Random Harvest

1942 "He had found love - lost it - and now had found it again!"
7.9| 2h6m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 17 December 1942 Released
Producted By: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

An amnesiac World War I vet falls in love with a music hall star, only to suffer an accident which restores his original memories but erases his post-War life.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Wordiezett So much average
Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.
Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.
ramin99 I couldn't care less about the amnesiac man and his fate. Watching him trying to talk and the woman caring so much about a total stranger while soft music was playing over cardboard landscapes was too much for me.I couldn't watch the whole film out of boredom but I read it's* synopsis. I don't believe in selective memory loss and so I consider the plot nonsensical. First he looses* his memory then he gets what was lost before, but than* again he looses* other memories because of a convenient accident so the plot can go on to make a sappy love story.And lead actor is wrong for the part, he is way to* old to be a soldier. It would have been easy to find who he was after the shock. Just look for missing 3 star generals. It usually takes 30 years to be promoted to that rank and this guy looks about 50.And someone tell me why was a beautiful and kind woman like the lead actress conveniently single without any love interest in her past?*Intentional errors in accordance with Internet protocol.
A_Different_Drummer In many ways "the" most outrageous amnesia story ever told yet, ironically (or should I say "iconically?") also one of the most successful. And memorable. True love. Passion. Everything you could ever want. And then, bang, he disappears. Patiently, she tracks him down. And tracks him. And tracks him. And finds him. And discovers that he lost his memory and is now a very successful businessman who, strangely, never married. The big meeting. He does not recognize her at all. (This was considered a 6-hankie movie by the way, and we just used up 4). So, aware he might never actually know who she is, she takes a job by his side. Because something is better than nothing. Many modern reviewers have criticized current TV dramas for "manipulating the viewer shamelessly." I am guilty of this myself. But the pattern, the template, for viewer manipulation was set here, decades ago. Yes, the acting was spectacular. I mean, OMG, Greer Garson! And Ronald ("a far far better thing I do") Coleman! You could watch these two sort laundry and it would still be a good film. But, fact is, the last 30 minutes or so of the film are spent with the audience always on the edge of its chair hoping that ANY MOMENT he will recognize her. And he does, sort of. Critics have said the ending under-performs the film. It does, but, think about it, with that kind of setup, ANY ENDING WOULD UNDERPERFORM. This is one of the must-sees.
sonshine-832-238715 I've seen this movie about 10 times and I plan on watching it at least 10 more times! I love everything about it with the exception of one nearly unbelievable relationship. In my opinion Susan Peters and Ronald Colman being lovers is just a wee bit (actually a lot more than just a wee bit) of a stretch to begin with; good grief he was old enough to be her father, and then there is the scene with her tearfully abandoning him in the church after gazing into his eyes for a few seconds? While that scene was very well done and quite touching, IMHO it is just too unbelievable. Too bad she died about 10 years later in a tragic accident as she was quite convincing in this movie as a perky teen and a beautiful and confident young lady. In the book she dies, and I suppose throwing that into this movie instead of her simply leaving him at the altar would have required extending the movie another 20 minutes or so perhaps making the movie too long.
mike-world1 It's a masterpiece. Keeps viewers engrossed as the story unfolds. Emotionally satisfying yet there are moments when we often worry about the central character Paula (played by Greer Garson). Undoutably, one of her best performances and she brings life to the character of Paula and later of Margaret Hansen. The story is fast and doesn't let the viewer loose interest. Sets, characters, sound effect, and casts are well chosen. The story is not that new, but the way it is directed and told is quite impactful. The tender yet a strong character of Greer Garson brings the story to life, quite rare in modern movies. A movie that will remain in memories forever!