Adventure (1945)

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.

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.

I, also, saw this movie when I was very young; maybe aged 9. Thomas Mitchell (Mudge) thinking (or should I say, knowing) he saw his soul leave him, is one of the things I most remember. I didn't know what "a soul" looked like, then, and still don't. But that really fascinated me.As one commenter already mentioned, one of the most dramatic, audience-involved moments is when Clark Gable performs a desperate CPR on his non-breathing just-born child.I think I grew a crush on Greer Garson through this film. She is beautiful in it.I have to remember to look for this film on the video racks or on the TV schedule.A truly great film!

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.