VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

TheLittleSongbird '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

jcravens42 I have actively avoided watching this movie for decades because it was always described as a horrible flop and painful to watch. I knew that the ad campaign was "Gable's Back and Garson's Got Him," making me think this was some kind of screwball comedy, which seemed so inappropriate for Gable's first film after the war. At last, I've seen this movie, and I am stunned. It's a poetic, complex, dark drama always flirting with great tragedy. There's no way a 1945 audience would have been ready for these characters, this story or the dialogue, which is often presented more as verse than scripted lines. Watch Gable when he argues with Garson's character, almost to the point of physical blows - I've never seen him not be Clark Gable until this character, until that moment, and I cannot imagine we aren't seeing his grief at his loss of Carole Lombard and what he witnessed during World War II. It's overdue for this film to get the recognition it deserves. Joan Blondell and Thomas Mitchell are outstanding in their supporting characters. The biggest problem with this movie is its ridiculous title (the book on which it is based is called "The Annointed" - a much better title).

st-shot 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.

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!