River of No Return (1954)

Strong and Moving!

Just what I expected

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

I was really disappointed, i was expecting more from this film.The beautiful scenery is the only thing positive i can say about this movie.I didn't enjoy the film due to its racist content!It wasn't enough that Americans destroyed their land and murdered their race they make Indians appear hostile,villains and without manners.That's why it was hard for me to sympathize any of the protagonist(Matt,Kay etc.). Marilyn is pretty as always and sings lovely but that alone cant make the film better.It has bad special effects(especially on the river). About the story not much is going on, there is not much action.In general i would only suggest it because Marilyn Monroe and Robert Mitchum are the protagonists and you're a fan.I really enjoyed though the scene in the beginning where Padre (the priest) says:"i came here as a missioner to the Indians but the white men need me more"

If you seriously think that teaming up 2 of Hollywood's biggest, most bankable and hottest stars of the 1950s together in the same picture would totally ignite sparks of pure ecstasy flying this way, and that, then think again.Unfortunately for us all - In "River Of No Return", any on-screen chemistry that was generated between Mitchum & Monroe amounted to being nothing more than a complete fizzle, and that was about all.I'd say that a lot of this picture's glaring faults rested squarely on the shoulders of its demanding director, Otto Preminger, who obviously understood nothing about the advantage and benefit of filming its dynamically attractive stars in close-ups. In my opinion, close-ups are a vitally important part of producing a real quality picture.Another serious problem that plagued this film's story was that way-way too many of its scenes set in the beautiful outdoors were actually shot in front of back-projection screens. This, to me, was a sure-fire way of thoroughly sabotaging an adventure film that featured such grand and majestic scenery as this one did.Set in the year 1875 - River Of No Return was something of a "Father & Son" tale where Mitchum feigns toughness, Monroe lip-syncs her songs, and Tommy Rettig (as Mitchum's on-screen boy) actually steals the show in this film's climatic finale.*Note Of Interest* - All of the exterior scenes for River Of No Return were shot in the Canadian Rockies, which included Banff National Park, as well.Anyways - Considering all of the high-potential that clearly prevailed in River Of No Return, if you ask me, this picture certainly could have (and should have) been a helluva lot better than it was.

Great Canadian scenery, but episodic storyline, at best. To escape marauding Indians, farmer Mitchum, son Rettig, and barroom showgirl Monroe escape down a roaring river on a raft, encountering a number of perils along the way. With this kind of adventurous premise, the movie should overflow with suspense, but it doesn't.What the result shows is that legendary director Preminger was much more at home with drawingroom intrigue, e.g. Laura (1944), than with outdoor adventure. Here he films a spotty screenplay in unengaged fashion, adding nothing to the action. In short, events in the movie unfold without pulling us in. Then too, many of the river process shots are clumsily blended with the live shots, a constant reminder that this really is a movie.Mitchum's excellent in a tailor made role. He looks fully at home as a macho man in the Canadian wilderness. For Monroe, however, this is her only starring role in an adventure film and it's understandable. She looks decidedly uncomfortable, except when doing her showgirl act, which is when the engaging side of her personality really comes out. Nonetheless, the movie exploits her tangible assets with frequent dips in and out of the water, in provocative fashion. All in all, however, I see why this film is infrequently mentioned in her list of cinematic highlights.Anyway, unless you have a yen for grand Canadian vistas or Marilyn's buxom appeal, my advice is to skip it.

The movie that Marilyn Monroe considered her worst comes across as a rehash of "The African Queen". While Monroe does put all her effort into the role of a woman who accompanies a widower and his son down a dangerous river in the northwestern US, the movie itself is very dated. The scenery is some of the most impressive ever put on film, that can't carry the movie. The whole thing is basically the average idealized image of the old west. These sorts of movies are what made the spaghetti westerns so great with the latter's gritty look at the old west.Notwithstanding, Marilyn Monroe looks really fine (as can be expected). But that's all.