Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

steven-222 I can't agree with those who rate this as one of those "so bad it's good" movies of its era, like Valley of the Dolls, Poseidon Adventure, Airport, etc. As trashy as they were, one thing those films were not: boring. Indeed, the very melodrama and bravura over-acting that made them trashy also made then compulsively watchable. But The Adventurers is very, very boring.Nothing coheres. There seem to be at least three movies being made at once. There's the story of revolution and politics in the fictional Latin American country of Corteguay, which is competently filmed (big battle scenes, crowd scenes, etc.) but not very compelling.Then there's the "racy" melodrama of Dax's days as a gigolo in Rome and his marriages to rich women; this part is really dull. The actors seem to be sleepwalking through their scenes (granted, the script gives them little to do); the result is neither trashy nor soapy, just shrug-worthy. We don't even get a scenery-chewing performance out of Olivia De Havilland, which should have been a given.And then there are two scenes that seem to have wandered into this movie from some other sound stage at Cinecitta, the fashion show-a-go-go in the second half, and the bizarre torture chamber concealed in Dax's Manhattan apartment. Those scenes feature wild, over-the-top production design, but they go nowhere and don't fit with the rest of the film at all. (Mario Bava could have built a whole movie around that "groovy" torture chamber, and it would have been a hundred times more interesting than The Adventurers.)This movie is just a long, boring misfire.

adstekservices I have read Harrold Robbins' book 4 times. When I recently viewed the film I expected to see all kinds of changes from what was in the book. I was actually amazed to see that the film followed closely to what was written except for a few story alterations that were obviously unavoidable. The book was a lot more decadent than was depicted by the film. However, the film was very well cast with excellent acting by everyone. I was really pleased that the film conveyed the spirit of the book to the end. I just acquired the DVD which is the original R rated version for international release. It runs a full 177 minutes. Obviously, this picture could not have been shown in American theaters in 1970 when the film was made. Even though the film is 35 years old it is not dated. My copy is a Panavision widescreen copy with full Dolby 5.1 Surround stereo sound and it plays as if it was a newly produced film. If you are lucky enough to acquire this version of the film watch it again. I'm sure you will be really pleased especially if you have a "Home Theatre" with a large wide screen.

rollo_tomaso I thought this was dreadful when I first saw it my freshman year at college, but since then had grown to appreciate Lewis Gilbert as one of my all-time favorite directors, and decided that this film couldn't possibly be as bad as I remembered. I was right. It was worse. Behkim Fehmiu gives one of the worst lead-actor-in-an-epic performances of all time. The normally redoubtable Charles Aznavour seems bored stiff throughout the proceedings. Ernest Borgnine is absolutely gross. The cinematography is luscious, but in no other way does this resemble a Gilbert-directed film. Good for some laughs if you are drunk. Otherwise, avoid like the plague. 3/10.

grahamsj3 Bekim Fehmiu's acting career has not flourished in America; nor should it have. This man couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag. He should never have been selected to play the lead in a film of this magnitude. Dax Xenos was a powerful role and he blew it badly. On another front, I was surprised at the amount of nudity in the film, given it's vintage (1970). There is also a lot of violence. The basic yarn is about an exiled playboy (Dax Xenos) from the poor Central American country of Corteguay. The country is in constant turmoil since it is run by despots. Our playboy ultimately becomes involved in a revolution. Also starring are Candice Bergen, Ernest Borgnine, Olivia DeHavilland and Leigh Taylor-Young. The story line is plausible and well-written. The rest of the cast all give decent performances. But due to the star's poor performance, I gave this film only a 4.