Rock Hudson (1990)

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

First of all this movie was made for television. Plot-wise it has a cheap movie of the week feel. The acting isn't bad. In fact the leads are all quite good and in some cases stellar. Any weaknesses in performances have more to do with really bad makeup. The ageing is horribly done and not very convincing.At one point "Rock" says, "some poor woman is missing her makeup kit" and it led me to wonder if the "poor woman" was in fact the film's makeup director. Dreadful stuff.A few others have commented on the accuracy of the characterizations -- I believe they're alluding to whether Rock Hudson gave Mark Christian AIDS without telling him he had it -- perhaps the most damning (and criminal) thing in the film. I'm not sure anyone knows other than the principles. George Nader is missing from the entire film.There are some serious gaps in this film. Massive gaps actually. The film presents the picture that Hudson's career was over by the mid 1960s and he retired from acting. Nothing could be further from the truth. The film omits the SEVEN seasons Rock Hudson played the lead in McMillan & Wife -- the popular detective series of the 1970s. For many of us it was our first introduction to Hudson.The other gap is the unbelievable prudishness in presenting Hudson's relationships. No kisses and very little tenderness. It is deceptive and a lie to present his relationships this way.There's a better film out there demanding to be made.

There are two things to consider here: the script's accuracy and the drama's effectiveness.Since this is a bio, factual accuracy is important. However, the only authorities of what really took place are the real life subjects. In cases where only two people were involved in a situation--the late actor and second party--chances for proving historical accuracy are decidedly diminished. The only guide one can have is what's been garnered from other sources: press articles, film documentaries, various bio books, and the like. There were so many "cover ups" to the Hudson career, that it's tough to tell where truth ends and urban legend begins. Writer Dennis Turner obviously consulted court transcripts and legal documents among his sources, but who really knows what happened? William R. Moses' Marc Christian is played throughout like a sweet, innocent college junior; there's no hint there of anything but the purest of motives to his relationship. Andrew Robinson's Agent Henry Willson is not shown devising the "marriage of convenience" to Phyllis Gates. Nor is Thomas Ian Griffith's Rock ever seen making love to his various partners beyond innocent embraces--not even a mutual kiss. There's something irritatingly irresponsible about all of this, and John Nicoletta's overly cautious direction doesn't help. Released just five years after the actor's death in 1985, it's a good guess the writing began shortly thereafter to capitalize on its subject. Dramatically, there's not much more that emerges than tentative and superficial, with a cast trying its best to inject emotion into the enactment. Another film on Hudson is welcome--one with less sanitization and compromise and more sincerity and viewpoint.

The actor who portrayed Rock Hudson can only have been picked because of his brief resemblance to the late star. His acting was not on par with the later movie star, nor did he have the charisma to be a star. It gave the impression that Rock Hudson chose to stay in the closet rather than come out. Perhaps in those 'dark old days' you would have been finished if you 'came out', but at least his life-long friend, George Nader did not hide it. The best actor in it was definitely William R Moses who played Marc Christian who I believe wrote a book about his experiences with Rock and his court case senario - I have tried for years to get the book all to no avail -! Perhaps it should be refilmed with more on his career and even more on his love life.

Thomas Ian Griffith was perfectly cast in this role. Not only is Mr. Griffith a Rock Hudson lookalike, but he carried himself as Rock Hudson did and portrayed the underlying tenderness that Hudson's moviegoers admired. I normally dislike biography/movies and almost switched the channel, but Mr. Griffith was quite compelling to watch. I do agree with the other imdb users that the movie could have focused more on Hudson's career; however, the movie was based on his ex-wife's book and her knowledge of that aspect of Hudson's life was limited. I found it sad that Hudson tried to go straight and although truly in love with Phyllis, he could not deny his inner feelings for men. Mr. Griffith's portrayal helped me to understand Rock Hudson as a person. This movie is currently being rerun on the True Stories channel (March 2001).