Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

bkoganbing With tongue firmly in cheek Tom Selleck, Bess Armstrong and the rest of the cast give us a spoof of all those old action/adventure flicks from the 30s and 40s. The film is set in Kuomintang China which has always been a good source for these films, a fluid political situation, a weak central government and a lot of warlords in business for themselves.Industrialist Wilford Brimley has gone to Asia and vanished, but that hasn't stopped his daughter from spending his money like it had no end. But the end might be coming as his partner Robert Morley wants him declared legally dead and by terms of their partnership he gets control of the company and daughter Bess Armstrong is out in the cold. She might have to do like others do and actually go to work.Heaven forfend so she hires former air ace Tom Selleck who comes with two World War I era biplanes and a mechanic played by Jack Weston. This partnership takes her to Afghanistan, Nepal, and finally the westernmost province of China Sinkiang in search of Brimley.Along the way all the old clichés concerning these films is employed and of course chemistry cannot be denied. Selleck and Armstrong become an item and Selleck finds some use for his former aviation combat skills.By the way I loved and I'm sure you'll love Brimley's explanation as to why Armstrong will be well taken care of despite efforts to the contrary.Those efforts are being directed by Robert Morley who I can never resist seeing in any film. There's also a nice performance by Brian Blessed as an Afghan warlord.Tom Selleck's fans should love High Road To China.

smccar77 "High Road to China," is a film that is challenging to a 21st century movie reviewer. The troubling issues arise when deciding how to contextualize the film and story devices. Essentially this is an adventure comedy done with very dated sensibilities. As an example of technical skill and cinematography, HRtC meets and occasionally exceeds all of the conventions of early 80's film making. However, the character types and cultural representations are somewhat crude and naïve by current standards.Essentially, this is a film version of a 1950's style boys adventure novel. HRtC contains the requisite action, foreign locales, dashing characters, and subdued romance. The story is straightforward and focuses more on thrills than on breaking new ground or developing characters. With such a story, the film does require the use of stock characterization and a higher degree of stereotyping. The stereotyping is the single aspect of the film that leads to the most problems. To begin, the main protagonists are quite likable but noticeably hollow. Selleck would have made for a dashing pilot had the script given him more personal exposition and less snide quips. Armstrong plays the plucky dilettante to a tee. Again, her character is never given any dialogue to develop the character beyond a caricature. The second issue regarding stereotyping is the depiction of various Asian cultures. In maintaining a faster pace, any attempt at humanizing the tribal cultures is neglected. The Arabs are misogynistic tyrants. The Nepalese are doe-eyed mystics. The rural Chinese are barely functional in-fighters. While these caricatures do hearken back to pulp adventure novels, current audiences may cringe at such simplistic and imperialistic representations. The effect of these less than stellar characterizations is a film populated by hollow facades rather than relatable human beings.Even with its faults, HRtC is a very enjoyable film. As mentioned above, the story is simplistic yet engrossing. The action sequences are well done and have a wonderful early 20th century flavor. The cinematography is, at times, breathtakingly beautiful. The score is poignant and expertly coupled with the mood of the scenes. Essentially, this is a highly accomplished film on a technical level that falters in the gross stereotyping and mawkish dialogue. To be sure, HRtC is great entertainment; it is just great mindless entertainment.On a personal note, I really like this film. The fact that HRtC is a clear Indiana Jones copy in no way detracts from this movie. Steeping myself in high flying adventure from by-gone days is pure nostalgic bliss. I see this film as having great potential as a family film. The movie provides great entertainment and an opportunity to open up discussion on film and cultural representation. I will probably recommend this film to my father, so that we may relive past days and mull over just how correct Said was in "Orientalism." 6.5 of 10 stars.

Robert J. Maxwell I'm not sure why Tom Selleck's career as a leading man stalled when it did. I'm told he's handsome. And he has that cracked Jimmy-Stewart voice. In interviews he seems bright and articulate. He doesn't do a bang-up job in this light-hearted zap number but who could? All he's called upon to do is act drunk once in a while, and if he doesn't do as good a job as John Wayne did in "True Grit," well, maybe it's because Wayne has had so much more practice. Oh, and Selleck is also given lines like, "Surely, the great Suleman the Exquisite would not harm a small servant of his grateful guest." Something like that, anyway. Selleck did a fine job as Dwight D. Eisenhower in a recent TV movie -- "Ten Days to D-Day," perhaps it was.The plot here -- self-indulgent pretty socialite hires handsome drunken pilot and his mechanic side kick to fly around most of Asia to find her missing father before she's disinherited -- is pretty familiar stuff. Runaway socialites and canny pilots. I keep thinking of Jimmy Cagney and Barbara Stanwyk lost in the desert. The photography is a bit gloomy but the locations are unusual and the action and comedy balance each other nicely. There's even a dogfight, which the slower, heavier two-seater with its single Lewis machine gun would surely have lost against the more nimble single-seater with its two machine guns. The reason the clumsier airplane wins is that it is flown by Tom Selleck, whereas the superior machine is flown by a stereotyped square-jawed blond German with no sense of humor.The music is lush and romantic. The scenery rolling. The old airplanes fun to watch as they sputter along or flop over in hammerhead stalls. The dialog sort of lumbers along in the same way, without enough funny lines or wisecracks. Still, it's not offensive in any way. The kids will probably enjoy it. Maybe they will even learn a little something about Buddhism, such as that a world religion by that name exists.Not a gem, but not bad.

RamblerReb This is one of those films I never tire of. I watched it several times during the 80s, then laid off it for a while during the 90s (mostly due to a long stint without cable), and have recently rediscovered it since getting satellite. I am glad I gave it such a long time before going back to it, because I had forgotten the gorgeous scenery, the snappy one-liners, and the dead-on acting. Everyone is believable and several scenes, such as when O'Malley explains his theory on Eve's family genetics, verge on hysterical. The romance isn't overdone, and the language is fairly mild, with no references to feces or intercourse to be found. Even by 1983 standards, it's pretty tame.All in all, if not an excellent film, a competent one, and eminently suited for filling up a rainy Saturday afternoon.