Customer Reviews

Battle of the Brave

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

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.

This is clearly an example of a movie that doesn't know what it is: a romance? an historical epic? a courtroom drama? a witch hunt? a story of starcrossed lovers? I managed to somehow endure every interminable minute of it wondering when it was going to pick up its lethargic pace and get to some sort of coherent plot. As with other reviewers here, I was simply amazed at the number of very good actors going to waste. Too, I was fooled by the DVD jacket into thinking this was really about the epic Battle of Quebec in which both commanding Generals, Montcalm of France and Wolfe of England, are killed. I think I saw five or so minutes of a British mortar battery's bombardment of the city. The rest of the story wasn't worth the money. Fortunately, I only rented it...but I still feel cheated. I wish I had read the other reviews before giving up 143 minutes of my time.

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 Tchéky 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.

"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!

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.

Unlike many of the reviewers on Amazon I came to the film with no expectations and was absorbed by the dramatic quality of the actors, both the leads and the rest of the cast. The trial of the mother, particularly the testimony of the servant and her father and the heroine's facial expressions was particularly compelling and the last minute "reveal" at the end of the film explained the mother's confession. For a show that made some efforts to have the native Indian language portrayed without subtitles, I was quite surprised that the film was actually made in English, even though most of the cast were obviously Francophones. I suppose this was to acquire a wider distribution, but personally I was disappointed. This film seems to polarize viewers, particularly those who wanted the historic battle and other politcal machinations covered in more depth, but used as a backdrop to the personal stories of the main characters I found it appropriate.

If you like other Canadian films, which tend to be a bit more dialog-driven and less action-oriented than Hollywood fare, give it a chance and you might be pleasantly surprised at how well the director brings it all off...very successfully in my opinion. And to those who disliked the costumes and sets...I thought they were done extremely well and played an integral part in enhancing the drama, as did the excellent score and cinematography.

Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars from the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.

Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp, November 06

That's what this film should be called. After reading the box description, I thought it was about one of Canada's greatest war time victories, Wolfe's defeat of Montcalm and the French on the Plains of Abraham on Sept. 13, 1759. While this film takes place during that time, the battle and its' historic signifigance are barely mentioned. With all the historical accuracy of a Monty Python skit, one of this countries greatest heroes, General James Wolf, is embarrasingly portrayed as a buffoon. The actual battle lasts about 5 minutes, in the over 2 hours of celluloid tedium. Instead, we have some sort of love story, taking place during the months leading up to this defining battle, and carrying on during the aftermath, when Wolfe allowed the French to "take their pigs and go home again".. Unfortunately, we don't end up caring for the characters, who move through their lines like wooden carvings at a tobacco store. Gerard Dippydoo, arguably the world's worst actor, is in full form proving that very assertion. If you are a fan of Tim Roth, or Colm Meany, forget it. They each have about 15 lines, delivered in some conference room in England where the situation in Canada is being discussed. They really are irrelevant to the film. If you are looking for a bland love story of peasant people in the mid 1700's, this is for you. If you are looking for any historical perspective, get a history text.

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.

What more can be said that hasn't already. Bad acting. Deceptive cover makes one think they might be ready to watch something on par with The Patriot. Avoid.