creator of the “Mission Impossible” TV series. He uses the same technique here as he did on the show, with lengthy, dialogue-free montages showing the characters in action. That formula worked on the series since the plots of episodes usually involved rather elaborate con games. Here, beyond the thefts, “Harry in Your Pocket” has very little to say. Admittedly, James Coburn and Walter Pidgeon are smooth pros as they deliver their pointers, and Trish Van Devere provides plenty of PG-rated eye candy. However, Michael Sarrazin is rather wooden, with his only significant facial expression a bug-eyed stare that is somewhat creepy. He is just not a compelling leading man here (despite his top billing, Coburn’s role in the film is definitely secondary). Further, Geller (or perhaps his stunt crew) is not skillful enough with the camera to show the actual mechanics of the lifts and handoffs. Instead, most of the grabs are just Coburn walking up next to the mark, followed by another series of close encounters as the wallet is handed off unseen from one member of the crew to another.To fill up the remainder of the screen time in what would otherwise be about a one-hour feature, director Geller shows viewers plenty of scenery from Seattle and the Pacific Northwest as the characters move from one town to another. Yes, the views are often spectacular, but if I wanted to see the scenery, I would watch a travelogue rather than slow-motion scenes of Michael Sarrazin and Trish Van Devere feeding seagulls.Although viewers usually get more of a suggestion of how pickpocketing works instead of a view of the actual mechanics, the lift sequences in “Harry in Your Pocket” are breezily entertaining. Further, Coburn and Pidgeon are a lot of fun to watch, as well. And, also, some of the 1973 dialogue in the film is unintentionally amusing when viewed from a 21st-century vantage point. (In one scene, the crew is ecstatically happy about having made over $1400 in a full day of work.) Still, the audience has to put up with lots of scenic but empty filler and lots more of a dull and empty performance by Michael Sarrazin. I’m giving “Harry in Your Pocket” a mild recommendation, but, as a caper film, it’s distinctly petty larceny.

When you take a good director, and start him off with two iconical actors, James Coburn and Walter Pidgeon, you almost can't lose, and this movie doesn't, despite the weakest of the 4 main characters, Michael Sarazzin, but buoyed by the astonishing natural beauty of Trish Van Devere. This results in an excellent heist/con film that for me, was interesting from the get go and held up that interest, even as the they delved deeper into the psyche of all the characters.So, if you are waiting for a "but": here it is: It has always been my feeling, that the job of every director, in any type of film, is to hold up the fantasy of the story, and let's face it, except for biographies, they are mostly fantasy, and the last thing you want to do is have your viewer say to themselves, "Oh, this is a movie", and the longer you can keep that away, and keep up the illusion, the more immersed your viewer will be. For me, this movie had one glaring flaw in that category, and I guess it is because I am a very practical person, and can be Pick-a-Ninny, when something strays too far from reality , and makes you stop to think, thus spoiling the illusion.so what was it exactly in this case? Hey, they are doing okay, take wise, and I realize that it is only in the early 70s, but the money just doesn't add up in an obvious way: there are 4 of them, and when they arrive in each town, they stay in the absolutely fanciest, most expensive hotel, where they get THREE rooms: a separate one for Harry and Casey, and then a third for the two young lovers: Three separate rooms in the highest class hotel in town, then , in addition to that, they only eat in the fanciest of restaurants, high class only....add to that , that Harry often has a lady of the evening in many of his stops, another expense, and they drive around in a big ol' 70s gas guzzler, so there is constant travel expenses, and last , but not least , at Harry's request, they have to wear the finest of clothing and look dressed to the nines......I won't even bother going into Casey's cocaine habit, another expense that is never explained......So, in summation, I don't care what era it was, this kind of lifestyle would be difficult for ONE thief, but FOUR????????? Way too extravagant...now, it certainly adds to the allure of the movie, the fancy settings and all, and the beautiful scenery of these wonderful towns, but as I said in the title, there is no way the math holds up ,and in the real world, the majority of career crooks live in squalid conditions, mostly by necessity.But, it gives the movie a nice polished look and appearance, and due to the high production values, they pull it off: a lot of people probably won't even notice what I am talking about, but again, I ran a business, and I know money, and it was just enough of a stretch to make me break the spell a bit, mollified, of course, by the shorter and shorter skirts/mini pants, that Trish Van Devere was displaying throughout! LOL......

Always watching it. Very interesting movie. I recommend to other people.

Personal Note: Watched this as a kid, moved to Salt Lake City 10 years later. When i recently watched it was so surprised to see the parts filmed in Salt Lake City, not many films find that place.70's films have alot less action, but more depth. This was my favorite movie with James Colburn, all acting was good IMO.Really can't say anything bad about it, except maybe the pace compared to modern film pacing.

I finally bought this DVD-R "Made on Demand" by Amazon, brand-new, and viewed it last night. The quality was surprisingly good on my HD TV, and it was fully 16x9 anamorphic widescreen. It probably looks beautiful on an older tube/CRT-type TV. The sound was excellent and I'd forgotten how much I like the score--great music by Lalo Schifrin, as I recall!This movie is good, not great, was not quite as terrific as I had remembered (saw it on TV in 1973 or 1974), and was very much like an ABC "Movie of the Week" from that time-- 1973. Though I think it was theater-released first. It's tame, as to excitement or action, compared to a film today, but had an early 1970s charm that I liked very much, with far better acting than you see now. And fine character development through good dialog. I prefer 1970s movies, to generalize, over those of any other decade.All four of the lead actors are quite appealing, it's interesting, also set in several different, pretty locations in the US and Canada, and I'm very glad I bought this. One complaint: the ending is sort of abrupt. Also uninteresting. And leaving the viewer wanting more, not because the ending was great, but because it was lacking. It came up quickly out of nowhere and leaves one little-stimulated to think further about the film.

buy it if you are a trish van deVere fan...most stunning actress..the film is funny as well.

mit Hang zum Drama. Völlig unverständlich wieso dieser hochwertige Film als Komödiengurkeangeboten wird. Das Cover wirkt wie eine Rock Hudson/Doris Day Komödie. Damit hat dieserernsthafte Streifen aber nicht das geringste zu tun. Da wird eine völlig falsche Erwartungshaltung geweckt.Wer aber einen niveauvollen und originellen Krimi-Streifen sehen möchte ist hier richtig. Die 4 Akteure... allen voranJames Cobourn glänzen durch gute schauspielerische Leistungen und machen den Film sehr sehenswert.Eine kleine vergessene Filmperle.

Good movie

Super Film, unterhaltsam.

I watched this show long time ago. I didn't remember a lot of parts so I enjoyed it.Good movie.