IMDb RATING
5.4/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
In 1892, two vaudevillians and petty con artists get involved, together with the most notorious bank robber, in a New York City bank heist.In 1892, two vaudevillians and petty con artists get involved, together with the most notorious bank robber, in a New York City bank heist.In 1892, two vaudevillians and petty con artists get involved, together with the most notorious bank robber, in a New York City bank heist.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThis movie went massively overbudget and caused such a major cash crisis that Columbia Pictures nearly went out of business, until a fund of German dentists, Cinerenta, agreed to help co-finance the studio's other movies.
- GoofsMost of the male characters in the film have 1970's long hairstyles or Afros which were not accepted or socially acceptable in the late Nineteenth Century.
- Quotes
Chatsworth: Adam, where'd you find those two oafs?
Adam Worth: Oh, they're not oafs, Jack. They would require practice to become oafs.
- Crazy creditsShang Draper's Stained Glass Panels Based on Works of Alfonse Mucha
- ConnectionsReferenced in Saturday Night Live: Eric Idle/Neil Innes (1977)
- SoundtracksI'm Harry, I'm Walter
(uncredited)
Music by David Shire
Lyrics by Alan Bergman and Marilyn Bergman
Performed by James Caan and Elliott Gould
Featured review
Laurel and Hardy do The Sting
This film is one of those films in which the elements fail to come together. It is clearly an attempt to recreate the lightning in a bottle of The Sting some years earlier. However it does not measure up for a number of reasons.
Firstly the truly boring title does the film no favours. It is not surprising the audience stayed away despite this having obvious star power. Like The Sting the main stars are a couple of con men. The comedy is very broad, almost slapstick at times. This tends to undermine any tension in the film. And I'm not convinced that either Caan or Gould have any aptitude for this kind of broad comedy (and neither, I think, do they, if their subsequent career moves are an indication).
However, there are certain times when nastiness creeps in, the most obvious example is when Gould is locked in a safe. Yes, that's comedy gold, having a man almost suffocate to death.
Not only are the con men much more buffoonish than in The Sting, but they are also more contemptible. When we first see them, they are stealing money from ordinary members of the public. Why on earth would we be sympathetic to their escapades from then on? While in The Sting the objective was to rob another (and worse) villain, here the target is a normal bank containing real people's money. An attempt to show the manager as corrupt and lecherous does not undermine the fact that the bank contains real people's money and at a time when banks could go out of business.
Ultimately, no one really cares about these two thieves and whether they succeed in their venture.
Firstly the truly boring title does the film no favours. It is not surprising the audience stayed away despite this having obvious star power. Like The Sting the main stars are a couple of con men. The comedy is very broad, almost slapstick at times. This tends to undermine any tension in the film. And I'm not convinced that either Caan or Gould have any aptitude for this kind of broad comedy (and neither, I think, do they, if their subsequent career moves are an indication).
However, there are certain times when nastiness creeps in, the most obvious example is when Gould is locked in a safe. Yes, that's comedy gold, having a man almost suffocate to death.
Not only are the con men much more buffoonish than in The Sting, but they are also more contemptible. When we first see them, they are stealing money from ordinary members of the public. Why on earth would we be sympathetic to their escapades from then on? While in The Sting the objective was to rob another (and worse) villain, here the target is a normal bank containing real people's money. An attempt to show the manager as corrupt and lecherous does not undermine the fact that the bank contains real people's money and at a time when banks could go out of business.
Ultimately, no one really cares about these two thieves and whether they succeed in their venture.
- son_of_cheese_messiah
- May 31, 2015
- Permalink
- How long is Harry and Walter Go to New York?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origen
- Languages
- Also known as
- Harry & Walter
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $7,000,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Harry and Walter Go to New York (1976) officially released in India in English?
Answer