Reviews

This film does a really great job of showing what professional "Wrestling" is. It reveals that is a staged event with many gimmicks and prearranged happenings. It shows drugs, which are prevalent in society today. It is sad to see how people can get hooked on to this type of thing.

The acting was really great. Mickey Rourke was outstanding as The Ram. Marisa Tomei was equally outstanding. Both characters have to deal with the reality of coming to the end of the line, as far as their careers. They have to face the reality of what to do with their lives after their careers. It is shown that this adjustment isn't easy. The portrayal of Ram's daughter was great. The scenes with Ram and his daughter clearly show what Ram's life was and how tragic it became.

This movie also was an honest and realistic view of life.

This fine film was, of course, about an athlete who was outstanding in what he did.

It also was about the athlete overcoming racial prejudice at a time when this issue explode(1960s). Racial prejudice has always been around, no doubt about it. Ernie Davis worked hard to overcome the prejudice through his conduct and performance on the field and off it. Of course, there were the disagreements with teammates and the coaches. One was the game at West Virginia where the head coach didn't want Davis to score a touchdown because of the expected reaction to it. Davis didn't like and went against the coach. Davis was enough of a man to go to the coach and straighten things out with him, in a sense. Davis had the courage to tell the head coach the he needed to be for his players, and not against them. The head coach had an attitude change. He fought to get his players to stay in the same hotel in Dallas, but failed. He succeeded when he sided with his players about not going to the official trophies presentation party after the Cotton Bowl, instead going to a barbecue place where a black band performed. The trophies were brought to the Syracuse players by Cotton bowl officials.

One of the comments about the film stated that this was an extension of a particular political campaign. Not true. It is about life and how to overcome difficulties in it. It is about accepting people as they are. The film is one to inspire. It is also one that states that things that are wrong needed to be constantly worked on to be corrected. The point can be made that it is both a history and sociological lesson. Take from and enjoy the film for what it is.

I was impressed by what this film had to say about life and particularly the family.

I can see why the main character wanted to get out of the family business. In the business world and in many businesses in particular, it is a pressure cooker and a rat race. The man wanted to have a better and a more stable lifestyle, which he got by moving to another nation, owning and managing a restaurant, getting married, and having a family.

Unfortunately, his father committed suicide. It was fine that he helped out with his family upon his father's death. On the other hand, he should not have left his marriage and restaurant business go down the drain. He allowed his mother to turn him against his wife, a fine woman who loved and cared for him. The mother was just an overly dominant woman who wanted her way and who did not care who she hurt to get it. The main character lacked the fortitude and strength to repel this advance by the mother. As I've stated, this produced grave consequences. The main character could and should have helped for a while and then went back to his restaurant and family. The movie revealed that the state of the business wasn't good. The ruthless of the business world was shown. The main character's wife obviously did not care of any of what was going on.

Movie shows how one must balance his or her life and priorities.

I saw this movie on June 6, 2008. Of course, it picked up on the TV show. Of course, it was about the lives of 4 women, who are friends, and their lives.

The first aspect is friendship. It is good to have friends to go out with and do things together. This is what the four women in the movie and TV series did. They shared each other's feelings and emotions. They were happy over the good things and not so happy over the bad things. They leaned on each other in both good and bad times. An example is on New Year's Eve after "Mr. Big" walked on Carrie on their wedding day, and Miranda and her man separated. Both of them didn't take part in holiday social functions. Each was set to spend New Year's Eve alone. So what happened? They ended up together and brought in the new year.

Lost in the overall movie was weddings. It was obvious that Carrie and "Mr. Big" didn't want a big wedding. Society expects people who get married to have a big time. A wedding can be nice without being extravagant. Carrie and her man eventually got married in a small civil ceremony, and then had dinner, with their friends, in a restaurant. I am sure that it was more enjoyable than a society expected big time.

The movie, as well as the TV series, showed that life has its ups and downs. All four women had their ups and downs, in their love lives and other aspects of their lives. All of us go through it. This is an inevitable thing.

It must be realized that every woman can't be like the four main characters in the movie. But people have things going on in their lives, just like those women did. In this sense, the movie had its realistic side.

The movie had its funny side. I felt that it was a bit too long.

The men that were involved with the 4 main characters had similar things just like the four main women characters did.

An aspect is emotions. People are feeling people, and the movie showed it.

This movie is an excellent film. It portrays an aspect of World War II that may or may not have been known by people. The acting in it is great throughout the film. Another comment stated that the holocaust was brought out in it. When a movie deals with the Nazis, mention of the Holocaust is unavoidable. The Nazis weren't the greatest people, but the same can be said of other groups in history. Other groups, including the Americans, did things that weren't good.

The leading character did what he had to do to survive the concentration camps and survive the war. Other people do things to survive. The other prisoners did the same thing.

The commander of the concentration camp wasn't exactly an angel. I feel that he had his own selfish interests at heart and really didn't have a true allegiance to the Nazis.

The movie being based on a true story gives it credence and credibility. Of course, Hollywood dickers around with the facts so as to give the film entertainment value.

I saw this movie on November 23. It was a fine movie. Fermina was ruled by her father in her choice of men. The father had the dual role of both father and mother, and felt that he had her best interests at heart. This indicates a reflection of the times, when the family ruled the young people strictly and the part of the world where the movie took place. It also showed that status was important in that time, as it is today. By that I mean, Fermina married a doctor, who had a profession, as compared to Florentino, who had a job as a telegraph operator.

Florentino had a fixation for Fermina and no other woman could compare to Fermina. He could be classed as a voyeur, so to speak. He just couldn't get Fermina out of his mind, and Fermina was a standard that no other woman could measure up to.

The acting was really great, as well as the scenery. Movie shows a society of an earlier time, and aspects of its operation. People who have stated the movie didn't measure up to the book must realize that a movie will NEVER, NEVER follow a book. A book has detail that a movie can't ever fit into it, for obvious reasons. Look, no movie or anything else is perfect.

Fulfillment results when Fermina and Florentino are together at the movie's end.

The explicit scenes just show a part of life that has existed throughout history.

Movie may net nominated for an Oscar.

One must realize that a movie never follows a book. I read both the book and saw the movie. Faye Dunaway and Brooklyn Sudano were excellent in their roles as Rain and Mrs. Hudson. One obvious difference between the book and movie was that Rain was an actress in the book and sang in the movie. Another difference is that Rain's stepmother died before she performed in the movie, but died after she starred in the play(book). Another difference is that Rain got intimate with Corbett in the book but the movie didn't show this. Another difference is that in the book, Roy joins the army. The movie doesn't bring this out. One other difference is that the book details Rain gets gasoline thrown on her dress and she gets burned, but the movie doesn't show this. The book states that Rain has an opportunity to go to an acting school, but the movie states that she is a singer.

Yes, Hollywood twists a book around in a movie. The movie would have been better if it a bit more detail from the book.

I saw "The Cardinal" when I was in high school, liked it then, and still like it. Some of the comments wonder how a person could live through so much history. It is possible. Such people as Pope John Paul II, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, General George S. Patton, and Dwight D. Eisenhower lived through a lot of history.

It isn't unusual for people to have doubts about choice of vocation. Steven Fermoyal had to make a choice of whether his sister or the baby would live or die. He felt that he should have made the choice as a man. He regretted his choice. All of us have regrets about choices.

The situation where the woman who tempted Fermoyal is no different from everyday life.

About Fermoyal's rise to Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. He rose through the hierarchy of the Church and got assistance along the way from his superior in Boston and other sources.

Fermoyal being involved in more than one cause is the result of circumstances faced as a Vatican diplomat. A diplomatic section of a church or government comes across and handles many things.

One final thing. A book and a movie are never the same. I've seen many movies made from books and there is an obvious difference.

S

I bought the movie on VHS and made into a DVD. I feel that the film had a lot to say. I feel that the Canadian government was wrong in taking these children from their homes to a far away school and forced to give up their identity and to develop a new identity and lifestyle. It is fine to teach people such as Indians English, Mathematics, a trade, and other such things, but their culture and their identity as part of an ethnic group, racial minority, or whatever it is shouldn't be erased, forcibly or otherwise. The Canadian government could have brought the schooling to the Indians by establishing schools in the areas that the Indians lived in. This would serve the purposes of teaching the children subjects such as math, science, and English, among other things, but it would keeptheseyoung people together with their families, kept their identity, culture, and customs.

In one of the reviews,it was stated that the children could tried to escape from the plane instead of staying in it. Those children were too frightened to think very much, if at all!

This movie reminds me of a movie titled "Rabbit Proof Fence," in which Aborigine children in Australia were forcibly taken from their homes and were made into domestic servants. It serves as a fine parallel movie to "Where The Spirit Lives."

No government or religion or anything else should keep any group from giving up its identity, life, culture, or anything else. An American Indian tribe was banned from practicing its religious ceremonies for years, but got that right back.

A very fine and relevant film.

I saw this movie on August 19, 2006. It took me some time to catch on and find a meaning to it, but I did. The ladies in the movie were all obviously past age 40. It was clear that each one of them was tired of the bar scene and hadn't been in a relationship for a period of time. They felt that going to Haiti was an escape from the reality of where they were living, their jobs, and the fact that each of them wasn't in a relationship. The Hatian young men were used to provide them with a man to be with. Ellen admitted to the fact that life for a woman after 40 is different and the bars held nothing for her. Possibly the same can be said for the other women in the movie who were on Haiti for a vacation. What these women failed to realize and possibly didn't want to realize is the fact that there are other alternatives to finding men other than a bar, such as volunteering and hobby and special interest clubs. The same can be said for other women and I am sure for men. Ellen and Brenda had an interest in the same young Hatian man. When he was killed, they had no more purpose to being in Haiti. The movie does show the poverty in Haiti at the time, which still exists.

I remember seeing the movie as a kid. It showed the passions of a person trying to get justice. Rose's persistence and patience were what drove her to get what she wanted. Also, her determination and willingness to get help to accomplish what she wanted gave her incentive to keep going on.

A funny part of the movie is when she was dressed in clothes that a white woman would wear and she felt uncomfortable in them. Also, she wasn't pleased with the gossip that went on about her when she had tea and baked goods with the other women. She ended up leaving the company of the women and returning to what she was wearing and the way she was living. She continued her pursuit of finding her parents' killers.

I wish that the movie was on VHS or DVD.