Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

edwagreen Typical Hollywood fanfare with tinsel town probably taking advantage of Bob Stack and Lauren Bacalle two years before in "Written on the Wind." From the beginning, you would swear that this was going to be a comedy. That all changes when Lauren Bacall discovers a fatal illness and hopes that by adopting a child, the latter can continue to do the things her husband, Stack, is used to.Unfortunately, the father and child really can't relate to one another and of course the situated is exacerbated when the Bacalle character dies.Notice how the child constantly refers to her parents by their first names and that Bacall smokes after learning of her fate. Ed Platt, who was the doctor in "Written on the Wind," repeats his doctor-like role in this one as well.The ending is typical Hollywood with love conquering all. Doesn't one think that Stack was miscast here? Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart would have been much better.

FredGailey I would give this no stars if I had the option. An insult to the original 1946 'Sentimental Journey' which starred John Payne & Maureen O'Hara (a highly under rated screen couple from the golden age of cinema, in my opinion, who should have been cast alongside each other in more than the 4 films they did, as they had definite chemistry. )All I can say is pass on this and watch the original - its better acted and scripted than this drivel. When you see the on screen electricity between Payne & O'Hara, you'll see why, they give Scarlett & Rhett a run for their money and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for that matter. Can't understand why they had to remake Sentimental Journey anyway as it was only 12 years old at the time this dud was made!

fansweep I was quite young (around 14) when I saw this movie on TV. While I could not remember the cast very much at that time, the story and the way the actors/actresses had carried the story through made a lasting impression on me - what it means when any child can be your child - it takes only to show love and how it can fill the gaps in our lives. This story of this film helped me to help many of my friends who did not have their own children and that they can enjoy the gift if they open their minds and hearts to them - as the leading lady impresses upon the husband. The beginning of romance between the two and the moments they draw together and next when we see them as a couple are all well portrayed.

mkr23 I originally saw this on TV as a child and thought it was so incredibly sad. Recently, I had the opportunity to see it again and thought it was a bit campy, but it was the 1950s. Robert Stack's character is a bit of a selfish jerk, but, since it is the 50's, everyone knows he'll come around in the end. Lauren Bacall looked absolutely beautiful in this film. As for Evelyn Rudie, I thought she was the perfect old soul in a child's body. It's not such a bad film; it's really rather tender and sweet. Perfect, it isn't, but if you watch it for the simple enjoyment of a movie, it's pretty good. It's a 1/2 a hankie film, and great on a cold winter night, with some cocoa and popcorn.