Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

arcturus6 I will admit that I do not have an advanced degree in Drama or have I performed on stage, Shakespearian or otherwise, but the criticism that Ms. McGraw received in some of these reviews sounds a bit much. Is there a "Let's Get Ali" Club out there? As far as her acting ability I do not find her as objectionable as some and, in fact, I like her. If that makes me something of an amateur in theatrics, well so be it! The critical remarks made against her go too far I think and border on gross insult. Frankly there are a numerous so-called actresses today who cannot act as far as I am concerned but I am not going on a tirade against them. I just don't watch them. Many people go "ga ga ga ga and ga" over Meryl Streep and frankly I would not pay a dime to see her perform. So therein lies the issue, some of us like certain actresses and others don't and vice versa! Besides, I miss the Lana Turners, Greer Garsons, Betty Davisis, Susan Haywards, Joan Crawfords, and other fine actresses from the 1940s, 50s and 60s!

pmailman I thought "Any movie with George C. Scott has to have something on the ball...!" I was wrong.This is the only movie that has moved me enough to want to write a review for IMDb.There's not a single good performance in the movie. Scott's is best, clocking in at "not too bad" which is a gross disappointment for an actor of his caliber. Ali MacGraw is painful to watch. It goes downhill from there, one awkward scene with stilted dialog after another.Where was the director? Busy having lunch during the whole shooting? About the only positive reaction I have is the photography, giving a nice flavor of mainland China and Hong Kong.I am so glad I didn't actually pay money to watch this.

mysense Besides the somewhat credible explanation of how his son "went bad," this was poor, even by TV movie standards. The relationship between Scott and McGraw is unbelievable and often embarrassing, the plot generally predictable, and except for a couple of flashes by Mr. Scott, the acting ranges from unremarkable to downright poor. There's no romantic chemistry between the two leads, the only apparent motivations for them getting romantically involved appears to be that they're the two leads and they're both widowed. Most of the plot "turns" are easily predictable, and the acting questionable enough to wonder whether everybody was supposed to be a bad liar, or the lines were just being delivered poorly. Probably the best that can be said for it was that it was only 88 minutes.

burgesssha George C. Scott's character comes to Communist China to look for his long lost son. The US Embassy or Consulate assigns Rose (Ms. McGraw) who is studying in China, to be his guide and interpreter. Together, they set out looking for the son and have a dangerous time it. That sounds pretty banal but the acting is good and the chemistry between Ms. McGraw and Mr. Scott is palpable. And, from what I could tell, I think the locations were actually shot in China, not in a Hollywood lot. And the feeling of being a stranger in a strange land came across quite nicely. Everything considered, a superior movie