What a crappy idea for an affirmation: Life is horrible and you suffer, but, if you are smart enough to do a rubix cube then you get to become a stockbroker and your kids don't have to live in squalor like everyone elses. 'Requiem for a Dream' wasn't that depressing.

Peter, I'm missing your problem here. If you're "good with numbers and good with people" then why not take the chance to make stockbroker kind of money? Especially if that means your kids live better?

For four years, I've been passing by the real Chris Gardner's office almost everyday on my way to work. Wasn't aware about the guy's life story till two weeks ago, and now there are a couple of posters of the movie by the company's entrance.

I saw a preview of this the other night. The first letter illustrates the kind of thinking that may well keep people from seeing how toughminded a movie it is. As the review says, it's not about getting but about not having. The letter writer finds the thought of being a stockbroker depressing. No doubt he'd prefer something he found more spiritually fulfilling. But that kind of thinking is a luxury when you're confronted with the need to find shelter and food for your child and yourself. And how inured have we become to the suffering of others when we the story of someone who makes something of himself, who puts the basic worries of food and shelter behind him, is regarded as merely a material victory? Smith's character is trying to keep body and soul together. That he does it is not offered as some sort of affirmation but as a long, hard slog. And the movie places his struggle right in the context of the Reagan years. This homeless man is a hardworking guy who has a run of really, really bad luck. That's the point. That it wasn't just the mentally ill or addicted or perpetually indigent who were homeless in the Reagan years -- but people who were suddenly stripped of all the safety nets. It's going to be very interesting to see whether the audiences always screaming for liberal movies are going to recognize this one as such. Or if they and the critics are going to review the movie they think it is on the basis of the title or the trailer, and not the movie it is.

So do you like the movie, or do you not like the movie? It sounds like this movie made the writer uncomfortable, like it will make all of uncomfortable. We all pretty much live only a month's pay (or less) away from a bad situation.

I had the privilege of hearing the real Chris Gardner speak last fall at Lamar State College-Port Arthur in Port Arthur, Texas. I had never heard of him before, but his story sounded interesting, so I made the time to hear it. As he spoke, I became entranced; he gave the audience goosebumps. His message was not one of excuses and why he justifiably was a victim, but that you decide what you want, then you figure out what you need to do to get it, then go out and get it. But, along the way, you hang onto the most important thing in your life, your child, and do right by your child. All add up to a man who expended incredible, superhuman effort to ensure he and his family succeeded.

I hope this movie is a big, blockbuster success, not just because I really like Will Smith and hope his son Jaden becomes a big star, too. This is the real, true-life Superman film of 2006--the experience of the success of Chris Gardner and his family is what is important to all of us.

My wife and I watched a feature on Chris Gardner, I think it was on "60 Minutes" and it has us both in tears. Many times he slept in the office at Dean-Witter and paid prostitutes money to watch his son while he worked.

They showed him and his son going to a subway bathroom where they used to wash up.

The thing that impressed us the most was how well grounded both of them were and how hard he works to carry his message to inner-city schools.

He (and by all appearances, his son) will never forget their roots and compassion for their fellow human beings.

Here is a link to a USAToday article that has a good synopsis:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/2006-05-22-gardner-book_x.htm

Getting really tired of this type of review where specific plot details are exposed so freely. This would be fine if I just want to read reviews after seeing a movie - if I'm just curious about what someone else thought. But before I see a movie - I won't want to read the script & I wouldn't want to read a review like this.

If I go see this movie, I don't want to know - before I see him even talk to her - that a character will betray Smith's character & exactly how. Recaps & summaries are useful if someone has missed something on tv. But sharing too many plot details takes away some of the enjoyment of a 90 minute movie. Between some ridiculously long trailers and reviews like this - what's the point of spending $9? Remember when you could see a movie with fresh eyes - where certain scenes (content & results) surprise you? Less of "this event happened during the movie & this is what it means" and more basic info to help us decide if we want to see the movie.

Life isn't horrible and you don't suffer...

...that is until you DO. Then you just don't want life to be horrible and you don't want to suffer anymore. So you figure out how to make that stop being your life.

And you especially figure out how to make that stop being your child's life.

Should he, instead, have kept suffering, and worked a string of menial jobs to live in a hovel rather than on the street?

Should he, instead, have left his child somewhere and moved into a commune to farm soybeans rather than use the skills he had doing something he found fulfilling?

Should he have risen above his base desire to protect and feed himself and his child, forsaking the entire bottom tier of Maslow's hierarchy of needs because you think being a stockbroker is, like, so totally bougie lame, man.

Yeah. Well. Must be nice to be you, Peter. I hope you're never forced to become a stockbroker, because I don't think you have the moxie to pull it off.