Thanks for the memories!

People are voting emotionally.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I kept wondering about the referent in the movie's title: "Desire Me." Who's supposed to be desired, and who to do the desiring? I finally decided that it didn't matter who desired whom, as long as the imperative statement fit the title melody. And it did. I think it became a pop song with appropriately deranged lyrics. The theme SOUNDS like a nascent pop song, just waiting for the right words to make adolescents of 1947 swoon and weep.But the only sobs in the audience would come from the young girls, not the boys who would be grinding their teeth with impatience and wondering when something was going to happen.It's the end of the war and Greer Garson lives in a rather splendid house overlooking the French coast. She's waiting for her husband, Robert Mitchum, to return from the German reprisal camp where he's supposedly being held. A man in a ragged uniform hurries along the beach and climbs to the house, throws open the door, and enters with a big smile, finding everything as familiar as he'd hoped. He sits at the piano and begins to play Garson's and Mitchum's love song, called "Desire Me." It's not Mitchum though. Mitchum gets second billing but I don't know why. He only shows up for the last few minutes of the movie. This guy we're watching now is an intruder, Richard Hart, a handsome young man with whom Mitchum shared all his memories of home while both were confined to the reprisal camp.Hart explains all this to Garson, and adds that he himself saw Mitchum shot to death while trying to escape. Upon hearing this, Garson, who was mooning over Mitchum, thinking he was still alive, is nonplussed. Out of loneliness and because Hart seems as familiar with the place as Mitchum had been, almost his Doppelganger, she invites Hart to stick around. Eventually, she becomes plussed, and the two melt into an embrace. Fade to the ocean crashing on the rocks, an electrical storm whipping the pine trees into a fury of motion, an atomic explosion, a covey of quail taking frantic flight, a locomotive rushing into a tunnel, a laser display in Las Vegas, an anamorphic tornado destroying a village in Indiana, a hypodermic syringe insinuating itself into a vein, the shriek of a shoat being swallowed whole by a python, the levitating ecstacy of St. Teresa.It's a small French town and gossip is the chief means of social control. Soon there is a visit from the estimable George Zucco as the local padre. "My dear child, you must realize the unseemly nature of this...." It develops that Hart isn't quite the desperately lonely ex-prisoner he seems to be. Ex-prisoner, yes, but also rootless psychopath and arrogant ex-delinquent. And, oh, yes, liar too. Mitchum wasn't killed after all. He returns home just in time to find that his wife is about to run away with Hart. He's a little bitter about that. There is a climactic fight, followed by a tearful resolution amid the fields of swaying wildflowers.The story is told from Garson's point of view, almost entirely. We know as much as she knows. We may sense she's being taken advantage of by John Hart but it isn't until later that we realize how deliberately manipulative he's been. And when Mitchum finally shows up and is irritated by finding her in her new arrangement, she is able to rearrange the emotional array and blame HIM for sharing the secrets of his home life with a stranger! Here she is, putting out for some guy she doesn't even know, because she's lonesome and horny -- and it's all Mitchum's fault for not writing more often. Whew! She's a victim no matter how you look at it.If you enjoy this kind of movie -- and it's not badly done of it's type -- then you'll enjoy this movie.

This film is an atrocious failure on many levels.It is emblematic of the loss of imagination and the draining of talent of the studio system in the late forties when confronted with the genius of European productions of the same time, especially Italian neo-realism.To begin with, the subject is extremely derivative. It is based on a German play that had already been made into a successful film in 1928 in Germany. This play was inspired, like a whole family of plays and films of the era, by a real event that took place in Italy in the 20's (the Bruneri-Canella case). This case also inspired the 1938 French film "Carrefour" (set in France and remade in Hollywood as "Crossroads"). This French film was later remade in England in 1940 as "Dead Man's Shoes". The same story inspired Pirandello's "As You Desire Me", set in Italy, in the late 20's, which became a Greta Garbo vehicle in the 30's, as well as the novel "The Wife of Martin Guerre" by American writer Janet Lewis (1941), a story set in France in the Middle Ages, which became the French film "The Return of Martin Guerre" (Daniel Vigne, 1982), which was of course remade as a Hollywood film starring Richard Gere, "Sommersby" (Jon Amiel, 1993) and set after the US Civil War. The same Italian story also inspired Edward Wool's 1935 play "Libel!" (filmed in 1959 in England), which has several similarities with the classic film "Random Harvest" (1942).As if the story was not tired enough, the big mistake was to transpose a German play about the aftermath of the First World War in a post-WWII French Brittany setting - filmed on the back lot - that just doesn't gel. The sets appear to be the ones used for the South of France in "Song of Bernadette" and the music by (the ordinarily trustworthy) Herbert Stothart is unconvincing in its attempt to convey any real sense of France or Brittany. Everything in the art direction is stilted and false. Its un-Frenchness is almost frightening. The viewer may get an occasional glimpse of O'Neil, Strindberg, Ibsen, Murnau and Rossellini, but never, never of a French fishing village.The subject and acting try very hard to reconnect the story to some sense of lustful reality while channelling something of the drama and realism of European serious cinema. But they fail. Imagining Robert Mitchum and Greer Garson as a French fisherman and his wife is simply an exercise quite beyond anyone's powers of self-deception.The end result is a cumbersome imitation of European simplicity with misfiring Hollywood production values, an embarrassingly stodgy melodrama that tries very hard to be a thoughtful little art film. It stinks and it sinks and it will forever remain as an example of one of the first signs of decadence of Hollywood's golden era.

Enjoyed this Classic B&W film with a fisherman's house of stone build high on a hill top, over looking the ocean and a very rocky coast line and plenty of fog. It starts out with Greer Garson,(Marise Aubert)," Strange Lady in Town",'55, who is see a shrink and has many flash backs. They show two soldier's in the war, one being Richard Hart(Jean Renaud),"Green Dolphin Street",'47 and Robert Mitchem,(Paul Aubert),"Cape Fear",'91, Paul is married to Marise Aubert and Jean Renaud is a very close friend. Paul shares a great deal of information about his wife with Jean. Eventually the story unfolds and you start to realize there is a rather twisted and demented brain trying to work out an evil plan. George Zucco,(Father Donnard),"Lured",'47, confronts the evil force and tries to bring shame upon the guilty person involved. It was refreshing not seeing George Zucco play his usual roles in the many horror pictures he appeared in. All the actors gave outstanding performances and this is a really worth while film to view and enjoy.

As has been noted elsewhere, during the filming of "Desire Me," Ms. Garson and Richard Hart were swept into the sea by a wave along the rocky coast of California. She nearly lost her life, and as it was, sustained severe injuries that required several surgeries. All this for a misfire of a film.If not for the luminous presence of Greer Garson, this movie wouldn't be worth anyone's time. Considering the cast and director (George Cukor, who removed his name from the credits before the film's release) it's a wonder how it turned out so relatively poor. One would think the script's weaknesses should have been readily apparent. {SPOILERS AHEAD} The outline of the plot is fine: Paul (Robert Mitchum) is imprisoned during WW-II in a German POW camp. He spends his time telling a fellow prisoner, Jean (Hart), details about his life with his wife, Marise (Garson). Jean, whose life has been less than idyllic, becomes absorbed in these tales, and soon begins to think of these stories as HIS stories. When he and Paul attempt escape, Paul is shot, but Jean succeeds. He goes to Paul's home he has come to know so well and tries to claim Marise, who has been faithfully waiting for Paul for several years, as his own--in spite of the fact that he knows (or at least strongly suspects) that Paul is actually still alive. That outline could have been turned into a fine film--but the details were its undoing. Crucial to the story is the devotion Marise and Paul have toward each other.Unfortunately, this supposed great love is spoken of, but never dramatized. We get one brief flashback of their marriage ceremony. We don't see their love grow, never observe its intensity. Yet we are supposed to be invested in their relationship. Without that investment the final reconciliation fails to move us, and so the ending falls flat. An even bigger failing is how the relationship between Marise and Jean plays out. He immediately begins to pressure her to form a relationship with him--this in spite of the fact that until he tells her that he saw Paul die, Marise still believed him to be alive. No matter how lonely she might have been in the years she awaited Paul's return, she obviously would need some months to grieve her loss. To have someone pushing her into a relationship the very day she hears the news would be off putting to say the least--terrifying and enraging being even more likely reactions. Instead, we are to believe that Marise would experience only some relatively vague misgivings, and within about a week is sufficiently recovered to consider marrying this man (so much for this supposed great love between Paul and Marise). For this bit of absurdity to work, all one would need do is, first, provide more background (lots more background) to the relationship between Marise and Paul. Second, make Jean more crafty. Instead of fairly pouncing on Marise, have him offer his friendship and support. Have their relationship grow over the course of MONTHS, not days. These two changes alone might have turned the movie into a classic--IF Ms. Garson and Mr. Mitchum could have developed some chemistry between them. As it stands, they had none. With only 4 minutes of screen time together, how much could they be expected to generate? It's too bad. They were two such great stars . . . it would have been interesting to see them together. Still, for all its considerable faults, I give the film a 5 out of 10 on the basis of the great Greer Garson's presence, some great cinematography and an interesting, if poorly realized, premise. All in all, it's too bad Ms. Garson didn't elect to work in some other, more rewarding--and less painful--project.