The Trouble with Harry (1955)

That was an excellent one.

Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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.

NOTES: The film's original reception from both critics and public was lukewarm at best. Although originally advertised as being photographed in VistaVision, this credit has been removed from current (2016) prints. I have a still of Hitch directing a studio interior in which a VistaVision camera is obviously employed, but I must admit my doubts as to such a heavy piece of equipment being dragged all over the beautiful backwoods of Vermont.COMMENT: I enjoyed the film, yes, but it's by no means the height of humorous originality that its fans claim. The idea of a missing, waylaid or bothersome corpse is a standard gimmick in literature. Alec Coppel, in fact, has used this stratagem at least twice: — in his novel, "Mr. Denning Drives North" (filmed in 1951) and in his Broadway stage play, "The Gazebo" (filmed in 1959 with Glenn Ford and Debbie Reynolds). "The Gazebo" has surfaced quite a few times on television, and so has "Mr. Denning..." Both were extremely popular films in their day. So it's no wonder "The Trouble with Harry" was not the super- duper success its makers intended. The total lack of star power didn't help at the time either. (Whilst she has a major role, this was Shirley MacLaine's debut film). On the other hand, the picture is beautifully photographed on wondrously autumnal locations and has so much inherently whimsical and oddball appeal, its visual delights tend to stay in the memory. It's the sort of film that provides such captivating scenery and such mildly memorable characterizations, it can be viewed with pleasure again and again.

THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY is probably the most atypical Hitchcock film I've seen so far. While it does have a brilliantly macabre sense of humor, the overall story is less than the sum of its parts. The basic story is that Harry is found dead in the woods, and a small group of people have trouble deciding what to do with his body. What the film does well is mining humor from the various situations arising from finding a dead body. Given that the subject matter is kind of grotesque, this results in more chuckles than outright guffaws. Fortunately, I thought the characters were also interesting, if a little underwritten. Shirley MacLaine did well in her first big screen role, and Edmund Gwynn (Kris Kringle in MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET) was also rather entertaining to watch. I also thought that the tonal shifts, while a little odd at first, gave the film a quirky air that I grew to like. An example of how this plays out is in conversations that originally revolve around Harry, but then rather cavalierly shift to other, more banal, romantic comedy territory. If James Stewart and Grace Kelly coming together over a potential murder in REAR WINDOW was weird, two couples doing the same thing over a dead body for essentially the entire film here was downright odd. Ultimately, though, where the narrative ends up isn't as interesting as the journey taken to get there, and is a little underwhelming as a result. This isn't one of Hitchcock's greatest films, but it did provide a refreshing change of pace.

The trouble with Harry is woven around a dead body( of harry) which is found in woods by a wandering kid,then by an old man who is shooting around rabbits,and consequently by few more people. They all have a different way of their own of responding, concluding and acting. They end up digging in and digging out the body thrice and at the end leave the body at the same spot, the very next day.and the caption comes "the trouble with harry is over".frankly i watched TTWH twice, first time i could bear it only for 5 minutes and deleted it. today I again downloaded it by accident after two years, the moment it started i got the flashbacks of this movie,but i decided to watch it ,thinking hitchcock would surprise me in the end like always. after watching rope,strangers on train,psycho,vertigo,dial m for murder etc etc i was a die hard fan of hitchcock, but this movie is a colossal waste of time,a torture, a blot on cinema ,a shameless ridiculing the feelings of us,a sheer trash. i beg you plz plz plz..do not watch it..!!!never..ever..ever..!!the worst creation of hitchcock..!!!