pittzepmets In many ways, Random Harvest epitomizes the quintessential old Hollywood film. The story is engaging and never loses your attention. The music in the background appropriately captures the mood and never intrudes. Ronald Colman and Greer Garson give fine performances. Garson, a true star at the time, radiates the screen as usual, and in a way few other actresses have done before or since. Of course, while the story doesn't disappoint, it does have its flaws. Colman seems quite a bit too old to have been a soldier in World War I. The idea that an amnesiac would be institutionalized as if he had suffered brain damage also seems a bit far-fetched. Moreover, why would he not have dog tags to identify him? And if he didn't, were there no other soldiers who would have known him at the time of his injury? Other questions are begged. Why would his family not have investigated his fate? Why would Colman's character not attempt to find out about his past? Why does his speech impediment suddenly disappear? Why would a woman marry an amnesiac before trying to learn if he was already married and had a family?After the car accident, he discovers he has lost three years of his life. Why wouldn't he seek to retrace his steps and find out where he was and what he had done? Instead he heads home, where his family greets his return from the dead as if it were just another day -- easily the weakest part of the storyline.Alas, perhaps I'm being too logical! Random Harvest is still enjoyable if you can overlook these obvious holes. The movie wouldn't work otherwise, and ultimately it does what movie watchers love best: deliver us a happy ending.

TheLittleSongbird Random Harvest is very fondly remembered and loved by many and for good reason. It is such a beautiful film in so many ways and one of the most moving films I've seen. Random Harvest is a splendidly made film, both sumptuous and Expressionist and still looking as fresh now as it did then. The period detail is rendered handsomely as well, not accurate perhaps but with the quality of how the film looks that doesn't really matter all that much. The music has that lush romantic feeling without being too syrupy, the use of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake was apt and will be a delight for classical music enthusiasts(count me as one). The script has the right dose of warmth and pathos with nothing being corny or overly-sentimental; this is a script with heart. As has the story, which is romantic to the hilt, heart-warming and incredibly touching, you're guaranteed to need tissues when Charles doesn't return to Paula after going to Liverpool and when his memory starts to come back. I was so engrossed by the characters and so touched by the story that any improbabilities were easily forgiven. Mervyn Leroy's direction is masterly and the characters are sweet and very human, complete with one of the most realistic and heart-breaking portrayals of shell-shock on film. The supporting cast all give solid performances, Susan Peters is utterly convincing in her feistiness and confidence and Reginald Owen, Henry Travers and Edmund Gwenn are always watchable. But the two leads dominate and are a huge part of the reason why Random Harvest works so well. Ronald Colman was a revelation, wistful and dignified but it is also very difficult to not tear up at Colman's body language when his memory starts returning, a very telling piece of acting. Greer Garson is just radiant and is wonderfully sincere in her role. Their chemistry together is just pure magic. All in all, beautiful and outstanding film, cinematic romance at its finest. 10/10 Bethany Cox

vincentlynch-moonoi Since this is one of my 3 favorite movies (right behind "GWTW" and "Ben-Hur", I'm pleased to see that the vast majority of reviews here are extremely positive.I want to begin my review my dismissing several of the oft-heard criticisms of the film. First, that Colman was too old for the role. When you a have a film than spans nearly 20 years, any actor is going to be either too young for the older scenes, or too old for the younger scenes. Either way, there's going to be lots of makeup. Colman was 51 when he made this film, meaning that if you want to go with actual ages, his character would have been 47 when he entered the military at the beginning of WWI. In actuality, that made Colman 6 years to old for enlistment status (41 was the upper limit). But just right to be the "industrial prince" of Great Britain later in the film. So you either err in the age of the soldier, or you err in the age of the industrialist.Another criticism is the need to suspend belief. Yup. That's what the vast majority of movies require. If not, you're usually either watching a very boring fictional movie or a documentary. Normal life portrayed on the big screen isn't usually very interesting.Another criticism is that the film brings in the twist midway through the film, rather than at the very end, as the novel did. Well, doing the film way simply wouldn't have worked. Garson would have had to have been absent for half the film. And, the choice is between total surprise, or the interest in seeing how each of the main characters deals with the "ruse". And, Garson's character (Paula) explains why she wants the relationship only when Colman's character (Smithy/Charles) comes to a realization based on love and remembrance, not based on when he feels a legal responsibility. And frankly, I recently read the book, and I thought it was awful. And I doubt that most readers knew about the plot twist before reading the book; you just can't keep secrets like that.One criticism of this film that I hear that is accurate, though of little consequence, is that the hair and clothing styles of the women are not accurate to the time period. Fair criticism, but fairly common in the cinema.The one major criticism I have is the character of Kitty, played by Susan Peters. Supposedly being only 15 when she first meets Charles, while he is clearly in his 40s (by movie standards), not only didn't work for me, but I found a bit repulsive. It would be easier to tolerate the liaison if Kitty had been fresh out of college when they met -- a May/December romance -- but this is a bit too much. Not only that, but despite others praising her acting here, I was not impressed at all. She was far more suited to the next film she made -- an Andy Hardy piece where she was a co-ed. This one flaw is the reason that, for me, I can't give the film a "10".I hold Greer Garson and Ronald Colman in almost equal esteem. There are some who see this as Garson's film, but I disagree. Considering the degree of suspension of belief required of viewers here, Colman had the task of holding the center while being a shell-shock victim and amnesiac on the one hand, and becoming the industrial prince of England and a member of Parliament on the other. I noticed one of our reviewers for criticizing Colman for "walking through" the film. I had an uncle that was shell-shocked in WWII, and that's exactly what he did -- walked through life with something missing. And Colman portrays that perfectly, without going over the edge. He talks to Paula about wishing he had belonged to the couple at the asylum. Perfect. He becomes easily distracted by certain semi-flashbacks, but not able to focus on them. Perfect. This should have won the Academy Award (although I'm not taking anything away from James Cagney). And then there's the scene which is as good an acting job as I've seen -- at the cottage door when all you see is the back of Colman's head as the memory returns. Though lasting only seconds, you see several stages of returning memory in just the way his body tenses in very slightly different movements. Absolutely perfect.Greer Garson also plays this perfectly. Just the type who would take in a stray dog. Just the type who would want the relationship to be based on love, rather than responsibility. And her dance routine -- so very entertaining...and different for her! I fell in love with Greer Garson watching this film.There are other actors in the film who make it feel so comfortable -- Henry Travers, Reginald Owen, Una O'Connor, Margaret Wycherly, and more. But Philip Dorn, a Dutch actor, stands out as the psychiatrist.I love this film and have for years. Since its DVD release, I find myself watching it a couple of times a year. I never grow tired of it. Almost the perfect film.

gkeith_1 Greer was a stunner, and not always the stiff upper lip character about whom we have heard many times. When she does her "She's Ma Daisy" dance and singing, she hits the ball out of the park. I love how she's the star of the number, and center of attention. The chorus dancers kowtow to her. She leads the entire group. The military men later dancing with her are certainly having a great time.Greer, with her beautiful legs, was doing an homage to the Scots singer and entertainer Sir Harry Lauder. He had bowed legs shaped like he was riding a horse, whereas Greer's were long, sleek and feminine. She was a great dancer. I hope she did her own singing. I thought that that part was excellent. When Greer picked up the crooked walking stick, the audience just knew she was going to do a Sir Harry imitation. Sir Harry had been famous before World War One (The Great War; The War to End All Wars; which, we know by now, 2010, that there have been lots of wars since then).Reginald Owen was great, as the former boxer. Ronald Colman was just superb, even playing the mental patient. Later, when he takes over as head of his family enterprises, he plays the executive well, also. As the young thing desperately in love with Colman, Susan Peters plays her character very well.I like the end, where Smithy and Paula go back to their original home, and where of course the key fits. The beautiful white blossoms on the tree beyond the white fence are just divine.