HotToastyRag The premise and first third of Singapore are really interesting, but once the mystery is exposed, the last two thirds of the movie are far from entertaining. Fred MacMurray travels to Singapore, and while he's pleasant to his fellow American tourists Porter Hall and Spring Byington, it's clear to see he's unsettled about something. He goes to a particular table at a particular nightclub at a particular hotel, sits, and gives the audience a voice-over monologue about how he misses Linda, the woman he was going to marry five years prior. Cue a romantic flashback: Fred was smuggling pearls into Singapore when he met and fell in love with Ava Gardner. They were going to be wed, but they were separated during a Japanese air raid and she was killed. End of flashback. Now, as Fred sits at their table, he hears their song playing, and lost in his sad thoughts, he actually sees Ava Gardner on the dance floor!Intriguing, right? Well, I'm sure you can think of at least three explanations as to why he suddenly sees his dead lover after five years. I did, but unfortunately, the film took a fourth, far less interesting direction. After that, the most enjoyable part of the film is the patter between Fred MacMurray and Richard Haydn. Richard plays a deputy in the police department, so he's trying to catch Fred's criminal activities, but they're also longtime pals so there's a bit of leniency in his method. Think of Kevin Kline and Jean Reno's relationship in 'French Kiss'. Unfortunately, with not much of a love story, even less of a mystery, and not too much suspense about Fred's pearl smuggling business, there's not really a good reason to watch the movie. Unless you're an Ava Gardner fan, which I, unapologetically, am not.

bkoganbing On her way up the Hollywood ladder MGM loaned Ava Gardner out for this potboiler adventure film Singapore. As the area suggests romance and mystery just the title alone would bring in a few customers at the box office. In fact Singapore still is an area of intrigue though now enjoying a prosperity that could not have been imagined when this film was made.Fred MacMurray and Ava Gardner are a pair of star crossed lovers who marry just before the Japanese invade and occupy the city. MacMurray has a fortune in pearls that he stashes and while trying to retrieve them the bombs are dropped and he thinks Gardner is killed. He barely gets away in his schooner with other refugees without pearls and without Ava who he married just before the attack.After the war Fred's back to get his pearls, but he sees Ava now married to Roland Culver and with a bad case of amnesia. And he's got other problems as villains Thomas Gomez and George Lloyd want them as well. Singapore was created on the Universal back lot and didn't have the advantage that its remake Istanbul had with color and location shooting. But they did make a better film though not all that much better. It's been compared to Casablanca by many to the detriment of Singapore. But those letters of transit that will allow two people, which two to escape and join the fight against Nazism are a much bigger prize than Fred's pearls. You care a lot more about Bogey, Bergman, and Henreid than the triangle here. And this film didn't have As Time Goes By either.MacMurray and Gardner also don't have the chemistry that Bogey and Bergman do. But that's not fair, who else ever did?Singapore is your routine potboiler another film MacMurray was grabbing for the paycheck after he left Paramount. As for Ava after The Killers and The Hucksters it was not a step down, but just keeping her on the same career plateau as before.

dbdumonteil Ava Gardner is such a pleasure to look at, even a B movie in which she plays makes my time worthwhile .Actually,Fred McMurray has got pearls and a gem .The screenplay is far-fetched -with an improbable outcome- and includes smuggling,war (no battles or camp of prisoners though),and even amnesia -but the viewer is not taken in by it a single minute ;there is of course the usual flashback ,which can be found in almost all the films noirs of the era.Compared to "the killers" ,Gardner's precedent movie ,it's obvious Brahm is no match for Siodmak.A couple of tourists -the kind of people we often see in the hotels- provides the comic relief.If you do not ask too much ,it's pretty entertaining and well acted.

howardmorley Fred Macmurray played one unforgettable role as Walter Neff in "Double Indemnity" (1944) and I cannot quite separate him from this role when I see FM perform in other films like "Singapore" where he plays Matt Gordon a pearl smuggler.I fervently believe the best acted performances come from the actor having an affinity or some actual practical experience of the role in real life.I am not saying FM was into insurance fraud but he looked more comfortable in an American setting.The plot has been adequately commented on by other reviewers above, most notably by Terrell-4 from San Antonio Texas, whose review I commend.There were a few things I found irritating and getting a second rate TV director will not produce a first class film.First, after Ava Gardner had being roughed up by one of the "baddies" to get her to talk, there was not a blemish, bruise or mark on her Venus like face.When FM wants to pay for his bar bills he decides how much he will pay leaving some notes on the table, without waiting to receive a bill - I noticed he did this on at least two occasions.Yet again actors (FM) appear to be able to walk through other guests hotel bedroom doors or magically have the right key in their pockets, this is a general continuity criticism of films of this era; so much for hotel security.What is an American gangster doing in Singapore? One of the "heavies" sounded like he came from 1920s Chicage!On the plus side I liked Roland Culver's performance as plantation manager van Leiden who played an honest man who is prepared to give up his Venus like wife because he knows she really loves Walter Neff (sorry FM).Richard Haydn for once plays it straight as the police commissioner in colonial Singapore on the trail of local malefactors and I hardly recognised him compared to say his performance as Mr Wilson in "Cluny Brown" (1946).Taken all together I found it enjoyable but uneven and therefore rated it 6/10.