Too many fans seem to be blown away

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Frightening in two ways. A solid cast (Coburn was always watchable) plays a cadre of professional pickpockets and petty thieves who actually live quite high off the takings. Unfortunately, the movie only comes to life when they're at work. Otherwise, it becomes a romantic-triangle soap opera that tries, and fails, to twinkle. The first way the movie is frightening is the way it fails to show any life between the (all-too-brief) pickpocketing interludes.More frightening is seeing how these people actually work (I'm sure their methods haven't changed a bundle). Back then, it was an inconvenience to replace a drivers license or other stuff . . . but the pickpockets were only after the money. Even credit cards were of limited use then. They never saw the value of a Social Security card. And everyone carried a limited amount of cash because no one had debit cards! Though an early scene shows these guys are just pickpockets with hearts of gold trying to make a living in tough times, in these days of identity theft, this gang hardly seems cuddly anymore. They are the sort of thieves who these days can cost you all your money, plus your reputation. Shakespeare saw it four hundred years ago, "Good name in man and woman . . . Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him,And makes me poor indeed."Worth watching for Coburn, and also for seeing just how these thugs can rob you without your knowing it. It's hard to believe people can actually steal your life so easily, but it's done.

The only other film that I saw where a pickpocket is a hero is Pickup On South Street and the stylish James Coburn of Harry In Your Pocket would look down on Richard Widmark. Widmark worked alone and lived hand to mouth until he happened to dip on a Communist spy and got some atomic secrets in that film.We're dealing with something totally different here. James Coburn in the title role will dip into your's and everyone else's pocket. After watching this film I'm glad I carry my wallet in my front pocket where a strange movement there will set off definite alarms. You watch Harry In Your Pocket and NO ONE will ever carry a wallet in a back pocket again.Coburn and an old associate Walter Pidgeon take in a pair of young trainees, Michael Sarrazin and Trish Van Devere, and things work out for a bit. But soon Van Devere becomes an object of rivalry for the team. Coburn also is known far and wide by law enforcement, but they can never catch him with the goods.Some nice scenic cinematography in Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Victoria, British Columbia is in this film as three of the places where the team plys it's trade. Coburn is a man getting on himself and jealous of young Sarrazin. His only real attachment is to the elderly Pidgeon who now just serves as a lookout for marks and a steerer. Pidgeon is rather touching as the old crook for whom there really is no retirement due to the life he's chosen to lead.For a look at an elegant yet also seamy side of a crooked business you can't go wrong with Harry In Your Pocket.

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.

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.