Adventure

1945 "GABLE'S back and GARSON'S got him!"
6.1| 2h15m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 28 December 1945 Released
Producted By: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A rough and tumble man of the sea falls for a meek librarian.

... 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

Protraph Lack of good storyline.
GazerRise Fantastic!
ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.
Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
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.
MartinHafer PARNELL is often regarded as Clark Gable's worst film. While it is indeed terrible (with Gable being horribly miscast and the film playing very fast and loose with the facts), I have to disagree with Harry Medved's book "The Fifty Worst Movies" and say that ADVENTURE is probably a worse film. He listed PARNELL as one of the top 50 worst, but I found the film to be silly fluff and not annoying like ADVENTURE. Plus, PARNELL was quickly forgotten and Gable went on to greater things, whereas ADVENTURE really helped to relegate Gable to second-tier films for most of the rest of his career (with a few exceptions here and there).ADVENTURE was the first film that came out after Gable was released from military service and after the death of his wife (Carole Lombard). Three years had passed since his last film and the public was itching to see the box office king return. Oddly, however, MGM chose to not only pair him with an actress who seemed nothing like his usual co-stars but also gave him a god-awful script. The public naturally hated the film and fortunately it lost money--proving that sometime the public isn't so stupid after all! What didn't I like about the movie? Well, aside from the characters played by Gable, Greer Garson and Thomas Mitchell, it wasn't all bad--but considering that these are the three leads, that's a serious problem!! All three seemed to have been written by farm animals--they were that poorly written and stupid.Gable plays a merchant marine officer. While this role seems ill-suited for a pretty guy like Clark, it might have still worked had it been written well. Instead, however, he comes off as a 'Jeckyl and Hyde' sort of guy--with two contradictory personalities. One is an obnoxious jerk who is selfish and thoroughly unlikable--especially for a lady with an I.Q. above 50. He's this way through the first half of the movie and that way occasionally thereafter. The other is a lovable rogue--roughly like the same guy he played in about a dozen films in the 1930s. The end result is a guy that is really tough to like--a severe problem in a film billed as a romance! What an idiot...but at least he made no bones about this in the film! As for Greer Garson, like Gable, I love her in films. She was a classy and wonderful actress in such great films as RANDOM HARVEST, VALLEY OF DECISION and MRS. MINIVER. Pairing her style and persona with Gable was all wrong and made no sense at all. What made less sense was the character she played--a 'Dr. Jeckyl and Ms. Hyde' with yet a third personality as well! The first was a self-confident lady who rightly sized up Gable as a jerk the first time she met him. She didn't need a man in her life and was someone you could respect. Then, completely out of the blue, she went from hating him to marrying him--and there is no logical reason for this change. Finally, later after they are married, she becomes a petulant little brat--angry at Clark for being a shallow jerk even though she married him knowing exactly who he was!! What a mega-idiot! As for Mitchell, he's not at all believable and seems more like a plot device than a real person. You can't imagine this superstitious idiot as a seaman and in fact, you can't imagine any religious person being stupid enough to go to a library instead of a church when they are having a serious spiritual crisis. What an idiot! If you get the impression that nothing about this overly long romance makes any sense, then welcome to the club!! It's an embarrassing and boring mess. And, even if you rightly hate PARNELL, at least you can't accuse that silly film of being boring!
rake-7 "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.
tjonasgreen Maybe because STRANGE CARGO, THE HUMAN COMEDY and A GUY NAMED JOE dealt with whimsy and religious fantasy successfully, MGM kept trying with this kind of picture. But HIGH BARBAREE and ADVENTURE (both based on what must have been gassy novels) are dull failures.I must dissent with the majority view here that ADVENTURE is good and that Clark Gable and Greer Garson are good in it. They are a dismal mismatch as a romantic team and neither is suited to this kind of heavy, 'meaningful' material. In their very different ways, both stars were grounded, practical, sensible, which is not what was needed to bring off this type of romantic fantasy. When they meet and for a long time after, Gable and Garson give too successful an impression of mutual loathing for us to believe later that they have suddenly discovered their great love for each other. Victor Fleming does a very glossy professional job directing this film and both stars get dazzling, dynamically framed closeups and two-shots, but they never seem right for each other. By contrast, in a supporting role, Joan Blondell seems exactly right for Gable, being his female equivalent, having humor and a juicy kind of sensuality.ADVENTURE is anything but, and the mystical themes never make any sense and are never convincingly connected to the romance. It was a big hit, presumably because people were curious to see these stars together, and to catch Gable's first picture after the war. But this could only have diminished the luster of both of them. And pictures like this must be why Dore Schary was brought into the studio to supplant Louis B. Mayer, who had become lazy and complacent, squandering his two biggest stars on pretentious garbage.