Konterr Brilliant and touching

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

richard-1787 This movie has a great cast, headlined by Greer Garson and Clark Gable, and including Thomas Mitchell and Joan Blondell. The director, Victor Fleming, had given us such masterpieces as the Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and Captains Courageous. How then could such a group make such a truly awful movie? Well, to begin with, the script is awful almost past belief. It meanders from here to there, provides no decent motivations for the characters, who are at best two-dimensional caricatures. These characters are not interesting or even likable. And some of them disappear for long stretches of time.But everything is wrong here. Gable's character is thoroughly despicable. It's one thing to be a macho sort. Gable had brought that off, in spades, with Rhett Butler. But this sailor is both offensive and uninteresting.So then, why does Garson fall for him, and so quickly? There is no indication.Everything is wrong with this script. Garson and especially Gable try to salvage it, but it's a truly lost cause.Don't waste your time on this. Why MGM plunked its major stars into a truly lost cause I cannot guess.

dbdumonteil "Adventure" is a confusing movie;it was Greer Garson's first important flop after the triumphs of "Mrs Minniver" and " Madame Curie" and it's easy to see why.If she is credible as an earnest librarian ,it takes a lot of imagination to believe in her character in the scenes where she dances with the first to come .I think she was miscast and Claudette Colbert would have been a better choice."Adventure ",despite its title ,in only an adventures movie .Now dramatic (there are two deaths all the same!) ,now comic (the hens episode) Victor Fleming seems to hesitate as to which road to take.He even copies himself :the tracking out ,with the couple near the big tree at sunset recalls "gone with the wind" !Neither Gable nor Garson are really convincing.The stand out is ,IMHO,Thomas Mitchell -Scarlett's father!- as Mudge ,the sailor who lost his soul and regained it on a starry night after seeing a shooting star ,probably the most beautiful scene of the film.Too bad young Ramon should disappear so early in the movie :this character who asks a couldn't-care-less Gable if the ship was blessed ("I bless it every moment of the day "was the sailor's answer)gives in the first sequences a Christian feel (sometimes recalling Borzage's "strange cargo" ) which would emerge again in the scene of the death of Mudge and in the last sequences .At a running time of two hours plus ,it sometimes drags on.Some good scenes and a certain sense of humor help.

blanche-2 Clark Gable and Greer Garson were the highly touted combo in "Adventure" when it opened in 1945. It was Clark Gable's first film after the war, and the original slogan was "Gable's back, and Garson's got him!" Well, not really.Of all of the movie stars who returned after World War II, Gable had it the worst. Older than the other movie star soldiers, the years he lost were more precious, plus he had been widowed recently. It would be several years before he started to get good roles in good movies again. Frankly, this heavily scripted film wasn't one of them."Adventure" is the story of a man, Harry Patterson, committed to a life of freedom on the sea and good fun on shore. Garson is Emily, the librarian he meets, spars with, and falls for. Joan Blondell plays her roommate, Helen, with whom Harry has an initial attraction. Thomas Mitchell plays fellow seaman Mudge, who serves in a way as Harry's conscience.There are several problems with this film. First, there is a mystical-spiritual-fantasy aspect to the story that is not brought out in Victor Fleming's direction. The dialogue is weighty, and the whole thing is slow going. The casting is a miss, with the exceptions of Joan Blondell and Mitchell. Garson at 41 isn't quite right for Emily and isn't well cast against Gable. Someone like Maureen O'Hara might have been better. Gable is one dimensional - I would suggest this is Fleming's fault. The direction is not strong or focused.Overall, a disappointment, long, and overdone.

crispy_comments I like Gable and Garson. But not together. They just don't make a believable screen couple. Apparently the stars had such opposite personalities that they didn't get along well while making this movie. Y'know, that might explain their *very* convincing portrayal of hostility when their characters meet. In fact, there's nothing in the story to warrant such immediate, vehement animosity - so it must be real life bleeding through the actors' performances.Far less convincing is the falling in love part, which comes out of nowhere. Well, out of a contrived and ridiculous situation. So, she starts to like him after they steal chickens together and get shot at by a farmer? Um... okay. I guess it was a thrilling experience that made her suddenly want him because... it's exciting to be with a guy who almost got you killed? The scene is played lightheartedly, even as they're running away, dodging bullets. Bizarre.I never understood Greer Garson's character. I couldn't figure out how she really felt about things. For instance, when he plans to go back to sea and leave her, I can't tell if her reaction and speech was genuine, or if she was putting on some sort of front. Besides her behavior is inconsistent. I blame the script for being confusing, and peppered with strange, unrealistic dialogue. Maybe Greer didn't "get" her character either. All I know is, her acting seems rather...bad. To be fair, Joan Blondell overacts too - whether it's frenzied flirting, or wailing & crying in exaggerated "I Love Lucy" fashion - she comes across as cartoonish. I hate to say it 'cause I've always liked Joan before. Actually, Gable's acting is a bit over-the-top as well! It's gotta be the poor script or misguided director.There's one scene that really made me laugh. Greer's watching Clark eat - He's scarfing down his food, all uncouth. And she's gazing at him, with what I assume is meant to be ...lust? Making googley eyes, smiling, pouting, grimacing...all in quick succession. Her lips are out of control! "Oh Clark, you're so sexy when you gobble your dinner like a caveman! Wanna steal more chickens before bed?" Apart from the fatally mismatched leads, this movie is just...strange. The tone's all over the place - is it serious, is it comical? Usually it's comical when it's supposed to be serious. I guess the intended effect was "mystical" and "moving" when the drunken sidekick thinks he's lost his soul (literally saw it exit his chest!) and wants to repent of the sins he's committed. But I found it laughable. Not to mention that last scene when someone (keeping it vague here) WILLS someone else to live, and it's, like, supernatural or spiritual or some junk.This movie tries to be many things - deep, philosophical, preachy... a comedy, romance, melodrama... it's anything but an Adventure! But I guess a confounding title kinda fits a film that, itself, doesn't make much sense.