Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Tad Pole . . . RANDOM HARVEST provided the blueprint for thousands of men to subsequently establish multiple households with multiple wives. Sure, technically "Smithy"\Charles commits double marriage with the SAME WOMAN (so that the censors would remain happy). But it's not hard to read between the lines. When you enjoy Dale Carnegie Get Rich Quick training, you learn to compartmentalize your life (think Bernie Madoff). Though the military man in this movie harvests his women serially due to his randomly alternating realities, it doesn't take too much imagination on the viewer's part to tweak the plot and shorten the time between towns\households\wives from this flick's lengthy 3 to 15 years down to a more reasonable 3 to 15 days or hours. Though some men have been known to reap their RANDOM HARVEST among as many as four or five separate families, this strikes me as being too stressful, not unlike a show performer trying to keep five stacks of plates perpetually spinning atop five tall poles (sooner or later, some china is going to shatter). However, if an amnesiac can "randomy harvest" the same woman twice, how hard can it be for someone with all their marbles to seed and harvest two or three a few fields miles apart?

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.

Byravan Viswanathan I had never seen Random Harvest until just the other day on my TCM channel. What a refreshingly beautiful romantic drama that was. My favorite star, Ronald Coleman, was there and that is what made me even want to watch it. I have never seen Greer Garson but know of her great talent from Mrs. Miniver and this pair made the fine story even finer with their convincing and earnest acting. Oh! for the days when we had real actors and real stories come out of Hollywood! I do not recall any other romantic drama from Hollywood that is this memorable or haunting as this one. Only Wuthering Heights with Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon came close.Ronald Coleman and Greer Garson did a superb job of producing a variety of expressions on their faces to match their words and atmosphere. Some scenes would bring tears to the eyes even in grown men. The movie as a whole including the sets and period costumes was impeccable.I wonder if any one with a fascination for old Hollywood classics noticed the actress that played the little lady owner of the tobacconist shop. She was the one that performed so delightfully as the half blind house keeper in that famous film, Witness for the Prosecution.