Prejudice, perfidy, love, and bravery in Qubec. In 1779, a priest on his deathbed receives a young woman. Flash back 20 years Marie-Loup, an herb-dispensing peasant, falls for Franois, a man of property. The priests perfidy and the treachery of a soldier separate the lovers and set in motion a chain of events leading to a death, a trial, and an execution. The action unfolds against a backdrop of Englands take-over of French-Canada, the Churchs manipulations to maintain spiritual hegemony, and the limited rights of woman and indigenous peoples. Watching it all is Marie-Loups daughter, named France, who, when grown, is the dying priests visitor in prelude and coda
|Battle Of The Brave aka New-France Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 720x400 px||Total Size: 1486 Mb|
|Battle Of The Brave aka New-France Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x272 px||Total Size: 463 Mb||
We have taken some photos of "Battle Of The Brave aka New-France". They represent actual movie quality.
The box cover looks beautiful and elegant. It made me think I was renting an epic movie. I was completely wrong. The picture is beautiful but the plot is boring. The acting is bad. The movie moves at very slow pace. There's no action at all. What a waste of money!
This review is from: Battle of the Brave (DVD) Got this to help myself with the French and Indian war for visualization purposes. And I must say in all aspects it stinks. Last of the Mohicans is much much very much better when it comes to story and plot and set designs. Indeed it reminds me of GODS AND GENERALS in which the lost cause was the South's Defeat in the American Civil War except it is a better film and unlike the French Candians the South had better leaders and a great deal of style. Certainly Gods and Generals is a better bit of work in all counts. But these things are History and unfortunatley there really is not much here to work with for anyone seeking to glorify the Lost Cause of New France. Bigot was a money grubbing crooked official He's featured here). Vaudreult was the master of State Sponsored Terrorism; he payed the native warriors to slaughter english settlers women and children and all and bring him their scalps. The average French canadian's warfare was basically back shooting and terrorism alongside the savages. Except for Montcalm and his french soldiers there really was nobody worthy of honour among them. This thing has poor sets. Inferior acting. Inferior costuming. Little in the way of plot or story to see. No Character. Would have been nice if everybody french actually spoke the language or had the accents. The english are a drab lot but the guys here aren't that colorful. This film is even worse than drab. Not worth buying.
Despite decades of tax incentives, in terms of international visibility the Canadian film industry still lags behind most central African and Islamic states (surprisingly few Canadian films are released outside their native shores), and Nouvelle-France aka Battle of the Brave is another example of why. More than any other country, commercial Canadian cinema seems unable to develop an identity of its own and is stuck in pale imitation of other countries' failures. On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising. There's certainly a rich vein of untapped material in Canada's history as the French and English warred over and bought and sold the colony, though none of it makes the cut here unless you count the odd blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of characters saying "Wolfe is dead" or "Nouvelle-France is no more" before getting back to the soap operatics. But while this isn't a history lesson, it isn't a drama or the epic adventure the new title promises either: there is no battle in the film unless you count 10 seconds of shelling by a half-dozen re-enactors and one collapsed shed. The town square that is all we ever see of Quebec is a rather obvious flatly lit studio interior, giving many scenes an old TV miniseries look, as does director Jean Beaudin's reluctance to offer much in the way of long shots or even exteriors. What you do get for your money is a simple but drawn-out Harlequin romance about doomed lovers constantly separated by events beyond their control where the biggest surprise is that Fabio doesn't turn up in the cast. It's the kind of film where whenever two characters are about to make the beast with two backs the camera pans over to a convenient raging fireplace or waterfall.An Anglo-Canadian-French co-production that doesn't so much unite once-warring nations as throw any country with a decent tax break into the stew, this massive box-office disaster was clearly intended to be Canada's Titanic - though someone neglected to tell the producers they meant the film, not the ship - but turns out more like Revolution done on the cheap without the battle scenes, crowds or the few moments that threaten to briefly work in the face of overwhelming odds. The Montreal Mirror described it as "so bad that one can't even find the strength to mock it." That's rather unfair, because while for most of its running time the film looks like a below-par 80s miniseries, the last half hour suddenly becomes very funny, with characters accidentally putting their legs in bear traps, dastardly husbands declaring "You'll never see your handsome lover again, cuckold's honor! You'll pay for this, both of you!" and our heroine accused of murder and - gasp! - witchcraft in a trial funny enough to have been in Demi Moore's version of The Scarlet Letter. Throw in caddish British governors, devious slaves and Celine Dion singing at the end and you've got something that at times almost feels like the kind of film that Timbo Hines was aspiring to (and still managed to miss wildly) with his legendarily inept period version of War of the Worlds, albeit without the staggering technical incompetence.Leading man David La Haye's versatility seems limited to the number of other actors he can look like throughout the course of the film: he starts out looking like Andy Garcia, briefly adopts the Al Pacino Revolution look, flirts with the clean-shaven TchÃ©ky Karyo style before turning into a younger Ted Danson as his character ages. While his opening scene where he reacts to news of his father's death with an expression that looks like he's waiting for the director to tell him he can go home now promises a feast of bad acting, in reality he gives the impression more of a mediocre supporting actor who's lucked into a lead at the last minute when whoever was originally cast finally read the script and bailed. He shows willing and gives it a go but the grace and charisma the part needs just isn't there. Billie Piper lookalike Noemie Godin-Vigneau's leading lady doesn't exactly set the screen alight either despite occupying center-stage as the peasant girl who is the prey of giggly Vincent Perez's corrupt and perverted Intendant Le Bigot (that really is the character's name), the duplicitous goateed drunken lackey Sebastien Huberdeau and, saddest of all, Gerard Depardieu's bedridden revolutionary dirty old priest in a manky grey-haired wig. It's a truly pitiful sight to see a once great actor at the absolute rock bottom of his game as he shuffles through the motions looking like he's not just lost the will to act but the will to live along with it. He clearly couldn't be bothered to stick around for the English dubbing sessions (or even a couple of long shots where he is very noticeably doubled). Small wonder he talked of retiring around the time of the film's brief release.Some brief comic relief is provided by Jason Isaacs in his default Patriot mode who overplays Wolfe of Quebec rather like an asthmatic Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker played by Timothy Dalton on speed while Tim Roth's William Pitt stands on the sidelines with the occasional bemused smile of one who's being put up in a rather nice hotel with excellent room service and plenty of days off, though like Colm Meaney's Benjamin Franklin they're both in the film for less than three minutes. (Voltaire and Madame Pompadour pop their heads around the door for a couple of minutes as well but fail to make any impression, comic or otherwise.) The supporting actresses are generally better: Juliette Gosselin and Bianca Gervais as the heroine's real and adopted daughters and a strikingly beautiful Irene Jacob looking for all the world like a young Fanny Ardant are all refreshingly good and deserve much better.Strange that after Atom Egoyan was pretty much ran out of the Canadian film industry on a rail for wasting public money on unprofitable films like The Sweet Hereafter, the National Film Board of Canada should pump cash into this $30m turkey. Strange but, sadly in light of the Canadian film industry's recent history, not that surprising.
Can you say false advertising? The cover of the DVD shows epic battles being fought in the background and the description talks about a resistance movement that must take place in the novel version of this movie because you won't see it on the DVD. This is basically a love story, cut and dried! Is it a bad movie, don't buy it, just rent it if you like love stories but if you are expecting something in the way of the Last of the Mohichans, you will want your money back and some. This is the worst case of false advertising I have seen in a long time!
From the title, the tag-line, the plot summary on the DVD etc..., Iexpected something at least slightly epic, with the historical fictionand the romance concurring to thrill you; that's what they did in Lastof the Mohicans for example, and I think they did a superb job. Maybe Ihad standards too high for this movie and didn't give it a fair chance.But the scenery was barely OK (how could they not come up withsomething more beautiful when they have such landscapes to work with?),the two lovers had no chemistry whatsoever, and the plot was just sopredictable it felt like it had been drafted in 5 minutes by atwelve-year-old -- and not a very imaginative one. Nouvelle-France is alove story set in an eventful historical age. But the history ofNouvelle-France is hardly a side note, and the love story is banal andfails dramatically to make the viewer care for the lovers' fate.Surprisingly, the only good parts about the movie came from somethingcompletely unexpected and unadvertised: the relationship betweenMarie-Loup, the heroine, and her children (one natural, one adopted).If only they'd concentrated on her family and forgotten about the lovestory, it would have been a much better movie. Marie-Loup's parentsshould have been given more screen time and character development, thepolitics going on in Britain should have been more than a three-minutescene with barely any connection to the rest, the rotten baddie shouldhave been either more developed or removed from the script completely(why hire actors like Vincent Perez, Tim Roth or Jason Isaacs to misusethem so badly?) Bad work overall.
To all those who lashed out at the film here: yes, the film givessometimes the impression of being a bit pretentious, but whoever comeswith such harsh criticism should also provide his own scale of values.So what is yours? What do you consider to be a really good film? OK, Iunderstand, their should be 10 lines of text, and some egos need aplace to show off, but frankly, who cares? The further one goes intodetails, scrutinizing it, the more looses the good impression that thefilm leavesIn these times, when the world is invaded by Avatars, even thissentimental film is an achievement.dixi
The original version of this movie was titled "Nouvelle France". I do wonder sometimes who can came up with such a misleading title. The story, a battle of the spirit really, lacks cohesion and creates artificial drama. It seems the makers were not clear what to focus on - the love story or the historical events. However, I found the acting of the protagonists engaging and full of heart. If anything, the movie shows the erratic and often ego-driven decision making in human existence and its sad consequences.
This was supposed to be one big hit but the result is somehow nebulous. One big problem of this movie is the excessive emphasis on the tragiclove story . The historic context is very nice and the war that isgoing on is just the background of what is happening with the maincharacters even if one of them is actively involved ( just a little,though ) in the political events . Even for those who might appreciatethis tragedy, and believe me it's a real one, the movie will seemsnever-ending and slow-pace . The acting is pretty good ( the littlegirl is marvelous ! ) but too theatrical .There was a battle going on in Quebec city but it was greatly reducedin the editing process . Some of the best scenes were just cut off aswell . The photography was nice for that kind of movie and the visualresearch was very realistic and interesting . It could have been better though...
I am NOT a Canadian historian but I am a lover of romance in film and Ifound this to be a touching, heart wrenching love story, well actedwith breath taking scenery and, as background, an interesting look atCanadian life in the 18th century. I have visited Louis Bourg in Quebecwith my family and was thrilled to see it "come to life" on the bigscreen. Whether or not the film is historically accurate is, I believe,unimportant since I believe the history touched upon was more or lessfor ambiance and was not the focus of the producers/writers. It is,instead, most definitely a love story, and viewed in that perspective,I found it to be brilliantly and sensitively acted. Perhaps I had theadvantage of not hearing any "hype" in advance before I sat down towatch it. It was recommended to me by my aunt who wrote that I "had tosee it". I'm very glad I did. Melodramatic....perhaps a bit. But, inthe end I felt emotionally satisfied and that's worth a littlemelodrama in my books. And my French-Canadian husband enjoyed it asthoroughly as I did.
"Battle of the Brave" is a 2004 Canadian film originally titled "New France" since the story mainly takes place in Quebec during the closing years of France's control of the province and the French and Indian War circa 1759-63.As other reviewers have pointed out, "Battle of the Brave" is not the most accurate title since it gives the impression that the film will focus on General James Wolfe victory over General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham outside Quebec City in late 1759. While this battle figures in as a brief backdrop it's not the focus. The focal point is a young peasant single mother, Marie-Loup, and her mutual passion for an aristocratic trapper, Francois. Francois seeks justice for the people of New France from the greedy and disloyal French overlords, but is ultimately forced to flee to France. A well-intentioned lie prevents Francois from taking Marie-Loup and her daughter with him, and this leads to tragedy.As you can see, "Battle of the Brave" is more of a love story with a historical backdrop a la "Titanic" than a big battle picture like "Braveheart." As such, it may appeal more to women than men intent on seeing an action-oriented historical picture. Which isn't to say the movie's all romance; there's drama, comedy, history and flashes of action.Actually, the title "Battle of the Brave" isn't all that inaccurate; it's just that the "battle" is on a much smaller scale than "Braveheart." The battle of the brave here is in the hearts of the main characters as they make hard and sacrificial choices during a time of great political upheaval. Unfortunately the DVD cover doesn't denote this; it suggests a big battle flick with huge armies along with the statement, "RISE. UNITE. FIGHT.", which is totally misleading. Why falsely market the product? Don't producers know bait-and-switch tactics will ultimately turn people off to the film?I admit that the first time I saw "Battle of the Brave" I was somewhat disappointed because I was expecting something more along the lines of "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992). Viewing it again recently, I was fully prepared for its uniqueness and even utilized the subtitles so I could keep track of the characters and not miss any of the accented dialogue, which I recommend. As a result, I quite enjoyed the movie. I was able to follow what was going on and successfully entered the world of the characters for the next couple hours (the film runs 143 minutes). Besides, who wants another "Last of the Mohicans"? We already have that. "Battle of the Brave" is totally unique and completely non-"blockbuster."The film has high production values (it was the most expensive film ever made in Quebec) but it has a peculiar vibe that the viewer has to get used to; the tone is more akin to a TV movie (with a huge budget) than "Last of the Mohicans" or "Rob Roy," but I don't necessarily mean this in a negative sense.With the exception of Gerard Depardieu, who plays Father Thomas, the main characters are relatively obscure French actors, but they all rise to the occasion. David La Haye as Francois is a likable and believable male protagonist. The actresses who play Marie-Loup, her daughter France, and their family friend Acoona are likewise great. I particularly appreciate Bianca Gervais as the part-native Acoona. Speaking of which, I like the respectable way the film figures in the Innu people, albeit small.One reviewer lambasted the film as "seethingly anti-Catholic," but the ending totally refutes this absurd claim. Did he even finish the film? Actually the picture is brutally honest with its depiction of people, governments and institutions - all can be corrupted and corruption comes down to the individual. Just the same, honor and integrity are rooted in the individual before anything else. Governments and all institutions are only as good or bad as the individuals from which they're comprised. Thankfully, there's a remedy to corruption: humble repentance. Confession stops prosecution and humility attracts grace, which leads to positive change, even if it's upon one's deathbed.The ending scene is powerful in a subtle way. No matter the tragedy, beauty and positivity can arise from the ashes.Speaking of the ending, the credits sequence features the excellent song "Ma Nouvelle France" by Celine Dion, sung in French.But the story leaves a few questions (SPOILER ALERT!!): Why did Father Thomas lie to Marie-Loup about Francois' letter? Was he simply concerned about her safety in a time of political unrest or did he love her so much he selfishly couldn't bear to have her removed from his life and influence? Why does France call Francois "Father" (capitalized) at the very end? Why didn't Marie-Loup simply tell the truth at the trial? After all, what legitimate court would convict an 11 year-old girl who was simply defending herself from a drunken rapist (unless, of course, the court was heavily biased toward Xavier)?The film was shot mainly in beautiful Quebec and Eastern Canada, which makes the film realistic. (Wouldn't it have been absurd to shoot it in, say, British Columbia, as was the case with "Pathfinder (Unrated Edition)"?). (Speaking of which, "Pathfinder" is well worth seeing. It's a great 'guy flick'; the antithesis of "Battle of the Brave").GRADE: B
It's really a shame to see so many talented people involved in what'shappen to be a very waste of talents. The plot is clichÃ©. The directingis too self conscious and the characters are almost caricatures. One ofthe most disappointing aspect of this film is Gerard Depardieu'sperformance in the English version (this movie was shot in french andEnglish at the same time). Although he is one of the best actor in thefilm, he gives the worst performance of them all. I must say thatBianca Gervais come very close though...On a more positive note I must say that the newcomer Juliette Gosselingives an amazing performance in both version. Unfortunately that theonly good thing I remember about this film...By the way I must apologize for my not very good English...
"An epic tale of desire,courage and destiny" says the DVD cover! "Rise.Unite.Fight!" DON'T BELIEVE IT and DON'T BUY IT!I had more fun laughing at this perfectly ridiculous piece of Canadian drivel with bad script and even worse acting and direction from Jean Beaudin. The SONY-released DVD cleverly lists Canadian greats Colm Meany,Tim Roth and the revered French Gerard Depardieu at the top of the list of stars.Meany and Roth have a total of 1 minute screen time at tops in this 143 minute farce and the great Depardieu (trying to speak meaningful Quebecois-style English) is sadly stiff and laughable as a Priest who both begins and ends this tale of Quebec history that includes passion,lust,greed,betrayal and everything else that one learns in bad screenplay writing classes.What IS wonderful about this film, and one thing only, is Patrick Doyle's soundtrack.Right off the film is filled with his beautiful music.That's all!!!!!Fortunately,I knew Quebec history to at least have the slightest appreciation of where this film was trying to go.....but it is truly bad....I mean it,folks.....BAD!
This movie is one of those rare gems in the history of cinema, yet quite underrated. Try to reach its intricacies, as these actor's performances unfold before your eyes on screen. You'll find this movie is nothing but the best in the world of entertainment,and that I'd say for the past 5 years or so. The actors, directors and the whole crew are right in tune with each other, and the magic results become obvious. The music I compare it to the Phantom of the Opera song tracks, in the sense that it's impossible to listen to the music without immediately relating it straight to those specific scenes, the performers, and the plot. Do I need to say I Luuuuv it? ;-)
The exceedingly low marks garnered by this movie from fellow Amazon.com reviewers is I think based in large by their vision of what this film could have been rather than what it turned out to be. In other words it's being deducted a star or two because they expected more and were disappointed.I also had high expectations of this movie that weren't fulfilled but be that as it may this is not a one or two star film. The production values are superior, the cast is strong and the soundtrack enjoyable. Actually the storyline was rather good as well, a little convoluted at times but it had potential. I also enjoyed the performance of Noemie Godin-Vigneau in the starring role of the ill-fated peasant girl and shamanistic healer. Marie-Loup Carignan. So what went wrong?It's difficult to put my finger on exactly what I think went awry in this film and the best explanation I can come up with is a rather ambiguous "it lacks soul." It seems to me that everything else was in place for a good film but it's missing that intangible something that makes the story and characters come alive for the audience. In view of the lack for a better way to describe that missing something, I choose to call it soul. However you want to describe it the consequences of this missing ingredient is the fact that the film lacks the ability to transport the audience into its world and engage the emotions and intellect of its viewers with the characters and events on-screen. One is left watching, all the while aware of the passing of time and the fact that they are only watching instead of participating.My Rating: 3 ½ Stars.
A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed inbeautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial andclichÃ©d production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusiveslushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting. It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which wasworse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstoryand character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in thedialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirtyminutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughingloudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, andlove historical film. This really was a one off.
The plot was great. It took you to another time period. Most of all it showed how little evils in people's hearts and little lies can kill people. Maybe it was too deep for most people, but it is like comparing how many people like McDonalds and how many people have the taste buds of a fine meal. Add the 'Ma Nouvelle France' song by artist 'Celine Dion' and you have a beautiful movie.
This is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal ofquÃ©becois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentiouspeople.It's really sad, but "big shots" movie makers (driving DodgeStratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They KnowWhat the Little People Like.We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't seetheir movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generatesmediocrity; only movies from "friends of the family" are going to bemade.I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journeyin the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool ofinconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f***our quÃ©becois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few.Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and againand dumb quÃ©becois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm gladthis pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodgestratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in thevery restrained "movie business" of QuÃ©bec.Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title.
Inside this plodding behemoth there is a wonderfully tragic love story struggling to get out. It is hampered by undisciplined editing, uneven direction and uninspired dialogue. However, here are a few tips that will make the viewing experience less unpleasant: First, throw away the cover and imagine that the title is actually "Marie-Loup". The title "Battle of the Brave" has nothing to do with this movie. Second, skip over all of the London scenes. They are only there so that a few big-name actors can make cameo appearances and so that the French Canadians can mock the victorious British General Wolfe, but their inclusion in this movie makes as much sense as inserting random scenes from "Blazing Saddles" into "The Magnificent Seven". Finally, imagine that the role of the priest, who plays a pivotal part in this tragedy, was well-written and competently portrayed. Imagine that he is first tormented by his lust, and later tortured on his deathbed by the damage that he has caused. (If this had been the first time I'd seen Depardieu in a movie I would have told you that he was an incompetant amateur with no chance of a real career in film. But fortunately, I think it was the script--and the hairstylist!--that was to blame, not the actor.) With these few changes this will seem like a four star film.
"Battle of the Brave" is a 2004 Canadian film originally titled "NewFrance" since the story mainly takes place in Quebec during the closingyears of France's control of the province and the French and Indian Warcirca 1759-63.As other reviewers have pointed out, "Battle of the Brave" is not themost accurate title since it gives the impression that the film willfocus on General James Wolfe victory over General Louis-Joseph deMontcalm on the Plains of Abraham outside Quebec City in late 1759.While this battle figures in as a brief backdrop it's not the focus.The focal point is a young peasant single mother, Marie-Loup, and hermutual passion for an aristocratic trapper, Francois. Francois seeksjustice for the people of New France from the greedy and disloyalFrench overlords, but is ultimately forced to flee to France. Awell-intentioned lie prevents Francois from taking Marie-Loup and herdaughter with him, and this leads to tragedy.As you can see, "Battle of the Brave" is more of a love story with ahistorical backdrop a la "Titanic" than a big battle picture like"Braveheart." As such, it may appeal more to women than men intent onseeing an action-oriented historical picture. Which isn't to say themovie's all romance; there's drama, comedy, history and flashes ofaction.Actually, the title "Battle of the Brave" isn't all that inaccurate;it's just that the "battle" is on a much smaller scale than"Braveheart." The battle of the brave here is in the hearts of the maincharacters as they make hard and sacrificial choices during a time ofgreat political upheaval. Unfortunately the DVD cover doesn't denotethis; it suggests a big battle flick with huge armies along with thestatement, "RISE. UNITE. FIGHT.", which is totally misleading. Whyfalsely market the product? Don't producers know bait-and-switchtactics will ultimately turn people off to the film?I admit that the first time I saw "Battle of the Brave" I was somewhatdisappointed because I was expecting something more along the lines of"Last of the Mohicans" (1992). Viewing it again recently, I was fullyprepared for its uniqueness and even utilized the subtitles so I couldkeep track of the characters and not miss any of the accented dialogue,which I recommend. As a result, I quite enjoyed the movie. I was ableto follow what was going on and successfully entered the world of thecharacters for the next couple hours (the film runs 143 minutes).Besides, who wants another "Last of the Mohicans"? We already havethat. "Battle of the Brave" is totally unique and completelynon-"blockbuster." The film has high production values (it was the most expensive filmever made in Quebec) but it has a peculiar vibe that the viewer has toget used to; the tone is more akin to a TV movie (with a huge budget)than "Last of the Mohicans" or "Rob Roy," but I don't necessarily meanthis in a negative sense.With the exception of Gerard Depardieu, who plays Father Thomas, themain characters are relatively obscure French actors, but they all riseto the occasion. David La Haye as Francois is a likable and believablemale protagonist. The actresses who play Marie-Loup, her daughterFrance, and their family friend Acoona are likewise great. Iparticularly appreciate Bianca Gervais as the part-native Acoona.Speaking of which, I like the respectable way the film figures in theInnu people, albeit small.One reviewer lambasted the film as "seethingly anti-Catholic," but theending totally refutes this absurd claim. Did he even finish the film?Actually the picture is brutally honest with its depiction of people,governments and institutions Â all can be corrupted and corruptioncomes down to the individual. Just the same, honor and integrity arerooted in the individual before anything else. Governments and allinstitutions are only as good or bad as the individuals from whichthey're comprised. Thankfully, there's a remedy to corruption: humblerepentance. Confession stops prosecution and humility attracts grace,which leads to positive change, even if it's upon one's deathbed.The ending scene is powerful in a subtle way. No matter the tragedy,beauty and positivity can arise from the ashes.Speaking of the ending, the credits sequence features the excellentsong "Ma Nouvelle France" by Celine Dion, sung in French.But the story leaves a few questions (SPOILER ALERT!): Why did FatherThomas lie to Marie-Loup about Francois' letter? Was he simplyconcerned about her safety in a time of political unrest or did he loveher so much he selfishly couldn't bear to have her removed from hislife and influence? Why does France call Francois "Father"(capitalized) at the very end? Why didn't Marie-Loup simply tell thetruth at the trial? After all, what legitimate court would convict an11 year-old girl who was simply defending herself from a drunken rapist(unless, of course, the court was heavily biased toward Xavier)? The film was shot mainly in beautiful Quebec and Eastern Canada, whichmakes the film realistic. (Wouldn't it have been absurd to shoot it in,say, British Columbia, as was the case with "Pathfinder"?). (Speakingof which, "Pathfinder" is well worth checking out; it's a great 'guyflick'; the antithesis of "Battle of the Brave").GRADE: B
This review is from: Battle of the Brave (DVD) Do not judge this DVD by it's cover!! I bought this movie believing that it was predominantly about the Battle of Quebec and how it affected those within it's sphere. The title tells us that we will experience a "Battle of the Brave". The photos on the front and back let us know that we will be seeing scenes of epic battles and acts of bravery on fields of honer. Friends let me tell you - this film is the worst movie I have ever endured! I once had to sit through a showing of Tess with mt girlfriend and that was bad enough but this thing takes the cake! The "battle" scenes in the whole movie have a COMBINED run time of about 5 minutes. The rest is a sappy love story of two people you realy don't care about. And it's not even a good sappy love story. The writing is terrible and direction is lacking. If this movie was marketed as a Romance story and they downplayed the Battle aspect then it would be what it is. But they didn't - they played it up like it's some epic historical drama. My guess is that the studio knew they had a clunker and were forced to do some creative marketing to make some money off it. Well,they got mine! Be Brave and don't do Battle with this one!!