vincentlynch-moonoi Although this was Gable's return to the movies after World War II, it didn't feel like a post-war film. And that may have been the problem. Gable was back and Garson got him, but not many seemed to care. So much of the world had changed, yet some of the scenes here (such as the early bar room brawl) seemed like something you would have seen in a film from the thirties, not the later forties.Greer Garson, long one of my very favorite actresses, doesn't even show up in the film until 25 minutes into it. That makes sense in terms of the story, but it's quite odd. And, with the bitterness evident in the first meeting between seaman Gable and librarian Garson (particularly on the part of Garson...played to the hilt), it seems totally illogical that a romance would develop. Just as illogical as Greer Garson stealing chickens...and why exactly did they steal 3 chickens for a meal to feed 3 people? And why didn't the chickens squawk when they were hiding from the farmer who was chasing them? An interesting feature of the film was Thomas Mitchell's character's obsession with sin and the loss of his soul.It's also interesting to see some of the characters in this film who are not playing their usual roles.And, BTW, very low production standards...about the fakest background shots you'll ever see! A very disappointing film. I love Garson. I love Gable. But not together and not in a film with this plot.

samhill5215 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.

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.