2) There are a lot of happenings crammed into this 66 minute film. Despiteall the comings and goings, running around, fire fighting, shipsailing, natives running and danger escaping the overall film just doesnot move along at a very fast pace. Scenes go on for too long wherethere is nothing but dialog to carry them. Action scenes are shorterand leave the film feeling a bit out of balance.

The print I watched was in black and white, a little soft in the focusand too dark. Such a shame too. I would have liked to have seen clearcolor footage of Rhonda Fleming rising out of the ocean surf in aclinging dress. Also the ending copyright date was 1942. So either thedate on this site is wrong or the film was held back from release forfive years.

• All copies of the film were thought to be lost until an American film fan found a copy in a rubbish skip outside a Chicago television studio. He sold it to a UK enthusiast who showed it for the first time in fifty years on 8 March 2002 in the village hall at Goudhurst, Kent where it was originally filmed.

• Many cast members in studio records/casting call lists did not appear or were not identifiable in the movie. These were (with their character names, if any): Leyland Hodgson (Henchman), Beatrice Blinn (Telephone Operator), Lew Hicks (Policeman), Harry Bernard & Robert Dudley (Program Men), Helen Dickson (Dowager), Georgie Cooper, Larry Steers and Charles C. Wilson.

Some crisp dialog and some nice performances aren't enough to concealthat this is pretty flimsy material. Still, it does manage to show thatboth McCrea and Arthur had a natural flair for light material tingedwith a hint of mystery.

Unfortunately, the script involving stolen art work and the attemptedtheft of the Sunburst Diamond from a bank vault, doesn't permit eitherone to create more than one-dimensional characters and after anoriginal start, the story runs out of wacky ideas and turns seriousbefore it reverts to comedy again.

McCrea and Arthur play their roles as though they were imitating theNick and Nora Charles brand of humor in comedy with mystery. Withstronger material, this would have worked. THOMAS MITCHELL is good as anewspaper man who fires and hires McCrea in moments of greatexasperation.

It's light stuff and highly forgettable except for the charm of the twostars.

2) After a big success in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town which really establishedJean Arthur as the rival in screwball comedy to Carole Lombard, she gotcast in some routine films that sought to take advantage of her newimage. Adventure in Manhattan was one of them and while it's plotverges on the silly it could have been a lot better, but for somereally bad miscasting.

The guy who could have brought off the role of the wise cracking crimereporter was over at Warner Brothers. This part James Cagney could havephoned over to Columbia, but in the hands of all American hero JoelMcCrea it really looks forced.

Some high profile robberies have taken place and crime reporter McCreathinks and has written that the culprit of all these has been a mastercriminal along the lines of Professor Moriarty. Problem is that thisguy is believed dead by all, but McCrea.

McCrea is right and it's revealed early enough in the film to beReginald Owen who is now in the guise of a theatrical producer. AndJean Arthur is an aspiring young ingénue in the cast of a World War Iplay he's producing.

One of the problems I had with this plot was that Professor Moriartyand many of the master criminals in real life and fiction usually workalone or with as few accomplices as possible. The scheme that Owen hasinvolves a considerable gang and I really can't swallow that somewherealong the line somebody doesn't slip up.

Thomas Mitchell in one of his earliest screen roles is McCrea's editorand he's his usual good self. Arthur makes the best of a routineassignment and it took someone like Preston Sturges to bring out thereal comedian in Joel McCrea.

3) Vastly entertaining mystery movie/1930s newspaper comedy about mastercriminal (Reginald Owen) who finances a World War I play with on-stageexplosions to cover up below-ground explosions needed to break in tonext door bank vault where the priceless Sunburst diamond he covets islocked up in the vaults. Thoroughly preposterous plot but who cares!Delightful hard-boiled, wise-cracky romantic comedy betweenace-reporter/criminologist Joel McCrea and sassy but adorable actress(Jean Arthur). Thomas Mitchell rants and raves as the newspaper editor,and Herman Bing has a delightful cameo as the German owner of the clubwhere newspapermen hang out. Suspend all disbelief and enjoy yourself.

4) This isn't a bad film. The problem is, that this type of mystery comedywas done so much better in The Thin Man films that it pales incomparison. Plus, the character played by Joel McCrea is prettyunlikable, unlike Nick Charles.

McCrea is a top crime reporter for the newspapers. His insights andpredictions are uncanny and the problem is he is 100% sure of himselfand quite the fat-head! Because he's so smug, I found it hard to likehim and couldn't see why nice Jean Arthur was taken in by him. So whatif he was so smart–he's still kind of a jerk. As a result, thechemistry just isn't quite right.

The plot itself concerns a master criminal that everyone EXCEPT McCreathinks is dead. Throughout the film, McCrea swears he will eventuallycatch this "gentleman criminal", though this man's exact identity isunknown.

The acting is decent and the film does offer a few laughs andinteresting moments–but not enough to make this a "must see" film.

5) It takes a deft touch to produce an amusing crime drama — as Powelland Loy did for Nick and Nora and as "Mr and Mrs North" did on radio inthe 40s. This one begins to get interesting as the McCrea charactersneaks into a house to check out the cruel joke that has apparentlybeen played on Jean Arthur. But it turns out that the joke is on himand a suspenseful situation becomes preposterous. The elaborate hoaxseems beyond the capabilities of its practitioners. And the commentthat suggests that the ring of crooks is entirely too large isaccurate. The film oscillates between noir and screwball comedy and thetwo genre compete with each other. The film never decides what it wantsto be and ends up being a generic midair collision.

• Continuity: When the squadron of biplanes first arrives and the Captain Carson radios, “We’re going in, proceed with flight plan,” he is seated side-by-side with his copilot in what appears to be a calm environment. But the exterior shots of the planes show the planes have open-cockpit tandem seats, with the copilot seated behind the pilot.

2) This, perhaps is one of the most poorly made films I have ever seen.The plot wasn't all that bad, but crash landing in the "desert" in Iraq(passing through a pine forest) was really a trip! Paul Cavanaughshines as the only believable character, and his performance madewatching the film bearable. It is true that the British used biplanesin that area as there was no real air force to oppose them, but U.S.Navy biplanes flown by USAAF personnel coming to the rescue? Also theappearance of the U.S. personnel was ridiculous, especially the hatsand insignia, all poorly done with little attention to detail. Allmovie makers use stock footage, but this was surely the worst exampleof this practice.It was surprising to me that Warner Brothersacknowledged participation in this film. A "B" movie? No way.

3) ***SPOILERS*** Running out of gas over the vast Syrian desert inWestern Iraq former Flying Tigers pilot Doug Everett, Warren Douglas,and his passengers Mr. & Mrs. George and Tess Torrence,John Loder &Ruth Ford, are forced to land. Trying to call for help from the Britishmilitary headquarters located in Baghdad Doug finds out that thebatteries, or tubes, of his radio are burnt out. The three then decideto walk through the burning desert to the nearest Iraqi city calledGhatsi. When there the trio are taken in and entertained by the citiesruler Ahmid Be Nor, Paul Cavenagh. Warren & Dough are dressed in whitedinner jackets with black bow ties and Tess is given a completemakeover to look like an Arabian princess.

Unknown to the three is that their being held hostage and will bekilled by Ahmid's men if his three step-brothers, who were working asspies for Nazi Germany, are not allowed to be set free and not beexecuted the next morning by the British. Ahmid who is a very refinedgentlemen, being that he was educated in the most prestigious schoolsin England, is not into the Devil Cult that his subjects adhere too butis such a worm and coward that he'll play along with them even if it isto murder George Doug & Tess, who he has the hot's for. As for histhree crazy and fanatical step-brothers Ahmid feels that a volley ofBritish bullets to their chests is just the right medicine that theyneed to cure them of their insane ideas.

George and Doug and Tess finally realize what's happening when theirconfronted by the crazed high priest of the city ,Martin Garralaga, whodemands that they be sacrificed to the Devil or Evil One, did he meanby that Saddam Hussain? as soon as the brothers are executed by theBritish. Ahmid using his British butler Devins, Barry Bernard, to spyon the three and make it look like he wants to escape with them. Thishas both George and Doug get the drop on him, and drop Devin to hisdeath off the palace balcony, as the two together with Tess make a runfor freedom to their disabled plane with a number of radio tubes thatthey took from Ahmid's short wave radio. Which is used to keep to be incontact with his Nazi allies in Berlin Germany.

After getting to the plane and installing the tubes Doug calls for helpand the US sends a squadron of fighter planes. The planes begin to bombthe hell out of Ghatsi and it's surroundings but George is tragicallykilled by Ahmid's mens during the fighting. Doug and Tess are takenprisoner again and held in the palace to be executed but Ahmid, and his"Fearless Warriors", wets their bloomers as the good old USA fighterplanes start to bomb the stuffing out of their city. In the end eventhe crazed high priest gives in to the mighty US Army Air Force, andhas both Doug and Tess released unharmed. With that the gutless and andself-serving Ahmid decides to join the allies in the war against heformer friend Germany to save his stinking hide. The Germans learnedthe hard way the saying that "With friends like Ahmid you don't needenemies" will the USA learn the same thing?

The "Fearless Warriors" of Ghatsi as well as Ahmid and the cities highpriest were so scared of the US military that they actually let anumber of US servicemen go into the main palace, and direct the airattacks on them, without as much as laying a hand on them. even thoughscores of their "Fearless Warriors" were getting killed in the bombingthat the US servicemen were directing. The bravery and fanaticism ofthe Ghatsi Devil Cult members, which must have numbered in thethousands, evaporated as soon as the first US bombs fell? Boy thingswere a lot different in Iraq back then in 1943 then they are theretoday in 2004.

2) It is beautifully filmed by Robert de Grasse. And Robert Young'scharacter is appealing and even admirable. This seems like a dry runfor his most famous role, the title character in "Father Knows Best."Here he is a father in two ways: He has children, including ShirleyTemple. And he is an Episcopal priest (under consideration for Bishopof his Diocese.) Shirley Temple is the main character. She is meant tobe saucy and ahead of her time. But she's very hard to like. Theescapade in which her boyfriend, John Agar, borrows a speech from herfor a debating contest isn't admirable. And right here, it's hard toimagine that a priest would laugh off his daughter's involvement insuch dishonesty.

Then she paints Agar. She promises she will just use his body as astarting point — no face. But the painting is exhibited in a show andeveryone sees that she has painted him in a bathing suit. That wouldhave been extremely risqué for 1905. What would be the equivalent 101years later? Something on the Internet or in an X-rated video.

All this while her father is being considered for Bishop. I wonder whatChristopher Isherwood's original story was like. Maybe she was aforerunner to Sally Bowles. Here, however, she is sullen, pampered, andselfish.

3) After a few successful teen-age roles (and a couple of ill-fated ones),Shirley’s uneven career as a young lady was not helped by this routineromantic comedy of the early 1900s in which she plays a rebellious daughterof a minister (Robert Young) with shocking ideas about love. As a crusaderfor women’s suffrage, Shirley seems more petulant than feisty, playing agirl who crusades for women’s suffrage. Nice to see Robert Young in hispre-Father Knows Best days. The film has an attractive look with handsomephotography and a good feel for the period atmosphere, but the script is toolightweight to carry much conviction. Pleasant enough if you want to seewhat Shirley Temple looked like at this stage in her career. She had threemore "clinkers" to go before quitting the screen.

Her then-husband John Agar wasn’t much help–here he comes across as awooden actor, not well suited to comedy. Pleasant enough film, but just atrifle.

4) I totally agree with the first post! I never could understand whypeople didn't think she was a great actress as an adult too. She wasterrific and I appreciate her enough to make up for all the fools whodon't. She is my favorite actress ever. I'm so sorry she quit acting atsuch a young age. What we've missed because of it! I wish Shirley wouldget back into show business now even after all these years! After allshe has accomplished in her life she deserves take it easy at this agebut sorry, as a great fan, I want more Shirley even now! I hope shedoesn't stay away because of feeling unappreciated, it would make mecry if she did. I can't help but make a comment on Shirley the child…It would have been enough just to look at her pretty face, beautifulhair, sweet giggly voice, infectious smile and dimples, but it'samazing that on top of all that, she was so smart, had more poise thanmost adults, could dance fantastic, sing, act, remember lines andlyrics (all simultaneously) It is still totally amazing to me. Andwatching her movies when I was a child, I couldn't appreciate how easyshe made it all look. Now that I'm an adult who has raised my ownchild, I fully realize how extraordinary Shirley really was. I don'tknow HOW she did it. I know this sounds like a small thing, but even ifyou watch her hands … how expressive they were. I love how she use toput on her mad face and stamp her little foot! Best of all the littleShirley makes me smile just watching her put on a big smile and she canalso bring me to tears. How many other people can do that?

As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) ‘Adventure Girl’, starringJoan Lowell, is based on a book she wrote called ‘The Cradle of theDeep’. Now here’s where the confusion starts. IMDb lists that book as anovel, as in *fiction*. Ms Lowell’s self-righteous narration in thismovie seems to indicate that ‘Cradle’ is non-fiction, and that thismovie is her rebuttal to all the people who disbelieved the veracity ofher book. I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle: it’s myguess that ‘Cradle of the Deep’ was published as fact, but was actuallya cradle of lies and was freely denounced as such.

There’s nothing believable in this ultra-low-budget movie, whichpurports to be a documentary re-enactment of true events. Joan Lowellplays herself, or a fictionalised version of herself: a distaff versionof Johnny Weissmuller’s Jungle Jim. Allegedly, she went to Guatemala tosteal (I mean discover) a fabled emerald that’s been propping up theeye socket of a Mayan idol. I’m absolutely positive that someoneconnected with this movie has read the English poem ‘The Green Eye ofthe Yellow God’.

Off to Guatemala sails Joan, with her handy crewmen Bill and Otto.Their sailboat gets caught in a gale and loses its mast. Bill getsblown overboard, and hardy Joan dives in after hm while the sailboat iscaught in the gale and speeds away without them. Joan and Bill areforced to tread water in the Gulf of Mexico for two hours. Meanwhile,the camera is right there with them, steadfastly recording this.

Eventually the merry crew end up in the Guatemalan jungle, where thenatives immediately capture them and make plans to roast Joan at thestake. This sequence is gobsmackingly bad, with the ‘natives’ staringinto the camera and giggling in embarrassment whilst they mumbleunga-bunga curses in the general direction of Joan. We are constantlyaware of the camera (and the cameraman) grinding away while Joan isallegedly in dire need of assistance.

Eventually, Joan gets into a bitch-slap fight with a Guatemalan junglewoman, who looks suspiciously Caucasian. All of this is offered inabsolute earnest, yet all of it is howlingly faked and oftenhilariously so. Throughout the film, Joan’s turgid narration insiststhat we recognise the ongoing fiasco as an accurate re-enactment ofgenuine events.

This film rates perhaps one point out of 10, but I laughed so hard andso often that I’m willing to throw in two extra points. On the otherhand, I don’t want to encourage this sort of mendacious ineptitude.Split the difference and rate this rubbish 2 points out of 10.

2) A strange attempt to make a film out of a journey to Guatemala on asailing boat. The story is a search for pirate treasure in a lost city.It's no more than a recapitulation of a type of adventure storygroaning with age even in 1934. This type of story is so well knownthat the would be artists got sloppy and begin to use abbreviations.The cinematic version of "you know". The 'lost cities' are somecolonial ruins and not the great Mayan cities of Central America. Theadventure girl of the title behaves reprehensibly with the 'natives'whose religion is depicted as the usual bowing before idols like in thecartoons and they speak about journeys being so many 'suns' away. Theseare the people who developed the most accurate calendar of their time.It is that crude in its representation of people and places. Themysterious arch in the picture was built at Chichicastinago by theSpanish (and not some long forgotten people) and is quite amazing as itframes this vast plain bisected by an absolutely straight road before awall of mountains in the distance as if it was racing away fromcivilization. Out there lies pure mystery, it seems to be saying. It isnowhere near the Rio Dulce, which is mentioned often as the site of thefilm. One would think that at least the film would have captured acharming picture of Guatemala circa 1934 on film, but they seemed sointent on concocting their trite story that they made the real junglelook like a Hollywood fake. The entire film was shot silent and thenarration is spoken over the action by the star and author Joan LowellAKA Helen Trask.

3) The film includes a long, furious wrestling match between Joan Lowell and amysterious Mayan princess. Although she is not credited in any source I canlocate, I am quite certain that the Mayan princess is played by Ula Holt (NewAdventures of Tarzan (1935) AKA Tarzan and the Green Goddess (1938). If Iam correct, I think this might be Ms. Holt’s only other known screen credit.A second link with the Tarzan film is a grotesquely ornate stone arch whichappears as the background of scenes near the end of each film. I thinkthere must have been some connection between the two films.

• This film was Clark Gable’s first after he returned to Hollywood following his service in the Army Air Corps in World War II. He had joined in August 1942, following the death of his wife Carole Lombard. MGM hyped this film as Gable’s big comeback, using the line, “Gable’s Back and Garson’s Got Him!” in the advertising. Audiences at first lined up to see the King back in action, but the novelty wore off and the film flopped.
• The film was a critical and commercial disaster upon release, effectively ending its star Clark Gable’s reign as “The King of Hollywood” and his viability as a box office champion. He was so disappointed by the finished film that he did not agree to act again until more than a year had passed.

Clark Gable stars as a staunchly confirmed sea dog, crew leader (called abos’n) and womanizer who is totally unprepared to meet Greer Garson’scharacter, who forever changes his vision of what is possible in findinglove with a woman. Academy Award winner, and beloved character actorThomasMitchell ("Uncle Billy" in "It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)") plays histoo-sensitive-for-this-world side-kick, who becomes Gable’s conscience,butat a price.

The script of this drama is lyrically sublime, subtle and quite deep. Thefire between the stars is evident and haunting. True ’soul-mate’ love istheovert theme of this movie. Existence, conscience, and facing the pain andlimits of life, so that you may truly pass into adulthood, are more themesexplored here. I view this film regularly once a year and am alwaysinspiredby its deep message and raw powerful performances. This isn’t your stockGable. This is a bittersweet post-war love poem.(Really! E. B. Browning isquoted to great effect!)

Gable’s "Harry Patterson" has seen tragedy and loss (as had Gable himself,recently losing the love of his life, wife Carole Lombard). He is maderestless in search of "it" which he believes only exists in the danger andperils of sea voyaging. He is sickened by the way shipwrecked people,aliveand on edge, once rescued, quickly become bored and lose that passionateawareness of their own lives. He is searching for that life where he staysexcited and in the passionate present (probably true of many returning warsoldiers in 1945).

In Garson’s "Emily Sears" he sees "it" for the first time in a woman’seyes.He is intrigued by her equivalent strength and wit, and simultaneouslythreatened by the risk of pain in losing her. Their love develops as aseries of intense battles. She sees a "caged animal" and for the firsttimea man she might really respect, even though she feels he needs to bereachedthrough all of his rebellion…and rescued.

His actions are escapist (and make great movie scenes)…but sailing awaytoforget his new "queen," he finds things have changed and we know, as dotheother characters, that it is the end of his former life …even if hedoesn’t. "Emily" bravely allows "Harry" to figure it out for himself. Shedoesn’t demand any change in him, instead she sends him off to find "it"andrisks being without the man that she loves for the rest of her life. Hermajesty the queen of MGM, Greer Garson, has never been lovelier.

Joan Blondel is a juicy, ripe ‘tomato’(the returning soldiers must havehooted and hollered!). Lina Romay makes an incredible "girl in distantport"and even sings a bit!

Thomas Mitchell is the stand out support. He plays Mudge, the soul andconscience of the free spirited Gable and perhaps of the whole film. Hebrilliantly helps unite a lost sailor & seeker with what his heart trulyseeks.

Watch this film and let it be poetry… just let it play as you marvel atthe writing and the actors’ eyes. I predict that this movie is about to berediscovered in a big way. ( By you?)

2) You have to see the movie to learn what "it" refers to. You will alsolearnhow to lure chickens properly, how to regain your "soul", what SanFranlooked like in 1945, how to attract a woman by dating her roommate, howtothrow rocks at your lover, how snappy dialogue and lively acting can bemuch more entertaining than the 90% of the c**p in today’s "subtle" actingmovies. No "adventure" here in today’s terms but quite daring andemotionalin its own way.

3) I was 8 years old when I saw this movie and it impressed me so much. Iwillnever forget 3 things in the movie "Adventure". How to hypnotize achicken;how the water drains out of the tub in a different direction depending onwhich side of the equator you live; how Clark Gable was yelling at hisnewborn baby to breathe.It was such a good romance, even to a young girlandI remember how the friend, Mudgin, was afraid of losing his soul. I am 64years old now and it is still as fresh in my mind as it was in 1946 inHartshorne, Oklahoma.

4) I like Gable and Garson. But not together. They just don't make abelievable screen couple. Apparently the stars had such oppositepersonalities that they didn't get along well while making this movie.Y'know, that might explain their *very* convincing portrayal ofhostility when their characters meet. In fact, there's nothing in thestory to warrant such immediate, vehement animosity – so it must bereal life bleeding through the actors' performances.

Far less convincing is the falling in love part, which comes out ofnowhere. Well, out of a contrived and ridiculous situation. So, shestarts to like him after they steal chickens together and get shot atby a farmer? Um… okay. I guess it was a thrilling experience thatmade her suddenly want him because… it's exciting to be with a guywho almost got you killed? The scene is played lightheartedly, even asthey're running away, dodging bullets. Bizarre.

I never understood Greer Garson's character. I couldn't figure out howshe really felt about things. For instance, when he plans to go back tosea 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 isinconsistent. I blame the script for being confusing, and peppered withstrange, unrealistic dialogue. Maybe Greer didn't "get" her charactereither. All I know is, her acting seems rather…bad. To be fair, JoanBlondell overacts too – whether it's frenzied flirting, or wailing &crying in exaggerated "I Love Lucy" fashion – she comes across ascartoonish. 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 bethe 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 outof control! "Oh Clark, you're so sexy when you gobble your dinner likea 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? Usuallyit's comical when it's supposed to be serious. I guess the intendedeffect was "mystical" and "moving" when the drunken sidekick thinkshe's lost his soul (literally saw it exit his chest!) and wants torepent of the sins he's committed. But I found it laughable. Not tomention that last scene when someone (keeping it vague here) WILLSsomeone else to live, and it's, like, supernatural or spiritual or somejunk.

This movie tries to be many things – deep, philosophical, preachy… acomedy, romance, melodrama… it's anything but an Adventure! But Iguess a confounding title kinda fits a film that, itself, doesn't makemuch sense.

5) Those were alternate tag lines that MGM offered to Greer Garson whenshe complained about "Gable's back and Garson's got him".

This really is a wonderful movie, but perhaps a bit hard to understandafter only one viewing. It certainly wasn't what the public wasexpecting in 1945/6. After seeing it several times I find it just getsbetter and better.

Gable chews up scenery, knocks down doors, punches a few guys, andkisses some beautiful women, all because he is fed up with life andwith the sorry state of mankind. When he meets Greer, he backs her upagainst a library shelf to intimidate her but she doesn't budge. Hecan't understand why this "tomato" doesn't fall for his rough charm theway most women do. It takes him the whole movie to realize that Greeris exactly what he's been looking for all along.

Greer is first repulsed by Gable, then fascinated, then jealous of JoanBlondell, eventually infatuated with him, and finally resigned tolosing him to the sea and to his quest for the elusive quality that hecalls "it". His pal Thomas Mitchell realizes that she is just whatGable needs.

Garson and Gable are great together. If you're a fan of either, thenyou'll need to see this movie.

And you'll learn neat stuff like how to mesmerize a chicken and howinexpensive groceries were in 1945.

You'll even get to see Greer imitating a rooster. It's almost as goodas her sea lion imitation in "Julia Misbehaves".

6) I, also, saw this movie when I was very young; maybe aged 9. ThomasMitchell (Mudge) thinking (or should I say, knowing) he saw his soulleave him, is one of the things I most remember. I didn't know what "asoul" looked like, then, and still don't. But that really fascinatedme.

As one commenter already mentioned, one of the most dramatic,audience-involved moments is when Clark Gable performs a desperate CPRon his non-breathing just-born child.

I think I grew a crush on Greer Garson through this film. She isbeautiful in it.

I have to remember to look for this film on the video racks or on theTV schedule.

A truly great film!

7) Clark Gable returned to M-G-M after his war service in World War II. Sonaturally, the "King" of M-G-M was paired up with the "Queen," that beingGreer Garson. Garson fans were happy to see their star portraying someoneyoung for a change (no mother role here), but Gable had aged about ten yearssince his last screen appearance. The war and the death of his wife, CaroleLombard, had taken their toll.

PARNELL is often regarded as Clark Gable's worst film. While it isindeed terrible (with Gable being horribly miscast and the film playingvery fast and loose with the facts), I have to disagree with HarryMedved's book "The Fifty Worst Movies" and say that ADVENTURE isprobably 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 greaterthings, whereas ADVENTURE really helped to relegate Gable tosecond-tier films for most of the rest of his career (with a fewexceptions here and there).

ADVENTURE was the first film that came out after Gable was releasedfrom military service and after the death of his wife (Carole Lombard).Three years had passed since his last film and the public was itchingto see the box office king return. Oddly, however, MGM chose to notonly pair him with an actress who seemed nothing like his usualco-stars but also gave him a god-awful script. The public naturallyhated the film and fortunately it lost money–proving that sometime thepublic isn't so stupid after all!

What didn't I like about the movie? Well, aside from the charactersplayed by Gable, Greer Garson and Thomas Mitchell, it wasn't allbad–but considering that these are the three leads, that's a seriousproblem!! All three seemed to have been written by farm animals–theywere that poorly written and stupid.

Gable plays a merchant marine officer. While this role seems ill-suitedfor a pretty guy like Clark, it might have still worked had it beenwritten well. Instead, however, he comes off as a 'Jeckyl and Hyde'sort of guy–with two contradictory personalities. One is an obnoxiousjerk who is selfish and thoroughly unlikable–especially for a ladywith an I.Q. above 50. He's this way through the first half of themovie and that way occasionally thereafter. The other is a lovablerogue–roughly like the same guy he played in about a dozen films inthe 1930s. The end result is a guy that is really tough to like–asevere problem in a film billed as a romance! What an idiot…but atleast he made no bones about this in the film!

As for Greer Garson, like Gable, I love her in films. She was a classyand wonderful actress in such great films as RANDOM HARVEST, VALLEY OFDECISION and MRS. MINIVER. Pairing her style and persona with Gable wasall wrong and made no sense at all. What made less sense was thecharacter she played–a 'Dr. Jeckyl and Ms. Hyde' with yet a thirdpersonality as well! The first was a self-confident lady who rightlysized up Gable as a jerk the first time she met him. She didn't need aman in her life and was someone you could respect. Then, completely outof the blue, she went from hating him to marrying him–and there is nological reason for this change. Finally, later after they are married,she becomes a petulant little brat–angry at Clark for being a shallowjerk even though she married him knowing exactly who he was!! What amega-idiot!

As for Mitchell, he's not at all believable and seems more like a plotdevice than a real person. You can't imagine this superstitious idiotas a seaman and in fact, you can't imagine any religious person beingstupid enough to go to a library instead of a church when they arehaving a serious spiritual crisis. What an idiot!

If you get the impression that nothing about this overly long romancemakes any sense, then welcome to the club!! It's an embarrassing andboring mess. And, even if you rightly hate PARNELL, at least you can'taccuse that silly film of being boring!

9) "Adventure" is an oddly generic title for such a singularly uniquemotion picture. Its superficial values are appealing enough–the Gablebluster is rarely put to such good use, and Garson is possibly the onlyactress with enough mettle to match him–but these attributes arehardly unusual and neither, indeed, is the storyline. What makes theeffort favorably surprising is the story's aspiration to allegorythrough the use of poetics, which may occasionally seem overt but whichnever fail to ring true. It's an ambitious undertaking, and it works.

In its time, the movie was dismissed for being both formulaic and evencrude, which in itself betrays either an ignorance of its higheraspirations or, more likely, a reluctance to take them seriously.America in 1945 prided itself on street smarts and industrial might; onits not being taken for a sucker. It had saved Europe from the axisforces and was about to embark on a socioeconomic boom such as theworld had never seen: It wasn't interested in philosophical musingsabout the nature of the soul. The idea that these musings could begiven dimension in a simple and often predictable story about a rakishsailor and a repressed librarian drove reviewers to pronounce thescript "foolish" and the poetic commentary "gibberish."

But it is these very elements, this oddly ardent coloring, that havesomehow deepened and mellowed with time, and which now provide the filmwith the kind of rich, subtle flavor found in only the most treasuredvintages. More unique still is that the movie is less interested in thesentimentality of its story than in the metaphysical questions itposes. Its chief accomplishment is in avoiding any academic explorationof such questions (a choice which parallels the arc of the storyitself), and it does so by illustrating with large, colorful brushes.Only the intelligence of the director and the skill of his actors keepthe proceedings from veering off into caricature, a tipping point thatwhen straddled with such finesse is delightful viewing indeed.

10) In his first film after World War II service in the Army Air Corps,Clark Gable settled down to a familiar character and one of his mostfamiliar directors. Adventure was the last of five films that Gable didwith Victor Fleming which also includes Gone With The Wind. This onenever quite measured up to Gone With The Wind though.

Gable was literally met at the airport by Louis B. Mayer and rushedinto this film. It was thought at the time that a film with current boxoffice sensation Greer Garson was a can't miss item at the box office.Garson was coming off an Oscar she received in 1942 for Mrs. Miniverthe year Gable went away to war.

The results were underwhelming, but seen over 60 years after it wasfirst out show Adventure to be not a bad story at all. Gable fitscomfortably into the part of the tough boatswain who loves therollicking life at sea he leads. No woman is going to be tying himdown, not one like prim and proper librarian Greer Garson. He likesthem like her roommate Joan Blondell, sassy and out for a good time.

But Greer and her notions of settling down with home and family kind ofget under his skin. It's what's led many a man to the altar.

Gable and Garson never worked together again, probably by mutualconsent. Neither were each other's types on the screen and in life, butno one has anything to be ashamed of in Adventure.

Best performance in the cast is by Thomas Mitchell as Gable's friendand confidante. Mitchell plays the usual tragicomic alcoholic that hetook a patent out on for the screen.

Another in the cast and former vocalist with the Xavier Cugat Orchestrais Lina Romay who is the woman we first see Gable with as the filmopens. She would shortly be joining the Bing Crosby show as thefeatured female singer. That 'dame' who gets $20.00 for someconversation is none other than Barbara Billingsley aka June Cleaver.Who'd have thunk that one?

Though this one didn't set the world on fire, Gable's next two films,Homecoming and The Hucksters rank in my humble opinion as two of hisvery best. The King was ascending his throne again.

This game is a sci-fi action movie that you control. The emphasis is onstory and character as opposed to overt game play, which is also it’sdownfall. But that isn’t all bad because the story is engaging andpowerful with probably the best video game musical score to back it up!(yes better than Halo’s. I own both soundtracks). While this game hasbeen argued as a Halo clone (they do share similar circumstances) Ifeel it’s more original and compelling story line set it apart in thatrespect. Don’t get me wrong I love both Halo video games, but Advent’sstory hits closer to home in which the choices you make(and they aretough choices) affect the game. There are minor glitches that areobvious signs the game was rushed into completion, but most of thesecan be over looked due the great many good aspects to the cool andstylish game play. The attacks and powers that are at your disposal aresimply astounding and they are integrated into the control schemeflawlessly. Many gamers get turned off at the beginning because thereisn’t much to do and no cool powers to use, but if you stick it out(and you should because the story and characters pull you right in) youare in for a blockbuster of a gaming experience.

It is my hope that the sequels will be made, because as one gamer putit, "it would be like watching the first Star Wars film and neverseeing the rest".

Given the time and dedication, the game’s creators can make a trulyrevolutionary game that bridges the gap between film and video game. Myonly real request for the sequels would be the option to toggle their"flick" auto aim ability on and off. Sometimes ya just wanna shot analien square in the nuts and see some rag doll physics.

I recommend this game to anyone willing to immerse themselves in atruly unique and engaging gaming experience.

2) i just picked up this game yesterday (for only 9 bucks used too!!!)because i saw on IMDb that Orson Scott Card had written it, and hes myabsolute faverite writer… and, after about 8 hours of game play, itwas everything i hoped it to be, and MORE!!! the powers are SO MUCH FUNto use!!! you don't even need to touch the weapons in the game afteryou get about 3 or 4 of the 8 total powers. the game play is fun, butthe real joy comes with the story line… its like your participatingin a sci fi action movie!!! there's also numerous similarities to Cards"Enders Game" books (im not going to tell you, because if you likedthis game and haven't read those books, go pick them up!!) the onlydown side to this game is that it is a bit glitchy. but nothing thatinhibits game play… Soooooooooooo, if you are looking for a REALLYGOOD cheap game find, check out Advent Rising… if you cant find itused anywhere, you can get it new online for 20 bucks…

3) I'm glad I waited a year to play this. This game just wasn't that good.I heard in review when it was first released that the plot was good,but there were gameplay issues. Yes that's true at face value, butafter playing the game through I digress. Yes the main plot points arepretty cool, but the storytelling is really choppy full of holes. Thegame is way too short, and the style doesn't really satisfy. I playedthe game on normal difficulty and there were really only a couple ofplaces that were really difficult to get through and after gaining thepowers the enemies were just too easy to beat. As the game progressed Ifound myself using the weapons less and less, and just hitting theenemies with surge and killing them. And the ending was totally lame,that was the hardest boss? Maybe they should have delayed the gameanother year, came up with a more cohesive backstory, filled in thegaps, and created a better universe for the game. It really wasn't thekind of story to set a linear third- person shooting game with likewhat 5 to seven hours of gameplay. The bosses were way too easy, and Ifound myself wanting to go explore the various worlds I was on a lotmore. There just wasn't enough, the story jumped around way too much,and the game itself was full of glitches, and they didn't develop theworld well enough to actually capture the interest of players. Not theepic game they tried to make it out to be.

The film, in a nutshell, is about the rise of a young tennis player(Shad Hart playing himself, strangely enough). The film packs in everyhysterical cliché from the teen films of the eighties (Teen Wolf, Can’tBuy Me Love, etc.) in about a half an hour. The crowd seemed to lovethis as much as I did.

I hope somebody has the good sense to grab hold of this idea; I’d shellout good money to see the feature.

2) I may be a little biased, since I'm from the same high school as thedirector and one of the main characters/writers, but I loved it. It wasa cornucopia of all the quirky 80's humor and the parodies that madeJeff's films great in high school.

Seibenick has many more gems like this in his collection, although theyaren't quite as well produced. I'll just say that if youtube existed inthe early 90's he'd be a millionaire by now.

This film brings back that goof ball humor that gives us some newone-liners. If you haven't seen it, do what you can to find it online.

And if all that's not enough, Kate Bosworth's in it:) Rock on!

3) The makers of this film have done an excellent job and have provided allofus with a taste of a film that should be made into a full length feature.Speaking as an average couch potato, this film was rather enjoyable. Thecontent and comedy allowed this film to be a pleasant viewing experienceforadults and, at the same time, not something that would make you want tokeepthe kids in another room. Hollywood needs more films like this.

4) The problem with offbeat comedies is that they often seem desperatelyin need of a trim. Even well-loved films like The Big Lebowski,TheBlues Brothers and current midnight-show favorite Wet Hot AmericanSummer seem like they would have been better if a little less time hadbeen spent between jokes. Advantage Hart does not have this problem.The new short film, playfully directed by newcomer Jeff Seibenick, is arousing 34 minutes of comedy. In fact, the film is probably exactlywhat would happen if you squished the wacky humor of a 90minute comedyinto a nice bite-size version. In only 34 minutes, the film has theemotional melodrama of a sports hero movie, the contrived romance plotof a teeny-bopper comedy, the gratuitous curses and butt shots of anyNational Lampoon sex romp and the sunny warmth and naïve brightness ofa Disney Channel special. But most importantly, "Advantage Hart"parodies all of the very same styles it follows. The novelty of thefilm’s overwritten style is the extent to which it doesn’t take moviesseriously. If you can’t appreciate humor that’s a little subtle, it’seasy to miss the dopey charm of a movie with solemnly delivered lineslike, "I can smell it in my bones." Advantage Hart certainly isn’twithout problems – the two main actors look too much alike, theborderline sincerity swings back and forth between comedy subgenres andthe immediacy of the humor and gags begins to feel a little toofrantic, like someone trying to pack a little more food into an alreadyfull stomach because they’re running late. But for a project hell-benton delirious brevity, Advantage Hart ages to take the time for somenice moments, particularly with Scrubs’ Sam Lloyd as young Shad’scoach, and the coach’s perversely unhinged wife. Amber Mellott, playingthe less attractive friend Shad doesn’t seem to notice, also adds acheerful toughness to a tired joke. This busy little movie is prettysure it can win you over, and, by the end, probably will. Mostimportantly, though, if you look at the ages and statuses of the peoplewho made it, Advantage Hart seems less like a jumbled hybrid and morelike a promise of work to come. Already, the film’s actors arebeginning to move into TV and movies, the writers and director probablywon’t be too far behind. In a short film they’ve created a story withabout five movies running through it: it’s time for these guys to takethe next step with a feature. Hey, who knows how their comedy mightturn out if they’re given the chance to do the full-length version?