Updated 106 Days ago
Henry Poole (played by Luke Wilson) has just been diagnosed with a fatal (albeit unnamed) disease. As the movie opens, he is purchasing a rundown house with no concern for its condition, much to the consternation of his realtor. He just wants to buy a house and be done. Restoration efforts are futile since he’s not planning on living there (or anywhere) for very long. Shortly after moving in, his neighbor Esperanza (played by the charming Adriana Barraza) notices a discoloration in the stucco on the side of his house. He sees a water stain; she sees the face of Jesus. Esperanza is a devote Catholic and immediately calls her parish priest, Father Salazar (played by George Lopez). Even the priest is initially dismissive of the stain/face. However, once it starts to weep blood and perhaps even heals people, Henry Poole’s house quickly turns into a shrine.
Luke Wilson gives a very subtle performance as the title character. After discovering that he has little time left, he takes a unique approach; instead of trying to cram a lifetime into a few weeks he essentially gives up on life, waiting to die. The Bucket List this ain’t. What could have been maudlin or infuriating actually works very well here. Wilson displays a vulnerability that in the hands of a lesser actor would have come across as self-pity (even if they didn’t want to). Wilson’s acquiescence isn’t a temper tantrum; it’s an act of surrender. He doesn’t know what to do and he doesn’t want to burden others with his situation so he retreats. There is a thin line between being defeated and being defeatist. Wilson does a wonderful job walking that line.
The film has a refreshing approach to religion. Henry’s neighbor Ezperanza is a devout Catholic, but her faith is never played for laughs or mocked. There is no obligatory subplot about Father Salazar being an alcoholic or a pederast. He is a kind man that wants to help even if Henry isn’t religious. And his “help” doesn’t consist of unwanted attempts at conversion. Salazar doesn’t rush to believe the “miracle”; he calls in science to test it. It’s a deft approach to religion and a welcome one. Even when Henry doubts the existence of the miracle, it’s clear that the film is open to the idea of miracles even if this isn’t one.
While the “believers” in the film are Catholic, I wouldn’t really call it a Catholic film. The movie is pretty egalitarian in that regard. This isn’t an art-house version of Left Behind. While some might find the film preachy, it isn’t preaching religion; it’s preaching faith and hope. They’ll let you fill in the blanks with whatever works for you. I don’t think this is a movie that will be embraced by critics but discovered by actual people. I think many reviewers will be disappointed that the movie didn’t devolve into a “rollicking send-up” of people with faith. They will mistake its tone for evangelism.
Ultimately, your opinion of Henry Poole Is Here will depend largely on your opinion of religion. While it’s not overtly religious, it deals with spirituality in a way that will be off-putting to some, simplistic to many and refreshing to others. Henry Poole Is Here is meditation on faith and hope. It’s a slow paced film but deliberately so. It says as much with words as it does without. But the film also has a lighthearted touch and a sense of humor. There are funny moments in the film but they all derive from the material and the characters. There aren’t cheap gags shoved into the film in order to get a quick laugh. The laughs in this film are earned.
I liked it. Your mileage may vary.
I have no idea what to compare this film to…so, let’s just call it a 7.
What is reCAPTCHA?
reCAPTCHA is a free CAPTCHA service that helps to digitize books.A CAPTCHA is a program that can tell whether its user is a human or a computer. You've probably seen them Ñ colorful images with distorted text at the bottom of Web registration forms. CAPTCHAs are used by many websites to prevent abuse from "bots," or automated programs usually written to generate spam. No computer program can read distorted text as well as humans can, so bots cannot navigate sites protected by CAPTCHAs.
About 60 million CAPTCHAs are solved by humans around the world every day. In each case, roughly ten seconds of human time are being spent. Individually, that's not a lot of time, but in aggregate these little puzzles consume more than 150,000 hours of work each day. What if we could make positive use of this human effort? reCAPTCHA does exactly that by channeling the effort spent solving CAPTCHAs online into "reading" books.
To archive human knowledge and to make information more accessible to the world, multiple projects are currently digitizing physical books that were written before the computer age. The book pages are being photographically scanned, and then transformed into text using "Optical Character Recognition" (OCR). The transformation into text is useful because scanning a book produces images, which are difficult to store on small devices, expensive to download, and cannot be searched. The problem is that OCR is not perfect.
reCAPTCHA improves the process of digitizing books by sending words that cannot be read by computers to the Web in the form of CAPTCHAs for humans to decipher. More specifically, each word that cannot be read correctly by OCR is placed on an image and used as a CAPTCHA. This is possible because most OCR programs alert you when a word cannot be read correctly.
But if a computer can't read such a CAPTCHA, how does the system know the correct answer to the puzzle? Here's how: Each new word that cannot be read correctly by OCR is given to a user in conjunction with another word for which the answer is already known. The user is then asked to read both words. If they solve the one for which the answer is known, the system assumes their answer is correct for the new one. The system then gives the new image to a number of other people to determine, with higher confidence, whether the original answer was correct.
Currently, we are helping to digitize books from the Internet Archive and old editions of the New York Times.