Nouvelle-France

This is, literally, one of the most uselessly complex and "I-want-to-make-my-way-into-cinema-history" movie ever produced. I cannot think foreigners will see this movie and understand THAT as an accurate review of what happened to my country. I left the theater 38 minutes ago, and I am still shaking with anger.

First of all, cut the all-charm hero who's good at everything and the tough and revolutionary woman who dears go against armed guards by punching them in the face. I do not buy. I got nothing against Noémie Godin-Vigneault, she did a worthy job, but her character's flawed. Cut also the dull love story, absolutely unimaginative. The secondary characters, like Marie-Loup's father, like Voltaire and France Carignan, Marie-Loup's daughter. They deserve credit.

And finally, how dare did they destroy one of the finest North American piece of history by wanting to copy the "historical-moment-in-a-love-story" like Titanic and Pearl Harbor did. Historical values are not even respected. 4 years passed between the capitulation of Quebec and the Treaty of Paris. 4 years. Well, it seems nobody aged a day.

Please, before or after seeing this movie, ask for a French Canadian, for the REAL version of what happened. That way we can keep our dignity intact.

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.

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

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.

Ultimately, this movie is a Brazilian soap opera. There are intrigues and billets-doux. The pop theme, recorded by an orchestra in Prague, is good but over-used. At least seven or eight crescendos cover various characters when they either grasp each other, look at each other or wistfully stare out windows while thinking of each other.

I didn't mind the historical and geographical inaccuracies. The need for financing seems to have motivated scenes of Pitt and Voltaire. (Was the inclusion of Franklin a failed attempt at American financing?) In fact, these scenes were not necessary since the movie used symbolism. The basic facts arguably fit the presentation. A case can be made that New France was abandoned by France, abused by the Catholic Church and strung up by England. Marie-Loup, get it? In the movie, she is illiterate but very articulate. Indeed, everyone spoke with modern international accents from mouths with white straight teeth. (So what! It's only a movie!)

Jean Beaudin made "J. A. Martin Photographe" which was both a beautiful and sensitive movie with Monique Mercure in the lead. She's in this one too but her presence only hearkens to the past. Despite its flaws, I enjoyed "Nouvelle France" but I'd probably enjoy any movie about the history of northern North America. If you have no interest in such history, this movie will be a convoluted Brazilian soap opera.