The wealthy playboy son of an assassinated South American diplomat discovers that his father was really murdered on orders of the corrupt president of the country--a man who was his ...
See full summary »
The wealthy playboy son of an assassinated South American diplomat discovers that his father was really murdered on orders of the corrupt president of the country--a man who was his father's friend and who, in fact, his father had helped put into power. He returns from living a jet-set life in Europe to lead a revolution against the government, only to find out that things aren't quite as black and white as he had assumed.Written by
The South American country of Corteguay does not exist. However, much of the film was shot in Colombia and many of the events pictured in the film parallel events that happened in Colombia's history. See more »
The second time the Lockheed Super Constellation is taking off the next shot shows the shadow of a Douglas DC-7, not the Super Constellation. The Super Constellation has three rudders, the DC-7 only one; the shadow shows only one rudder. See more »
Originally rated "R" in the U.S. in 1970, some violence and sex was cut to be re-rated "PG" for a 1972 theatrical re-release. Paramount restored the cut footage (and the "R" rating) in the 1992 video release. See more »
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.
14 of 18 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this