Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Hunter Lanier In theory, I should have loved "River of No Return." Otto Preminger is one of my favorite directors; I love Mitchum, and Monroe is often good; there's cowboys, violence, excitement and attractive women playing instruments. It was like biting into a shiny apple, only to find the worm equivalent of Times Square.The premise is promising: an ex-convict (Robert Mitchum) rounds up his son--who he gave away before he went away--and heads off to a small piece of land to start anew as a farmer. The area is a hotspot for gold, but Mitchum doesn't care; he just wants to live quietly. But one thing leads to another, and Mitchum, his son and a dance hall singer (Marilyn Monroe) end up on a raft, going down rapids to get revenge on a man who stole Mitchum's gun and horse.First thing's first, the film is gorgeous--shot in Cinemascope. The opening shot of the movie is a big "look I've got," as the camera pans around Mitchum, showing acres and acres of grassy, mountainous land. Likewise, Cinemascope is a naturally companion when shooting a river--where a large chunk of the film takes place. But the cinematography is so good, it makes the jumps to green screen incredibly jarring. Not to mention, the rafting sequences--the film's big set-pieces--aren't exciting in the least, as time after time, it's just a raft moving forward and two people pushing levers back and forth.There's a lot of little things I love about this movie. The relationship between the three main characters--Mitchum, his son, Monroe--is deep and full of potential. This only exemplifies the weakness of the screenplay, as these characters are given nothing to do or say after being set-up in an auspicious manner. That said, there are several story beats that rang true with me, but not enough to add up to anything special. There's even one single moment--very brief--where the film made me remember why I love movies. That's worth something.Despite the natural pleasure of watching a western starring Robert Mitchum and Marilyn Monroe, directed by the great Otto Preminger, the film is less than the sum of its parts. It almost made me sad, as there's a great movie in there somewhere.

Dalbert Pringle 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.

Lee Eisenberg 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.

kenjha A rancher tames white water rapids and a sultry woman as they take a raft trip down a river. Mitchum is solid as the no-nonsense hero. Monroe gets to warble a few songs and her singing is not terrible. The same can't be said of her acting. She really needed an actor's director to coax out a good performance, and Preminger was not that type of director. In fact, Preminger is incompetent in pretty much everything he does in this Western, a foreign genre for him. The scenes of Indian attacks are quite poorly staged. The rafting scenes, often utilizing projected background, look cheesy. Rettig, who started on the "Lassie" TV series the same year as this movie, does OK as Mitchum's son.