उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

You have to see the movie to learn what "it" refers to. You will also learn how to lure chickens properly, how to regain your "soul", what San Fran looked like in 1945, how to attract a woman by dating her roommate, how to throw rocks at your lover, how snappy dialogue and lively acting can be much more entertaining than the 90% of the c**p in today's "subtle" acting movies. No "adventure" here in today's terms but quite daring and emotional in its own way.

In his first film after World War II service in the Army Air Corps, Clark Gable settled down to a familiar character and one of his most familiar directors. Adventure was the last of five films that Gable did with Victor Fleming which also includes Gone With The Wind. This one never quite measured up to Gone With The Wind though.

Gable was literally met at the airport by Louis B. Mayer and rushed into this film. It was thought at the time that a film with current box office sensation Greer Garson was a can't miss item at the box office. Garson was coming off an Oscar she received in 1942 for Mrs. Miniver the year Gable went away to war.

The results were underwhelming, but seen over 60 years after it was first out show Adventure to be not a bad story at all. Gable fits comfortably into the part of the tough boatswain who loves the rollicking life at sea he leads. No woman is going to be tying him down, not one like prim and proper librarian Greer Garson. He likes them like her roommate Joan Blondell, sassy and out for a good time.

But Greer and her notions of settling down with home and family kind of get under his skin. It's what's led many a man to the altar.

Gable and Garson never worked together again, probably by mutual consent. Neither were each other's types on the screen and in life, but no one has anything to be ashamed of in Adventure.

Best performance in the cast is by Thomas Mitchell as Gable's friend and confidante. Mitchell plays the usual tragicomic alcoholic that he took a patent out on for the screen.

Another in the cast and former vocalist with the Xavier Cugat Orchestra is Lina Romay who is the woman we first see Gable with as the film opens. She would shortly be joining the Bing Crosby show as the featured female singer. That 'dame' who gets $20.00 for some conversation is none other than Barbara Billingsley aka June Cleaver. Who'd have thunk that one?

Though this one didn't set the world on fire, Gable's next two films, Homecoming and The Hucksters rank in my humble opinion as two of his very best. The King was ascending his throne again.

I'm giving this movie 6 stars for the sheer pleasure of looking at Greer Garson, one of my favorites.

But I'd put this movie alongside "Remember?" as the weakest Garson films. For me, the problem was Clark Gable.

Gable is given the kind of typical "rough guy the dames falls for" role that made him a star...a combination of bluster and charm that won over Jean Harlow or Myrna Loy or Claudette Colbert.

Here, I think it's too much bluster and too little charm to realistically connect with Garson in the role she's given.

One pleasure here is seeing Joan Blondell -- she did lots of good work after the '30s musicals that she's best remembered for.

Also good: Thomas Mitchell.

Overall: see it once for the novelty of it, or skip it altogether,

This movie is better with each passing year. It is a semi-noir, pre-"reality" - psychological drama of intense beauty.

Clark Gable stars as a staunchly confirmed sea dog, crew leader (called a bos'n) and womanizer who is totally unprepared to meet Greer Garson's character, who forever changes his vision of what is possible in finding love with a woman. Academy Award winner, and beloved character actor Thomas Mitchell ("Uncle Billy" in "It's A Wonderful Life (1946)") plays his too-sensitive-for-this-world side-kick, who becomes Gable's conscience, but at a price.

The script of this drama is lyrically sublime, subtle and quite deep. The fire between the stars is evident and haunting. True 'soul-mate' love is the overt theme of this movie. Existence, conscience, and facing the pain and limits of life, so that you may truly pass into adulthood, are more themes explored here. I view this film regularly once a year and am always inspired by its deep message and raw powerful performances. This isn't your stock Gable. This is a bittersweet post-war love poem.(Really! E. B. Browning is quoted to great effect!)

Gable's "Harry Patterson" has seen tragedy and loss (as had Gable himself, recently losing the love of his life, wife Carole Lombard). He is made restless in search of "it" which he believes only exists in the danger and perils of sea voyaging. He is sickened by the way shipwrecked people, alive and on edge, once rescued, quickly become bored and lose that passionate awareness of their own lives. He is searching for that life where he stays excited and in the passionate present (probably true of many returning war soldiers in 1945).

In Garson's "Emily Sears" he sees "it" for the first time in a woman's eyes. He is intrigued by her equivalent strength and wit, and simultaneously threatened by the risk of pain in losing her. Their love develops as a series of intense battles. She sees a "caged animal" and for the first time a man she might really respect, even though she feels he needs to be reached through all of his rebellion...and rescued.

His actions are escapist (and make great movie scenes)...but sailing away to forget his new "queen," he finds things have changed and we know, as do the other characters, that it is the end of his former life ...even if he doesn't. "Emily" bravely allows "Harry" to figure it out for himself. She doesn't demand any change in him, instead she sends him off to find "it" and risks being without the man that she loves for the rest of her life. Her majesty the queen of MGM, Greer Garson, has never been lovelier.

Joan Blondel is a juicy, ripe 'tomato'(the returning soldiers must have hooted and hollered!). Lina Romay makes an incredible "girl in distant port" and even sings a bit!

Thomas Mitchell is the stand out support. He plays Mudge, the soul and conscience of the free spirited Gable and perhaps of the whole film. He brilliantly helps unite a lost sailor & seeker with what his heart truly seeks.

Watch this film and let it be poetry... just let it play as you marvel at the writing and the actors' eyes. I predict that this movie is about to be rediscovered in a big way. ( By you?)

Adventure (1945)

Surely the title is a huge pun, or a huge mistake. This is an adventure of a man who is no longer looking for the high seas and wartime survival, but the adventure of love with a woman who is not, at fist his type. It's not as bad as some of the reviews suggest, but there is something steady and normal and incipient about it all.

While featuring Clark Gable in the lead, and with the same director as Gone with the Wind a few years earlier, there is something stiff about it all, even the humor and fun. Greer Garson is the "serious" woman, someone who has to force herself to have fun, and Joan Blondell is the racy one, out for fun above all else. And if Gable seems suited to the crazy woman, he's clearly also set to be tamed by the other.

That's pretty much the adventure, after a few wild scenes from kicking down the door in Chile to getting torpedoed by the Japanese.

Garson can be impressive in her cultured way, but here she is hot and cold, on and off. It's partly her speeches are more words than meaning. There's nothing more boring than people talking about being exciting. If in one scene you'll be laughing as Gable and Garson trap some chickens, in the next you'll be forced to think deep thoughts about true adventure and true meaning—when in fact the meaning was in the chicken scene.

Blondell never quite gets her due in many of her movies because she plays against (or in contrast to) the leading female who is more grand, or more beautiful, or just more star powered than she is. Too bad. She's fun but she also has fabulous screen presence. That, to me, is what matters most (often) in this era.

The movie is too long in parts, and the theme wears thin after while. In the end it's about a sailor's life or the landlubber's, the first filled with freedom, the second with a home and a family. It's 1945, the soldiers are coming home—guess which side wins?

Clark Gable returned to M-G-M after his war service in World War II. So naturally, the "King" of M-G-M was paired up with the "Queen," that being Greer Garson. Garson fans were happy to see their star portraying someone young for a change (no mother role here), but Gable had aged about ten years since his last screen appearance. The war and the death of his wife, Carole Lombard, had taken their toll.

I was 8 years old when I saw this movie and it impressed me so much. I will never forget 3 things in the movie "Adventure". How to hypnotize a chicken; how the water drains out of the tub in a different direction depending on which side of the equator you live; how Clark Gable was yelling at his newborn baby to breathe.It was such a good romance, even to a young girl and I remember how the friend, Mudgin, was afraid of losing his soul. I am 64 years old now and it is still as fresh in my mind as it was in 1946 in Hartshorne, Oklahoma.

This film is illustrative of MGM's postwar creative slump. There were some good movies - The Yearling, for example - and the musicals were always worthwhile - but what was this? Who was it made for? Who could have thought a movie such as this would be taken seriously? It was made around the same time as The Best Years Of Our Lives! Then again, it's not just that it's old-fashioned, but that it resembles no one's real life, ever.

I have the impression the studio was running like a well-oiled machine, churning out pictures its costume, makeup, hairdressing, special effects, and art departments could be proud of. But what happened to believability? Realistic storytelling? Something people could relate to?

At the time, Greer Garson was a top box office star, and Clark Gable, the studio's former top box office star, was returning from war service. So, it was reasoned, why not put them in a picture together? The trouble might be that there was too much focus on trying to create a "vehicle" for the two heavyweights. The deceptively ladylike Garson is cast as a beautiful librarian, while Gable plays a handsome, two-fisted seaman. There's some comedy, some drama, some mysticism - but it all seems awfully contrived. Then there's the ages of the stars - which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't go about acting like adolescents: Gable was 44, Garson was 41. In support, Joan Blondell was 39, and Thomas Mitchell was 53. They all seem like they're old enough to know better. Some of the shenanigans the screenplay puts them through and asks us to care about are not to be believed.

MGM knew how to make a film high in gloss and production values, and the studio had the greatest stars, and some of the greatest directors. If you enjoy their product (and I usually do) you could do worse than Adventure. But the studio just could not go on indefinitely making films like this. Smaller studios were beating them to the punch by having their ear to the ground about what audiences wanted, and what they were tired of.

It could be that MGM never really recovered from the death of production head Irving Thalberg back in the 1930s. His death left a gaping hole that seemed to be filled, as time wore on, with heavy sentimentality and confused messages that didn't happen under his watch. The studio had no head of production at this time, and was set up as a series of production units overseen by studio chief Louis B. Mayer. And Mayer had a taste for the heavy-handed and the sentimental.

Gable and Garson could have been good together. Probably in a comedy, where their styles might have worked together better, similar to Tracy and Hepburn. Victor Fleming was a good director, but he was no longer doing the first-rate work he had done a decade earlier. Making Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz in the same year may have worn him out.

I haven't summarized the film because other people have already done it better than I ever could. Take a look. My guess is you might enjoy it once, but not put it on your "must see again soon" list.

Gable and Garson make for a poor pairing in this overlong limp love story that goes in circles for over two hours. Gable fresh from war service looks like he's aged considerably and his tired abrasive performance shows it.

Harry Patterson (Gable) has a girl in every port and plans never to get tied down. Wandering into a library with a shipmate friend he meets staid and proper librarian Emily Sears (Garson) who is at first put off by the lug but opposites are known to attract and they ending up running off to Reno and getting hitched. But Harry's no land lubber and the two split up but not before Emily gets knocked-up. An oblivious Harry goes back to sea and his old ways but it just ain't the same.

There is little finesse to be found in Gables performance, just bluster. He does a lot of jabbering and doesn't really connect with anyone in the film. Garson's Emily on the other hand is too delicate and restrained to do a one-eighty. Victor Fleming's direction is loose and uninspired and the production values erratic with some terrible back projection.

"Gable's back and Garson's got'em" went the phrase back then but after seeing this you can keep them.

"Adventure" is an oddly generic title for such a singularly unique motion picture. Its superficial values are appealing enough--the Gable bluster is rarely put to such good use, and Garson is possibly the only actress with enough mettle to match him--but these attributes are hardly unusual and neither, indeed, is the storyline. What makes the effort favorably surprising is the story's aspiration to allegory through the use of poetics, which may occasionally seem overt but which never fail to ring true. It's an ambitious undertaking, and it works.

In its time, the movie was dismissed for being both formulaic and even crude, which in itself betrays either an ignorance of its higher aspirations or, more likely, a reluctance to take them seriously. America in 1945 prided itself on street smarts and industrial might; on its not being taken for a sucker. It had saved Europe from the axis forces and was about to embark on a socioeconomic boom such as the world had never seen: It wasn't interested in philosophical musings about the nature of the soul. The idea that these musings could be given dimension in a simple and often predictable story about a rakish sailor and a repressed librarian drove reviewers to pronounce the script "foolish" and the poetic commentary "gibberish."

But it is these very elements, this oddly ardent coloring, that have somehow deepened and mellowed with time, and which now provide the film with the kind of rich, subtle flavor found in only the most treasured vintages. More unique still is that the movie is less interested in the sentimentality of its story than in the metaphysical questions it poses. Its chief accomplishment is in avoiding any academic exploration of such questions (a choice which parallels the arc of the story itself), and it does so by illustrating with large, colorful brushes. Only the intelligence of the director and the skill of his actors keep the proceedings from veering off into caricature, a tipping point that when straddled with such finesse is delightful viewing indeed.

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.

Despite the bad reviews from others I watched this film with much anticipation. After all how bad could any movie be when it featured Garson, Gable, Blondell and Mitchell, and was directed by Victor Fleming. And at first it went along just fine although I must agree with the reviewer who remarked that the chemistry between Blondell and Gable was superior. They just sparkled, they were sexy, they oozed animal magnetism. That's not to say that Greer Garson didn't hold her own. In fact she was the glue that held the whole, confused thing together. Without her there was nothing to maintain the viewer's interest because quite frankly, after a while Gable's barking became just annoying. Perhaps the way he took charge was meant to convey care and affection but came across as arrogance and thoughtlessness. His tendency to overact was probably because this was his first movie after his wartime service but why didn't someone ask him to tone it down a few notches. So there you have it: a good story (that tends toward the melodramatic toward the end) and a great cast should have yielded a much better product.

Flawed but interesting film, usually discussed for its backstory and famous tagline. You can definitely tell a variety of writers worked on the script. It bounces from one mood to the next but it's never better, in my opinion, than when someone's giving a monologue. All of the monologue scenes are gold. As for the stars, Greer Garson doesn't have much chemistry with Clark Gable but she is giving it her best. For his part this is the most unlikable character I've ever seen Gable play. His acting is great, especially in the aforementioned monologue scenes, but the character is just written poorly. Likely to the surprise of no one familiar with their work, Thomas Mitchell and Joan Blondell steal every scene they're in.

It's a little bit Random Harvest and a little bit every movie Gable was ever in dialed up to eleven. The script is a glorious mess but it saves the film from total mediocrity. Worth a look if one has the right expectations.

'Adventure' should have been much better than it turned out. On paper you can't go wrong with such talented performers like Clark Gable, Greer Garson, Joan Blondell and Thomas Mitchell. As well as with Victor Fleming, responsible for two of the best films ever made 'The Wizard of Oz' and 'Gone with the Wind', at the directing helm.

Those are ingredients enough to make one want to see 'Adventure' and indicate that it would be a great film. That unfortunately wasn't to be. 'Adventure' is not terrible by all means, just couldn't help feeling disappointed when wanting to love it and that its unevenness and that its promise was not fulfilled properly was frustrating. Just as frustrating was that what 'Adventure' was seen for in the first place were not too well served and all have done much better.

From some of that paragraph, one would think that 'Adventure' was bad. As said already, it isn't. There are many good things. It does look good, particularly the beautifully done photography. The sets may have lacked authenticity but looked far from ugly or tacky. It's appropriately unobtrusively scored and there are instances where the script is witty and moving as well as surprisingly death with the philosophical elements.

Joan Blondell radiates with class and charm and Thomas Mitchell is excellent and the cast standout with two of the film's most likeable characters, Mitchell's role especially is perfect for him. The story does have moments, like the chicken hypnotising, the water tub and with the newborn baby.

It is a shame that 'Adventure' has some big faults. The story generally is confused and tries to do and be too many things that it feels like a hodge podge tonally. The script could have been sharper, tighter (sometimes it rambles) and much more subtle, things do get rather over-the-top and blustery.

Clark Gable's performance and the way the character is written (an unsubtle and indecisively written jerk) don't help in this regard, Gable tries too hard and it did feel a lot of the time that he was overplaying. His change is not believable, too sudden, too hasty and happens too late. Greer Garson tries, but comes over as too cold and shrill (not like her, put it down to how she was directed and how the character was written). Their chemistry agreed is a real mismatch and is one of the main things that brings down the film, it's rushed, over-egged, sometimes illogical and the personalities just don't gel. One doesn't buy the animosity or love, or what they see in each other in the first place. Fleming's direction is disappointingly undistinguished.

Overall, don't regret watching 'Adventure' but it was annoyingly uneven. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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.

"Adventure" tells the tale of merchant marine Harry Patterson (Clark Gable). He's a rough and tumble, hard drinking, hard-fighting, manly-man who spends months at a time at sea and has a woman in every port.

He meets his match in San Francisco in the form of the sophisticated librarian Emily Sears (Greer Garson). She's cultured, educated, and quick with a barbed comment when necessary.

Harry meets her when he accompanies a boat buddy, Mudgin (Thomas Mitchell), to the library where he searches for an answer to his crisis of faith. You see, he believes that he has lost his soul. This happened right after their ship was torpedo'd by a Japanese sub, and he escaped along with Harry and a few others on a floating crate. He prayed and swore he'd give up the rough life if they were rescued.

Well, they were, but he didn't ... and he claims he saw his soul slip away shortly afterwards during a bar fight.

Anyway, Harry is a colossal idiot in the library when he meets Emily. He's completely over-the-top in his disdain for books, reading, and educated people in general. It's quite an unattractive display of willful ignorance on par with what we see coming out of the current administration in DC .

He and Emily get into a nasty little verbal back-and-forth until Emily's roommate, Helen (Joan Blondell), shows up. She's frisky and fun and she clicks with Harry immediately. They form a threesome of sorts soon after with Helen hanging on Harry's arm and Emily being a complete sourpus ... until a moment in the countryside when she spends some time alone with Harry stealing chickens. Yes. That is their bonding moment.

After a particularly nasty jealousy-fueled exchange between Harry and Emily, the predictable happens.

The rest of the film follows their relationship as he is called back to the sea.

Overall this is a fairly entertaining film ... BUT ... it's about a half hour too long. The thing with Mudgin losing his soul goes on long after the point is made; and some of the scenes where Harry and Emily are being nasty to each other go on to the point where I'd half expected them to pull out weapons and physically attack each other. Oh, and there's a scene at the end of the film where Harry suddenly acquires God-like powers that completely took me out of the moment because of its monumental stupidity.

So, I'd say, Recommended ... with caveats.

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.

This film is worthy of better attention than it seems to have received to date. The original novel appears to have been quite philosophical. Powerful comments abound from start to finish...from wasted moments in life, to 'lost souls' on their own 'adventure' to find peace.

I can agree with most comments regards the sharp change in Ms Garson's intelligent character ~ but looking at the many script credits, there was obviously much re-writing to 'lighten up' this work ~ bringing it more in line with a 'post war' public's mood (after all it was Mr Gables first appearance following war service)

There's a great deal of quality: production values are superb, the cast is strong, the Director, one of the best. That grand old man of Movies, Harry Davenport, delivers some of the best lines (almost thrown away) in the final scenes of the film ~ summarizing the relationship of Man with God. Well worth giving this curious work another look (maybe even Mr Maltin threw this one away too easily) Films are personal, judge for yourself. KR..........For those who care to take a little time with their favorites, a few silly scenes can be easily edited out (without any harm to the main storyline) making this film far better than the overindulged theatrical version.