Nouvelle-France

That's the worst film I saw since a long time. Historic accuracy is totally non-existent. For example, James Wolfe, who his depicted as an anti-French Canadian, is shown in London during the summer of 1759. Natives are like Indians of a bad Hollywood movie of the 60's : They wear deerskin clothes and ride horses (The Montagnais had never ride horses). The film is taking place in Quebec City, but footage is set in Louisbourg, showing the Atlantic Ocean.

The original scenario was supposed to include the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but the producers drop this idea saying that costs for uniforms and participants would be more than 4 millions dollars ! I think they never heard about re-enactment.

All the movie is planned to be a new Titanic : an impossible love during an historic tragedy (the fall of New-France). There's even a song performed by Celine Dion at the end of the movie (Yes, I stayed till the end of the movie, but I deeply regret). But the worst thing of all is that this movie cost 30 millions dollars. I just don't know how they spend all this money.

Sorry for my anger, but I'm just too irritated.

"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 "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)? ***END SPOILER***

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"?). (Speaking of which, "Pathfinder" is well worth checking out; it's a great 'guy flick'; the antithesis of "Battle of the Brave").

GRADE: B-

This is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal of québecois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentious people.

It's really sad, but "big shots" movie makers (driving Dodge Stratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They Know What the Little People Like.

We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30 millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't see their movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generates mediocrity; only movies from "friends of the family" are going to be made.

I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journey in the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool of inconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f*** our québecois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few. Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and again and dumb québecois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm glad this pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodge stratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in the very restrained "movie business" of Québec.

Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.

PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title.

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 tragic love story . The historic context is very nice and the war that is going on is just the background of what is happening with the main characters even if one of them is actively involved ( just a little, though ) in the political events . Even for those who might appreciate this tragedy, and believe me it's a real one, the movie will seems never-ending and slow-pace . The acting is pretty good ( the little girl is marvelous ! ) but too theatrical .

There was a battle going on in Quebec city but it was greatly reduced in the editing process . Some of the best scenes were just cut off as well . The photography was nice for that kind of movie and the visual research was very realistic and interesting .

It could have been better though...

To all those who lashed out at the film here: yes, the film gives sometimes the impression of being a bit pretentious, but whoever comes with 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, I understand, their should be 10 lines of text, and some egos need a place to show off, but frankly, who cares? The further one goes into details, scrutinizing it, the more looses the good impression that the film leaves

In these times, when the world is invaded by Avatars, even this sentimental film is an achievement.

dixi