Interesteg
What makes it different from others?
Lucybespro
It is a performances centric movie
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.
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.
Kirpianuscus
it is a film with shining actors. and, off course, shining performances. and this is the basic virtue. it is a brilliant example of wise humor. and a beautiful eulogy of love. and seductive story who reminds old fashion crime story. it is Mildred Dunnock and Edmund Gwenn and Mildred Natwick and the first and , maybe, the best , for Shirley MacLaine. a body. good intentions. and the chain of holes. love. suspicions. and great dialogues. short, a nice film who, scene by scene, becomes a little gem. because all is in perfect order, the dark story is a lovely one, the script is a box with surprises and, sure, the humor seems be fresh again and again. this is all. so, see it !
Abhinav Yadav
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..!!!
