The Adventurers

I bought it on video and it was so long it was on two tapes! So a lot of fast forwarding was needed for the countless war scenes. But it was worth the wait to get to the high sixties segments, the overall best being (for the plot totally unnecessary) the fashion shows! But oh, it was the films´ highlight. Super camp fashion numbers out of the blue but totally appropriate for a high gloss sixties movie. It was released 1970, I wonder if it all seemed a little out of date even then?

Loads of stars, even lesser like an early Jaclyn Smith and the underrated underused Angela Scoular (of On Her Majesties Secret Service). But the best is Candice Bergen. SO stunningly beautiful the screen almost melted and she did some fine acting even if she thought she hadn´t. She played a lesbian again and she ends up bitter and chain-smoking. (Hollywood logic).

If I were to subscribe to the notion of 'guilty pleasures', then this film would fall into the category. As a teenager, I enjoyed reading Harold Robbins well written trash novels. After seeing "The Carpetbaggers" and several other adaptations, I'd have to say "The Adventurers" is the closest in spirit to Robbins original. This is in part because it was made in the 'Post-Code' era (after 1968) and is very explicit regarding the sex and violence. The trailer was narrated by Rod Serling and the tag line was 'Nothing has been left out of The Adventurers' which was true.

Although they updated the story by a decade (so they could include sixties' pop imagery), it follows the novel closely. Many criticize BenKim's performance but his deadpan libertine is similar to Mastroianni's in "La Dolce Vita" and appropriate for the story. The rest of the cast is fun with Borgnine hamming it up and Candace Bergen sexy. Thommy Bergen was the star of "Elvira Madigan" a few years earlier and Rosanno Brazi the lead in "South Pacific". The production value is excellent and the action scenes well done with Lewis Gilbert's famous flying bodies that he utilized in "You Only Live Twice". Anne Coates was the editor and she repeated her sound overlaps she introduced in "Lawrence of Arabia". The cinematography and music were also top notch. The original prints were in Technicolor and Panavision. Some four track magnetic stereo copies were made along with a 70mm blow up print in Eastmancolor.

The original cut ran twenty minutes longer. The cut sequences can be assertained by reading "The Making of the Adventurers" paperback book. The film was released with an R rating and re-issued in a PG version with the nudity cut but violence intact. The video version is the standard 170 minute version but not the Preview cut. The premiere was quite unusual. They showed it on a new supersonic jet to the cast and press as it circles Los Angeles! A 16mm promo film was made of the event and is floating around collector circles. The astonished look on Ernest Borgnine's face and he enters the plane for the 'premiere' is amusing.

The film was not a bomb as is usually stated and grossed ten million which was quite good for 1970. Unfortunately, it cost the same amount although I'm sure Paramount is in the black with the network showings and videocasette release.

This type of film is an acquired taste but it's one of the best of this genre. I think it's a hoot full of unintentional laughs and great action and imaginative sex scenes.

Richard W. Haines

Ten-year old Dax (Loris Loddi) watches as soldiers massacre his family in the war-torn South American country of Corteguay, in 1945. It's an experience that has a profound effect on the boy, and influences his actions and behavior as an adult. Dax grows up to become a European playboy (Bekim Fehmiu), who periodically returns to the ongoing national upheaval in his home country. The film's underlying premise is fine. But the screen story is a mess.

For one thing, Dax, the central character, is not very likable as an adult. He's too smug, too self-important, too haughty, and emotionally cold. If he's so concerned about the never-ending violence in Corteguay, why does he spend so much time hobnobbing with the rich and snobbish in Europe? His motivations don't really make sense.

Second, the plot contains too many secondary characters that come and go, throughout. It's hard to keep track of them. For its large cast, the film is almost devoid of characters with whom the audience can identify and become attached. For all their "importance" and "savoir-faire", these secondary characters are hopelessly shallow and cold.

Third, the film's dialogue is awful. It reminds me of one of those dreadful 1950's sword and sandal movies, with lines of dialogue so ponderous and so burdened with momentous gravity, you would think they should be delivered only by Hamlet. The film veritably drools with this overwrought melodrama.

Further, the film's plot irritatingly oscillates between South America and Europe. One minute we're in Courteguay watching two poor, starving children begging for food. The next minute we're at a gaudy fashion show in Europe, or at some highbrow party listening to some lady belt out an operatic aria. It's as if the writer couldn't decide what story he wanted to tell.

And the film's violence is excessive. The civil war subplot in Corteguay requires some brute force and destruction, naturally. But the violence here is much too personal, too graphic, and too gratuitous.

To its credit, the film does have good cinematography, especially outdoors with that beautiful South American scenery. And the costumes and indoor production design are lavish, almost too much so, at times.

Ultimately, "The Adventurers" is a pretentious bore that takes itself way too seriously. The characters are unappealing, the plot is muddled, the violence is excessive, and the dialogue is laughably ponderous. All of these liabilities are then magnified by the film's three-hour runtime.

After many years in the exile, marrying and having affairs with wealthy and beautiful women, the son of a former revolutionary and futile play-boy Dax Xenos (Bekim Fehmiu) returns to his country invited by the corrupt president to a homage to his father. He finds that he has a son living in the country, and decides to raise funds to help the life of the people of his country. However, the money is used to buy weapons, and he decides to fight together with the revolutionary El Lobo against the corrupt president.

I saw this movie many years ago, and at that time I liked it. However, I have just watched it on VHS, and now I found it a corny soap-opera. The story is a complete mess, and it is difficult to understand the motivations of the lead character. The contact of a few moments with an unknown son would be enough to change the behavior of a futile person to a revolutionary? Is the intention of the novel of the writer Harold Robbins to say that South American countries are supposed to live with successive revolutions and corrupt president and leaders? The beauty of Candice Bergman is one of the worthy parts of this forgettable movie. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "O Mundo dos Aventureiros" ("The World of the Adventurers")

I had read Harold Robbins' book "The Adventurers" on a cross-country flight when it first came out, and found it to be a bit more enjoyable than his usual trash--somewhat better written, a more interesting story than usual, different types of characters. So when the movie was released, I figured, "Ah, what the hell, I'll check it out." I must say that I enjoyed this film in spite of itself. The dialog is laughably inane, the acting by pretty much the entire cast is abysmal (star Bekim Fehmiu, a Yugoslav heartthrob, only made a few more films before he deservedly disappeared), if you expected Candace Bergen to do her usual embarrassingly inept job you won't be disappointed, Ernest Borgnine hams outrageously, and there are a host of cameos--none of them particularly noteworthy--by everyone from Olivia De Havilland to John Ireland, most of whom probably took the parts in order to get a free trip to Europe. The film does, however, have a few things going for it. One is the luminous Leigh Taylor-Young. She is absolutely exquisite; her part, though essential, doesn't call for a lot of screen time, but every time she does appear on-screen she lights it up. Also, the battle sequences are exciting, well staged and very convincing; they pick up the film's pace tremendously (the action scenes were shot in Colombia and the extras were Colombian soldiers, who knew a thing or two about what happens in battle). A lot of money was spent making this picture and, unlike many big-budget European co-productions made at the time, it shows on the screen. The photography is outstanding, the European scenery is beautiful, the jungle scenes in "Corteguay" (which were also shot in Colombia) are stunning and the costumes and production values are sumptuous. Besides, it IS an interesting story (the son of a man murdered by a corrupt and oppressive government returns to overthrow that government, only to find that the new government he's helped to install is just as corrupt and oppressive).

All things considered, it's not a bad way to spend a couple of hours. The picture got savaged by reviewers when it first came out, but it's really not all that bad. It's somewhat overblown and overheated, but enjoyable nonetheless. Check it out.