and, maybe, it could not be more. because it is only expression of good intentions. honest. unconvincing. and this is the basic sin for a biopic who has the desire to reflect details of a life and career who remains, after his death, impressive. the status of essay is result of the short time after the rest of Hudson. and, maybe, the bad thing is the feeling to be more a picture of a man, with his secret life, with his sentimental adventures - presented as dramatic sketches- , the result being a general image of a gay actor and its impact with the public image.it is unfair to define it as a bad film. and useful to see it as decent essay.

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.

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).

It would have been interesting to see more about his movie career and non -sex personal life. Nevertheless it was an interesting movie and the cast performed well. Marc Christian was painted in a more favorable light than the press did at the time of Hudson's death and the lawsuit. George Nader, who received most of his estate according to some accounts, was not in the movie at all.