Christopher Reid I found the idea at the core of Random Harvest pretty moving. What if the person you loved couldn't remember you? There's something mystical about memory. We're nostalgic about our favourite things from childhood. It's a profound feeling when very old memories are triggered by a sense or a thought. Luke believed there was good in Darth Vader despite an overwhelming lack of evidence. We want to believe everything is remembered, somewhere deep down. True love cannot be entirely forgotten. It must live on somewhere.Ronald Colman walks out of an asylum when nobody is watching. He was there because he lost his memory near the end of the war. Maybe from an injury or from stress or shock. He doesn't talk much. But he meets a friendly lady (Greer Garson) by chance and she goes out of her way to help him. She trusts him for some reason. He appreciates her kindness and seems to recover his mental stability. Eventually, they fall in love.The movie maintains tension as we don't know where it is heading and we know nothing about this man or his nature. More stuff happens and his memory problems become an issue. The movie takes place over many years. It's a little tricky piecing things together as the film is indirect with a lot of information. It's not always obvious how much time has passed or what has happened to people. But it does make sense overall.One part of the plot in particular seems far-fetched. I'm skeptical about whether it's possible or has ever occurred in real life. But it creates the situation that the romance and drama reside within. If we simply accept it, the concept is powerful and affecting. The important thing is that the story and acting are very good. And the music is also very nice. I was unexpectedly moved to tears by the end of the movie. The feelings of Garson's character really resonated with me. And it's just a wonderfully beautiful story anyway. I was frustrated that Garson wasn't saying certain things but now I think I understand why. I'm very happy I discovered this movie. We watch movies to be affected and this one did that in many ways.

Spondonman Most times it's the book which is better to read than seeing the film and vice versa on rare occasions, for example Hitchcock's 39 Steps was better than Buchan's. All personal taste of course! To me Random Harvest is in between – the book by James Hilton was excellent but the MGM film was too, albeit it was altered significantly to fit into a 2 hour time frame. All works of fiction are fantasy but the film is definitely more fantastic and the audience has to seriously suspend reality for the duration. I've seen it lots of times now, the lustrous and heartwarming atmosphere always sucking me in.War veteran Ronald Colman suffering from loss of memory stumbles blindly out of an asylum in 1917 and into the arms of Greer Garson who helps him make a new life until he unfortunately regains his memory a few years later. MGM gave it their all - the studio production values from the outset were sky high and now it's an absolutely gorgeous nitrate composition to look at thanks to HD. Colman & Garson also gave it their all and are also gorgeous to look and listen to especially when Colman starts talking properly – my, was he lucky bumping into her in the cigarette shop in the side street! They make it all seem so romantically believable and that such endless self-sacrifice always gets rewarded in the end no matter how long it takes. The usual laughable olde Hollywood picture of immutable master servant relations and the proper working class deference shown to men and women of pedigree I pass over, except to say Thanks Guvnor And Gord Bless You Sir!In short, it's a wonderful film, perhaps the best of its kind and hopefully worth your time as it is mine and many others. Imho the "random years" for the movie industry were approximately 1914-1950 but there's no chance of the memory of those years ever being completely recovered.

treeline1 Ronald Colman stars as a shell-shocked WW1 soldier who suffers from complete amnesia. He is befriended by a kindly music hall singer (Greer Garson) and they fall in love. Inevitably, he regains his former memory and their lives change forever.Ronald Colman's dramatic voice and charismatic charm are irresistible in this movie and Greer Garson is incredibly beautiful and sympathetic; it's just a pleasure to watch them on the screen. The story is sweet and romantic and rich with characters. The movie received seven Oscar nominations in 1943. I did think the second half moved a bit slowly, but it comes to a satisfying conclusion. Recommended.

cstotlar-1 I'd been looking forward to this for several years. It was no disappointment at all. Hilton's novel is long and episodic and to a certain extent so is the film, but it never strays from its narrative and maintains its leisurely pace without seeming either pushed or dragging. This was made in the throes of war and the "English" environment was meant to woo the international (and particularly American) audience, however indirectly. Part of it was rather unashamedly "tea cozy" and "Hollywood quaint" in depicting the English scene, a bit too cutesy or endearing and too often cloying to the senses. We had the white picket fence, the tree all in flower, primroses round the path - no wishing well though... and thank heavens no Greyfriar's Bobby to melt the hearts of the kids and chew up the scenery to boot. The performances were excellent and the script beautifully organized.Ronald Colman was a bit old for the part but Garson was splendid throughout. I can fully understand that this was her favorite film. I'm ordinarily not a big fan of Le Roy or Hilton but this was truly a lovely trip.Curtis Stotlar