Julie Walking Home (2002) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
So-so drama
eugenia_loli12 May 2005
This is a drama about beliefs and how these can change based on necessity and fear.

At the beginning of the movie the Jew husband (the always excellent William Fichtner) doesn't believe in miracles, but after his son gets better from a "miracle man", he changes his mind and begs that same miracle man --who has also slept with his wife in the meantime-- to come and help his son. The necessity of his son win the battle with cancer is more important than his own prejudices and fears.

The movie starts a bit slowly, then it gets a bit of a more interesting pace, but overall it's not a movie that will have you see it again any time soon. Performances are good, photography is not too bad, but the pace is slow.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Walking in Circles
gazineo-121 July 2004
'Julia Walking Home' is a movie in which too many sensible themes as faith, marriage troubles, religiosity, supernatural events and the fear of death are put together in a bundle by director Agnieska Holland. Maybe the great circle of matters is a problem to the final outcome but, in fact, the movie and its narrative are not conducted with sufficient strenght to make the viewer really involved with the drama. All the time the movie goes on and on and the story seems to be restrained and underdeveloped. There's too much artificialism in some points, like the relationship between Julie (Miranda Otto) and the miracle guy (Lothaire Bluteau, in a strange performance) who performs supernatural cures for all kind of diseases. The most strong impression, after all, is that life must be linked with strong morality and family values. In this point, I think Mr. Frank Capra could have been the director of this peasant, conventional and thoughtless little drama. The outocome - maybe - would be much better. I give this a 5 (five).
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Too much completely unnecessary profanity
wmstrome17 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This was a very interesting story, and I would have rated it very much higher had it not contained so much completely gratuitous profanity which really detracted from the movie. I find it especially grating on the nerves when people use the "F" word so much, when it only detracts from the dialogue and spoils the whole mood of the film. The beginning of the movie really grabs your attention. From there, the story is really interesting, and also quite unique. The quality of the acting is good for the most part. I would love to watch a version of this movie edited to be suitable as family entertainment, or rated G. It would be so much more enjoyable. There were also some sensual scenes which did not add anything at all to the story.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Too many ideas...
mrchaos3322 June 2003
Director Agnieszka Holland is an intelligent art house filmmaker who makes interesting, layered movies like Europa, Europa, for people who like to exercise their minds at the cinema. With her newest film, the Canadian / German / Polish co-production Julie Walking Home, she may have outsmarted herself. There are simply too many ideas and dangling story lines thrown into the mix. Julie, nicely played by Miranda Otto, comes to a cross roads in her life when she discovers her husband with another woman. Then her cute son is diagnosed with cancer which can't be treated because he is allergic to the chemotherapy drugs. Pretty depressing stuff, but it gets worse. As her personal troubles mount she does what any caring mother would do to save her child - she runs to Poland and finds a faith healer. The charismatic Alexei (played by Canadian Lothaire Bluteau in a riff on his Jesus of Montreal role) lays his hands on the boy and in the process also wins Julie's heart and follows her back to Canada. IN the third act story threads are left to sway aimlessly in the wind, while the tone of the film grows bleaker and bleaker. Holland frequently examines issues of faith in her work, and had she stuck to just the faith healer's plot line this could have been a great film. Bluteau is terrific and could have easily carried the emotional weight of the story. As it is we are left with unanswered questions about where this film stands on almost every topic it tackles from faith to medicine to ethics.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good Film - terrible ending
Cinemaze9 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed 90 percent of this film but the ending is awful. I think it can all be summed up by the incredibly airy last three words of dialogue: "You smell nice." Better to have have no dialogue at all. "You smell nice"? Please. Other than that the film explored a little bit into the mystical healing thing but moreover was about faith, family, adultery, etc. Having my first child born to me just seven months ago, I was much more moved by images of her sick child than I probably would have been before I was a parent. The film could have gone and developed other themes a bit better. Some scenes toward the end seemed a bit superfluous. All in all, at least "Julie" is a cutie and easy of the eyes, plus I have to imagine if I met her in person I would probably be inclined to tell her, "you smell nice."
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
If you walk everywhere you get nowhere......
rbrb30 July 2004
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.
12 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Did everyone miss the point?!!
karimashidingspot20 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
For me the ending was the point of the entire movie! That in fact, we are misled through the whole movie by the fact the her son is sick, and there's The Healer, so we all think that the healer is healing her son. And that's where we are wrong. He is a healer, and the person he was meant to heal was HER. Not the boy.

Her son get's sick, yes, but why do we, the living, automatically think that the best thing is for him to survive? If you look at the mother in the beginning when she just finds out her son is ill and dying, you can see that she is in no condition to let go, especially because she has no source of comfort with her husband just having cheated on her. We even see her begging her son to not die. So she's willing to fight tooth and nail for her son to live, but also in a way for her soul and spirit to survive. That is where the healer comes in, and also maybe why he is able to spot her in that huge crowd as someone needing him. Not because of her son, but perhaps even unknownst to him, because healing her is going to require more from him than he's ever given before.

Look also at the way she goes about her relationship with the healer. It's not your average affair. She's forgiven her husband, and is not doing it to spite him, and tells him about Alexai, she even admits to not understanding it. And on Alexai's side, if you look at the fact that whenever he heals someone it takes something out of him, this was his biggest healing mission ever. Because to do it, he had to give up his life as he knew it, without knowing the reason why, but just by following his instinct and what he feels he was called to do. He has sex for the first time, impregnates her, and then it completely makes sense that when her son's illness comes back, Alexai's healing powers are gone. Because that was never what he was meant to do.

He healed that family, and specifically the mother, by healing her spirit enough for her to let go of her son. And in the end, she is able. She let's him go, and doesn't beg him to stay for her sake like she did before. It's brilliantly written, because it challenges what we think we know about dying, and living. And most of all it illustrates the immense power of spiritual healing.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Healing
jotix1005 December 2004
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.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A riveting, thought-provoking film
jenniferjones72217 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I caught this on City TV last night (Feb 16th, 2008) when flipping through the channels, and even though I had missed the first 30 minutes of this film, I was compelled to stop on that channel and watch it! I found the plot to be riveting, I couldn't turn away!

***Please be warned my review contains spoilers - If you haven't seen the film yet, please stop reading now***

I was drawn in by several factors - the disintegration of Julie & Henry's relationship; the illness and impending death of their son; the mystical, magical "healer" character; the ensuing relationship between Julie & Alexei. I was so fascinated by all of these concepts unraveling at once!

I kind of disliked how Alexei abruptly left, when he found he couldn't heal the boy. It begged so many questions, such as "Is it just THAT boy he cannot heal? Or has he totally lost his powers?", and "What made him lose his powers? Giving in to his desire for sex & love? Or did he lose his powers when he impregnated Julie? Did his healing 'force' leave his body through ejaculation?"

Also, when the film cuts to the final scene, where Julie's pregnancy is obviously going along nicely, and even though their son's death is imminent, they appear to be a reunited, happy family again. Nothing was shown to describe how the family got back to this state again.. it begged more questions, such as "When & How did Julie & Henry get so friendly with each other again?" and "How did they let go of all of the bad feelings and bad blood between them, and become so loving again?" and "Is the baby going to have Alexei's healing powers?"

But, even though I seem to prefer a film that "spells it all out" for me, I loved this film BECAUSE it begged all of those questions, BECAUSE it left me pondering, wondering, thinking, worrying... It truly IS a thought-provoking film and I love when I can watch a film and still be affected by it, and still be thinking about it, days later. This film is definitely one of those films!
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Oh, Now I get it!
marina-3115 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I knew nothing about this film when I watched it on Sundance Channel the other day. So I was able to let it "hit me" with no preconceived ideas. If you haven't watched it yet, please do so before reading anything else.

Now, in general: Great acting, very realistic feel, and the children were amazing. It felt unscripted whenever they were on screen, their characters and personalities seemed so realistic! And all the adults were also very human and real.

The ending: I've had to ponder this a lot, and someone else's comment helped me sort through it. It doesn't end neatly with all the loose ends tied up--like real life, with choices bringing effects and consequences. I was shocked at first how Alexei just disappeared at the hospital after discovering his powers were gone. I agree with someone who said that his passions must have been diverted away from healing when he set them on Julie instead, and I was not surprised when this happened. In fact, as they were pursuing their romance, I suspected he was making a choice whether he realized it or not, and he said he didn't want to do the healing anymore and wanted to be with her, so maybe he did know. He was human after all, facing and giving in to human nature temptations of lust and desire for romance and relationship. I admit I feel some worry about him, what would have happened to him. But then the end of the movie comes suddenly, with time having passed, Julie growing large with Alexei's baby, and everyone seeming to be at peace with life at that point. That is what was so thought-provoking after the movie ended. Bottom line, we live in the here and now, making the best of bad or less-than-ideal life circumstances, and that is where this family seemed to land. But I still worry about what happened to Alexei!
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A sensitive movie about complexities of life
mishu_mausam2 June 2003
  • Life is complicated.


  • There is no clear right or wrong.


  • The deeds we hate on other people, may be done by us, when time comes. Humans don't always react in the most obvious ways.


  • At many points in life, we have to make choices, where we gain something and we lose something. It is not usually obvious what choice is the best one.


  • There is an ongoing tussle between heart and brain, the intellectual self and the emotional self, the worldly desire and larger than life desires...


These are some of things I recall from my experience with the movie. It was indeed an experience. It was a very sensitive movie having complicated characters and their psychologies. It was one of those movies wherefrom anybody could take back anything that he/she relates to, more strongly. For example, one may think it was a movie about a woman's hypocrisies whereas others might that it was a movie on fighting till the last moment. Some might view it as justifying the supernatural. Its just how you view it.

Although BASED ON A REAL LIFE STORY, and I never thought real life stories could be that surprising, its not the story that matters. Don't try to view the film based on the short story description. If you are into meaningful cinema which involves reflections from real life, a thought behind the movie, something that lets you ponder for quite sometime, this is the movie for you. And don't worry it will not be hard on you. Its softly told movie that will surely have an impact on you, positive or negative, who knows!
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Graceful Movie, a Complicated Message
magtree12130 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A sleeper for the discerning drama enthusiast
=G=14 January 2004
"Julie Walking Home" is about a woman coping with a rocky relationship with the father of her children, her son who has cancer and may or may not be healed by a faith healer, and her feelings for a man who believes he has mystical healing powers. Though the film's storyline is nothing new, the sheer reality of the drama, the wonderful performances Holland wrests from some relatively unknown actors, and Otto's tour-de-force makes this film eminently worthy. Not unlike "Behind the Red Door" (2002), "Hysterical Blindness" (2002), or "Unfaithful" (2002) this film is a "sleeper" which will be of greatest interest to the discerning drama enthusiast into film's about women in turmoil. (B+)
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Reconciling Sensual Pleasure and Spiritual Responsibility
Author_Poet_Aberjhani19 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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"
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
There is no sickness, no toil nor danger.
SteveSkafte15 June 2010
"The Healer" is not an easy film, not by any stretch. It is the only drama which I've seen that keeps the same manic pace as a modern thriller. This energy brings a strange sensation to the film, a feeling of more and more happening in less and less time. For a running time of less than two hours, it's a incredibly draining story to absorb. The beginning does not give any hint to the end. What happens between is unexpected and effectively realized.

I grew up watching Agnieszka Holland's film of "The Secret Garden". Since then, I've seen two others by her ("Europa Europa" and "Olivier, Olivier"), both of which I thought were largely inept and unimpressive efforts. But there's a quality of pace and human understanding on display here that very few directors could have achieved. From the magical imagination of children to the angst and alienation of the adults, she brings together characters and performances with a uniform brilliance.

Miranda Otto has a voice of musical purity. Her personality carries the film, and could have done so alone, even if not supported so well by the other cast members. William Fichtner, Lothaire Bluteau, and Jerzy Nowak are each deeply convincing. The twins - played by Ryan Smith and Bianca Crudo, who've acted little or not at all since - are two of the most convincing depictions of children I've ever seen.

The pace is what keeps "The Healer" together. It is somewhat high-spirited, and helped along by some beautiful music by Antoni Lazarkiewicz and Jacek Petrycki's energetic photography. I was fascinated with how he captured Halifax - a city I'm quite familiar with, but did not recognize until late. This is a film that can frustrating, engaging, and fascinating often at once. You're going to be left with questions, no doubts there. But if you can accept that, you should gain from the experience.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The stuff matinees are made of
newmans27 December 2003
The stuff matinees are made of. It's not the artsy fartsy stuff it seems to sound like. Luckily, I saw it in the afternoon.

There may be something to say for faith healing, but this doesn't say it.
4 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed