FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Author-Poet Aberjhani The film THE HEALER (a.k.a. "Julie Walking Home") poses the kind of unsettling metaphysical questions that many prefer to avoid asking. At the same time, it suggests some intriguing answers. Like the film THE CRIME OF PADRE AMARO (please see companion review) the movie "The Healer" is a study of the degrees to which human beings can enjoy the gift of human sexuality while simultaneously attempting to serve as channels for spiritual healing, social harmony, and political integrity. That Alexei--played flawlessly by Lothaire Bluteau--is a true and gifted spiritual healer becomes clear from the outset.We witness him as a child in a hospital where doctors discover that standing him on the back of an ailing patient relieves the patient's pain. Moreover, his very presence apparently has a healing impact on every patient in the ward. As an adult, Alexei becomes famous as a healer who shares his gifts freely with the world. But like the proverbial prophet without honor in his own hometown, he has to endure the complaints of an aging mother who points out that not only is his spiritual generosity towards the world doing nothing to alleviate her financial distress but it is perhaps not the best way to prepare for his own latter years.Much of "The Healer" actually centers around the rift that occurs in the life of the Makowskys, a Canadian family whose happiness is torn asunder when the husband--played with superb complexity by William Fichtner--has an affair, and the young son develops cancer. Is the child's disease a physical manifestation of the family's spiritual dis-ease following the father's adultery? Good question to ponder.In her desperation to save their son, the mother--exemplary work here by Miranda Otto--seeks out the assistance of the healer Alexei. From their very first meeting, the attraction between them is clearly both spiritual and sexual. The child is indeed healed and all returns uneasily to their separate lives. Then Alexei visits the mother and the two have an affair. Their sexual union seems to rob the healer of his ability to help the little boy when his cancer returns. However, ironically, it also results in a pregnancy. Is this a bad thing or a good thing for the family and the healer? Pay close attention to the end and see what you think.by Author-Poet Aberjhani, author of "The Bridge of Silver Wings"

magtree121 Having never seen a picture by this particular director before, but having enjoyed Miranda Otto's performance in LoTR, I gave this movie a chance when I saw in on the Sundance Channel a year or so ago. Since then, I have seen it three more times, and have concluded that even though it does not have a technically typical or logical resolution and plot, it is so rife with talented performances, excellent directing and powerful messages that the seemingly empty conclusion must be overlooked.It is true that there does not seem to be a clear focus in this film. One is not sure which character to focus on. But unlike other films that are stylistically and objectively similar to this, the message that one is to focus on is quite clear. The plot runs more like a realistic set of events. There isn't always a clear start and finish.The message, though, I think, is that everything has a consequence. Perhaps this is more conspicuously presented in this film than in real life, with mystical and miraculous happenings, that seems to be what it's creator wishes to say about life. (This synopsis is less to tell the plot, and more the connections) Julie's son, Nicholas, collapses. She doesn't take him to the doctor or a hospital, but instead goes home to discover her husband having an affair. Their relationship is destroyed, while Nick's collapse proves to have been more than an accident; he has contracted cancer. It is clear that Julie's anguish perfects at Henry for his affair, but also at herself for not having taken him to a professional to begin with. Already a loop has formed.And so her father, a bitter Polish Catholic, in the middle of this presents his Polish mail-order bride, who tells Julie of a Russian Faith Healer, Alexy, who may be able to save her son. He does, and in the process falls in love with Julie. When Julie returns to Canada, she finds that her father's bride has left him alone, though not before leading her son to a complete recovery. As Alexy follows Julie home, and a very passionate affair is begot, Nicholas becomes ill once again. This time, possibly do to his loss of virginity and redirector passion towards Julie, Alexy cannot heal Nick again. Thus Julie has created a similar loop that the film began with, her affair possibly producing the tragedy all over again.Yet Julie becomes pregnant by Alexy, and returns to Henry, who, we assume, has forgiven her, and we also left to assume that they go on with their lives, doing their best to support Nick's life as long as possible. And so, it seems that the message is that everything is connected. Everything you do in your life begets something else, creates a ripple.But what is presented by the opening scene is a different interpretation of this message. More specifically, the movie tells us that for every life saved, one cannot be. A small Alexy saves a man incapacitated with pain, but not the already deceased woman. While Nick lived, Julie's marriage did not, and neither did her father's. While Julie's love lived, Nick did not.This relates to another theme of faith and religion, in that in religion the idea that there are always consequences for are actions is a very important concept. The baptism of her children and ordeal over Julie's wounded Catholicism shows this, as well as the ground of faith by which Julie believes Alexy can heal her son. In faith people believe that what they do for good will produce good in kind. But in love, consequences are not so easily defined. Thus neither Henry nor Julie see the consequences in their affairs. In love, reciprocation is immediate, and one is not acting in the objective of creating consequences or retribution or rewards.I believe that such complicated messages are well presented in the bare simpleness of Holland's direction, and in the purely fantastic performances. The children's roles are written beautifully in a world of film in which children are merely adults with small voices, and the young actors are astonishingly skillful and talented in their presentation of these roles. Mirando Otto gives a stunning performance, stealing the movie with the believability and passion of her character. Lothaire Bluteau is also quite brilliant, presenting the almost sheepish, yet amazingly gifted Alexy with a natural charm and ease. Willaim Fichtner tackles the difficult role of the supposed "bad guy" with grace, insuring that his character is not taken just for his actions, but is given a depth as well.All in all, my favorite part of this movie is that no one is the bad guy, and no one is the good guy. they all make mistakes, and that is true in real life. And like adults, they realize there mistakes, and that they are things they must live with. I believe this is a rather excellent movie, when looked at from the right angle.

jotix100 The Polish director Agnieszka Holland offers a view about a family in turmoil caused by the illness of a young boy. This film was shown on the Sundance channel recently. Most of the comments submitted about this movie in this forum fail to give credit to Ms. Holland for this tale that blends mysticism, faith, science and betrayal that works well. Stop reading if you haven't seen the picture.Ms. Holland's film is complicated, in that it asks the viewer to think about how Julie's actions to save Nick, her young son, stricken with a rare cancer, clash with the medical science because she goes with her instincts instead, when she takes the boy to be seen by a folk "healer" in Poland. At the same time her marriage has come to an abrupt end when she learns her husband has betrayed her with another woman, in her own home.Julie sees an improvement when "the healer" selects Nick as his next project to help and asks her to follow him as he goes through the countryside seeing people. When Nicks starts showing signs of recovery, a mutual attraction develops between Julie and Alexei, the holy man. Julie goes home and Alexei follows her. Something is not quite right with Nick and when he has a relapse, Julie's faith in Alexei's ability to cure her son evaporates, thus ending their relationship, as Alexei abandons Julie.The film is well done and paced. It engrosses the viewer because Ms. Holland knows where she is taking us. At the end, when Alexei has left, we finally see some sense of harmony in Julie's life, depicted lovingly in the last sequence of the film. Nick, is still not well, but the family has come together by the experience they have been through and we see that Julie is expecting a child. It almost appears as though Nick will die, but there will be a new life in the family. In other words, the sacrifice of Nick's life for the miracle that is growing in Julie's womb.The movie owes a tremendous deal to the luminous presence of Miranda Otto, who does wonders with her depiction of Julie. Ms. Otto's face projects an intelligence that is uncanny. She makes us believe that she is this woman torn between the medicine that might help her young son, but does nothing, and to what extreme, as a mother, she will go to have Nick cured of the cancer that is killing him slowly.Lothaire Bluteau is the healer, Alexei. He gives an enigmatic performance that adds another layer to the film. In their scenes together, Mr. Bluteau and Ms. Otto do amazing acting. This Canadian actor's work is never dull; he projects a rare knack to make his characters believable and likable.Finally, William Fichtner, as Henry, is also excellent. He responds well to Ms. Holland's direction. The twins, played by Ryan Smith and Bianca Crudo are excellent without being bratty, or obnoxious.Ms. Holland's film will reward those who watch it with an open mind as she never passes judgment on what we are seeing on the screen.

rbrb Unfortunately as soon as I saw that this was a partly Canadian production from the opening credits I very nearly turned it off; as most things than come out of there are either boring or pale and poor imitations of the USA. I should have switched off. This movie rambles along in all sorts of directions with no apparent reference to anything. Is it a film about a broken marriage, a love affair, a faith healer, a child terminally ill or what? Seems that even those making it...ain't got a clue and it gives the distinct impression of being made-up as it goes along. No one wants to be a critic...there are a few good scenes and good acting.....but I found the whole picture disorganized and dis-orientated with neither meaning or message.Even the title is daft. A generous 3 out of 10.