What an array of names Howard Hughes was able to assemble. True, the director, Josef von Sternberg hadn't made a movie in years but he'd once wreathed Marlene Dietrich in mystery. The performers, aside from Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell, then at the top of their popularity, include just about every character actor or supporting player one might wish for -- William Bendix, Brad Dexter as the bad guy, Gloria Grahame, Thomas Gomez, and the immortal Philip Ahn, everyone's Asian.Yet the movie is hardly watchable due to a plot that is strictly routine, a stage-bound Portugese port off Hong Kong, and a general air of lassitude projected by the hefty Mitchum. It's one of those roles he more or less sleepwalks through.But the chief disadvantage of this exotic crime drama is the story itself. It could have been a leftover B script that had hidden in the back of some producer's drawer since 1935. If Chester Morris had been used instead of Mitchum, the title might have been, "Boston Blackie Goes to Macao." Gloria Grahame has never looked better, however. Her role of a casino girl is almost devoid of importance. Jane Russel looks like she's enjoying herself. She usually looked that way. Mitchum looks as if he'd rather be in bed.It doesn't jell. Too bad.

This is a good film. The dialog sounds like crime movies of the 1940's, but the script is very good. The performances by Robert Mitchum, Jane Russell, and William Bendix are excellent. Russell sings a couple of songs, very well, and is drop-dead gorgeous, in the role of a torch singer. Gloria Grahame has a supporting femme fatale role, similar to many she played in the 1940's and 1950's, and she always did a good job. The movie opens with a documentary-like description of Macao, assuming audiences would not know much, if anything, about the island and its location (which probably was true). It's a good adventure/crime story, done in black-and-white, which works well, since most of the action takes place at night. I will enjoy watching this film often.

I'm still waiting to discover a good movie in which Jane Russell starred. I haven't seen one yet. If you know of one, let me know. Best as I can tell, Howard Hughes tried to make her a star for two reasons: her breasts. It couldn't have been for her acting ability or that her presence would enhance a quality film. Those just didn't happen. Her films were a bust (pun intended.)You would think it would be almost impossible to shoot a boring film that also included Robert Mitchum, William Bendix, Thomas Gomez and Gloria Grahame....but here it is! The screen time of Bendix and Grahame are woefully small, otherwise this might have been more interesting. The other (lead) characters in this movie are simply not people you care about.The fault of this movie, in addition to unlikeable lead characters, is that it simply isn't entertaining. It's dull, folks, almost as drab as it gets. What a shame. It sure didn't have to be with that cast. Mitchum and Bendix were fun to watch in "The Big Steal," but the only steal in this film is your money to buy or rent this movie. I love film noir, and I liked the exotic setting in here, but this story is so bad I hate to even classify it in that genre (noir). Director Josef Von Sternberg was at the end of his career....and it shows. In fact, he didn't finish this movie. They had to call in Nicholas Ray to do that. This film, in a way, was a poor man's "Morocco," I say "poor man" because Jane Russell was no Marlene Dietrich and "Macao" is no "Morocco."The only saving grace is that the running time is short. You only have to suffer for 81 minutes. I wouldn't even recommend that.

This time my intuition failed. I usually predict somethings about the films i'm about to see based on pure preconceptions, somethings i got from previews viewings of films from the producers/actors/directors i'm about to watch, the title of the film (it usually suggests a lot to me just to know the title) or pure intuition. This was this last case.What we have here is a noir made in the beginning of a decade of interesting aspects for American cinema: it was not experimental as the 30' (which were exploring the possibilities of a renewed medium, which had gained the possibilities of synchronized sound/image) nor as established in a genre and a sense of style as the 40'. So, in a way, it was rather undefined. But films like this one tell me that it was no longer a period for noir as the 40' (and to that matter, John Huston) defined it. The Maltese falcon changed (or maybe summarized) some conventions and introduced new possibilities in film narrative devices, and that legacy went on to be developed and still has new steps being taken today. But that style, the very appreciated hats, detectives, shadow/light which were the more visible face (and to many viewers incorrectly regarded as the essence of noir) don't work here anymore. I'm still trying to find a film noir post Sunset Boulevard that really works. This is not it.Start with Macao. It was in theory a good city to place a story of this kind. Even if the reality described in the introduction of the film is probably a tremendous exaggeration (and invention) over what really happened in Macao those days, that is an exaggeration one is willing to accept, for cinematic richness. A side complaint is the portrayal of the Portuguese policeman. The fat moustache corrupt guy is a preconception i suppose many Europeans had (some may still have it today) regarding the Portuguese. I don't know the ideas American had on this, but this stylizations upsets today, but probably in 20 years from now there preconceptions we see on today's films that will be noted. Anyway, i get in many many American films with more than 30 years a lot of situations like this (the Japanese from Breakfast at Tiffany's comes to my mind right now). Anyway Macao starts as a promise in the voice off, but ends as a dull slightly oriental slightly generic studio set, with no great interest beyond what was described of it.Behind this there was the controlling and charismatic (rich) H.Hughes. He was probably very controlling regarding his productions (he was himself someone who had got into the delicate work of directing). He places two of his fetishes here: Mitchum and Russell. So, we had Hughes, wanting to create a classic noir picture. In order to do that he calls a competent (more than competent) director, who precisely been able to bring out some very competent work in placing stories in strange exotic sceneries; Hughes, knowing that, searches a typical noir scenario, not fresh, not interesting (or at least not interestingly explored). The plot is not even near anything interesting from the previous decade. Is there any doubt somewhere in the plot? What don't we know? Don't we know who is controlling the story? Is there any ambiguity regarding any character? Grahame was the woman in the story who might have brought some ambiguity regarding the "god" in the story, the puppeteer controlling actions on the viewers back, but is totally misused. The scene with Mitchum and Russell in the boat too much near the beginning throws away any ambiguity or game there might occur between both. Mitchum is just about walking around in white suit, portraying his "americanhood". Russell might have been seductive and mysterious to Hughes eyes, but here she was an ordinary woman, fully out passed by Grahame in the much less scenes where she performed. Russell had better moments in films. So this is nostalgic, i had interesting in watching it, but it didn't live up to my expectations.My opinion: 2/5