Amazon.com

Forget about Kevin Costner's sun-kissed, water-colored,Oscar-winning Dances with Wolves. Black Robe, which was directed byBruce Beresford, a director who gave the world the finest film of the early '80sAustralian new wave, Breaker Morant, and who continually collides cultures and ethnicity in his films (Mister Johnson, Driving Miss Daisy), matchesand surpasses the Costner epic as an expertly crafted, brutal saga of redemption and salvation. In 1634 a youngFrench Jesuit missionary is assigned to trek 1,500 miles through the New France wilderness to a mission settled in Huron Indian country.Black Robe chronicles the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Blutheau) as heleaves his Jesuit brothers and, with the aid of a young translator and guide,Daniel (Aden Young), and eight canoes of Algonquin Indians, moves into the uncompromising Canadian northern territory on a die-hard mission toconvert the natives. Mixing elements of Michael Mann's The Last of the Mohicans and Roland Joffé's The Mission, Beresford offers a restlesstale of Laforgue's conflicted faith juxtaposed against the sublime spiritual harmony withthe land that the Huron and Algonquin already hold. Black Robedances to its own drummer and is tuned into the precarious balance between nature'smystery and spirit and the strident, unyielding religious ethic. The cinematographyby Peter James is relentlessly cruel and bleak, but it absolutely conveysthe obstacles that face the idealistic and blind young priest, who by theend, has faced his own awakening. The film also features one of the late, great composer Georges Delerue's most noble scores. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Horrifying realism, but profound in picturing culture clash.
Quebec 1634. Jesuit missionaries from France venture bravely into New France (Canada) to convert the Indian savages from their paganism. That's the historical background of "Black Robe", a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. It portrays the story of a fictional black robe Father Laforgue, who undertakes an arduous 1500 mile journey at the onset of a harsh winter. Guided by Algonquin Indians, threatened by Iroquois Indians, his destination is the Huron Indians. He is threatened by the elements, but most of all by the Indian paganism which construes him as a demon. The plot, however, is neither memorable nor outstanding - it is merely the background for a careful contemplation of characterization and complex questions about culture clash.

Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals.

But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer.

Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.

If You Liked Last of the Mohicans, Do Not Miss This Film!
Few movies of recent memory arrived with such little fanfare but had such enormous impact on the viewer as did Black Robe. As powerful a tribute to good film making as Dances With Wolves or Last of the Mohicans [1992], this film transports you back to the North American wilderness of the seventeenth century, and gives the viewer a dose of realism that will live in your consciousness for days on end. Epic in it's scope and historically accurate in it's story, this movie captures on film what few others have accomplished for this period of history. If your idea of good cinema is an opportunity to be educated as well as to be entertained, and to relive a time in history long since past, then DO NOT miss this fine film! It is a must see movie for all history buffs... Excellent!

An antidote for the neo-romanticism of the AmerIndian
"Black Robe" is based on a novel of the same title written by the late Brian Moore, who also wrote the film's screenplay. Moore's idea for the plot of his novel and most of the details he used within it came from the Jesuit Relations- a 17th century chronicle of the day to day events of the North American mission of the Society of Jesus. While the Relations' main purpose was to describe successful conversions, miracles, and battles fought against Satan, they are also one of the most important historical records of the lives and customs of many American Indian tribes.

The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language.

However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs.

Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife.

One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.)

The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.)

"Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly.

As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests.

I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.

Clash of Culture
Black Robe

The Black Robe reminds me of those classics during the 1960's of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Another recent image for me is that of the movie the Last of the Mohicans (1992), based on the book of the same title by James Fenimore Cooper. Not to mention Dances with Wolves with Kevin Costner (1990) and directed by Kevin Costner. I happen to love most movies where that Native Americas are depicted in story that is uplifting about their lives. Black Robe was directed by Bruce Beresford, and is based on the novel written by Brian Moore. I found similarities in both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe.

The use of the natural settings of woods and rivers were fantastic and beautiful. The use of rivers as means of transportation is very realistic in Native American culture, especially since water is seen as the source of all life. This film at times seems to be more about the inner spiritual life of Chief Chomina (August Schellenberg) and his quest to follow his vision than about the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) to minister to the Indians in Quebec. While the Father did not show much spirituality, he did however have his memories which seemed very stark compared to the chief's visions. The differences of their cultures really did stand out in this movie. The Hurons were used to sharing their resources amongst themselves while Father Laforgue tried to keep things back for later use. Another culture shock for the Father was that of the Natives procreating at night. This bothered him greatly, so much so that he was tormented by it and had to leave his bed. This scene also took place in Dances with Wolves, here again was a white guy (Lt. John Dunbar) sleeping by a Native fire. Yet his reaction to what was happening brought him into a relationship where he married a member of the tribe and became one of them. Whereas Father Laforgue cut himself off from relationship and went off alone to do penance.

One phrase at the end of both films caught my attention: 15 years later. In the case of Dances with Wolves the phrase dealt with the fact that the expansion of white men into Native American territory meant the demise of their way of life. In Black Robe the Native Indians in Quebec who converted to Christianity became too docile and therefore were killed by other warring tribes after Father Laforgue's arrival. Interestingly spiritually they knew that this was going to happen. This film was great, but sadly since it came out not too long after Dances with Wolves, I believe that it was overshadowed by the former film.

For those who want to add to the Native American story collection, it is a great film that could be watched and compared to two other Native American epics: Last of the Mohicans, and Dances with Wolves.

Neo-Colonial Propaganda at its best
To begin with, I think this film is a true cineastic masterpiece. From its hauntingly beautiful score through the breathtaking landscape shots to the meticulous detail observed with any buildings, item of clothing and other equipment down to the last little piece of Native jewellery used, this film let's you immerse into a powerful image of 17th century eastern Canada "as it really was". The film is at its best when it illustrates mutual misunderstandings in the encounter of two completely different cultures.

The film endeavours to illustrate how the French "penetrated" Indian societies as opposed to the Spanish model of total exploitation or the English model of sheer destruction. It centers on the religious activities of French missionaries and decides to filter French military and economic engagements in the raging "Beaver Wars" out of the picture.

The clash of cultures is often illustrated by sharp cuts between Native and European worlds. These are always interesting, sometimes quite amusing. Often they amount to sheer propaganda of "savagery" vs. "civilisation". Indians huddle together, fart and copulate in dark, dirty and stinking wigwams while Europeans walk across beautiful Old World city squares conspiciously devoid of beggars, cripples and the omipresent garbage and sewage of the time. Indians practice primitive shamanism in forests while Europeans stride through light-flooded cathedrals and vow to relinquish the amenities of western Civilisation to salvage the infidels (even if "they" already cut of one of your ears in the process). Europeans do well-mannered house music in aristocratic mansions. Indians do it doggy-style in the dirt. Always, anywhere and with anyone, as the film will teach us through relentless repetition.

The clash of belief systems is personalised in an encounter of the dignified Jesuit priest with an Indian shaman - impersonalised by a ridiculously behaving and profounfly vicious yellow painted dwarf. What could have been an interesting example of Indian attitudes towards disabled and retarded people - worshipping people who are different as a manifestation of the divine instead of confining them to the margins of society - is turned into just another example of the film's leitmotif - the savagery of the barbaric Indian.

When the film was released a New York Times critic lauded the fact that this historical film got by with portraying American colonial history"without villains". Without white villains that is, of course. Set in a time when the Thirty Years War was raging through central Europe where entire populations of large cities were laughtered to the last woman and infant while seeking refuge in churches and when one third of Germany's population was slaughtered by armies of fellow Christians, the film centers entirely on what it presents as a realistic portray of "Indian savagery". When the Algonquin party with its European guests is captured by Iroquoians (the Algonquians speak neither Algonquian nor do the Iroquois speak Iroquoian but all happen to speak Cree here in fact but who would notice anyway) the male captives are forced to run the gauntlet in their captor's village. Once, badly battered, of course, they had survived this indeed pretty brutal initiation procedure, I , having at least a superficial knowledge of Iroquois culture, prepared myself for wittnessing the usual next step, the adoption of all captives into the tribe. I soon learned that the makers of the film seemed to have an agenda which would not permit such a less than traumatic ending.

It is towards the end that an ambitious yet heavily slanted portrayal of culture clash tilts into point-blank atrocity propaganda. Portraying matriarchic Iroqois societiy with its democratic decision making processes as a male-commandeered dictatorship is in itself a surprising failure given Beresford's claim to show everything "the way it really was". One wonders if this distortive rendering of Iroquois social life occurred unintentionally. How could they get such basic things so wrong? However, this appears like a lesser evil compared to the what we are supposed to learn of the treatment of captives by Iroqois. Captured women and children were regularly adopted into the tribe. In fact the Iroqois waged numerous wars on neighbours and absorbed their vanquished foes through something that amounted to genocide by hostile takeover, if you like. There was a time when 25,000 out of 35,000 Iroquois were adopted former enemies. The biggest indian killers of the time were disease, not war. Tribes replenished their thinned-out ranks with captured enemies and could hardly afford to kill them "unnecessarily". Male captives were in for a tougher ride and were only adopted after having endured the gauntlet.

The film shows none of this. Instead, the captured boy has his throat cut before his father's eyes for no apparent reason - exept "Indian savagery" which is, by definition, beyond any rationality. The captured woman is announced to be tortured to death the next day. The same fate awaits the male captives - although they just passed the initiation rite. One previous commentator hoped that the research done for the scenes in the Iroquois village was profound. Well, it was not. In fact, the makers of the film got everything beyond mere outfits wrong here. This is certainly not "a sensitive and earnest portrayal of Indians" as one previous reviewer reasoned.

At the end the film raises "the profound question" if it was right to bring the light of Christianity to the Hurons since they were later on "annihilated" by their heathen Iroquois enemies (in reality parts of the survivors were adopted into the tribe, others formed the influental Wiandot nation). What the film fails to mention is that it was hardly a Christian "turn the other cheek" attitude that brought about the demise of the Hurons but the fact that only partial conversion of the Hurons occurred which split the disease-stricken nation at a time of war when unity was most needed and that the French had chosen the Hurons as their allies and prime proxy fighters in the Beaver Wars against their Iroquois enemies - and finally let them down militarily when the Hurons needed their support (For some reading check out http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html).

How to rate such a film? Five stars for its technical merits. One star for its often distortive, elaborate defamation of Native culture. I think that the latter weighs more heavily than the former. Two stars. See it. Carefully. I rented it. I wouldn't buy it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Forget about Kevin Costner's sun-kissed, water-colored,Oscar-winning Dances with Wolves. Black Robe, which was directed byBruce Beresford, a director who gave the world the finest film of the early '80sAustralian new wave, Breaker Morant, and who continually collides cultures and ethnicity in his films (Mister Johnson, Driving Miss Daisy), matchesand surpasses the Costner epic as an expertly crafted, brutal saga of redemption and salvation. In 1634 a youngFrench Jesuit missionary is assigned to trek 1,500 miles through the New France wilderness to a mission settled in Huron Indian country.Black Robe chronicles the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Blutheau) as heleaves his Jesuit brothers and, with the aid of a young translator and guide,Daniel (Aden Young), and eight canoes of Algonquin Indians, moves into the uncompromising Canadian northern territory on a die-hard mission toconvert the natives. Mixing elements of Michael Mann's The Last of the Mohicans and Roland Joffé's The Mission, Beresford offers a restlesstale of Laforgue's conflicted faith juxtaposed against the sublime spiritual harmony withthe land that the Huron and Algonquin already hold. Black Robedances to its own drummer and is tuned into the precarious balance between nature'smystery and spirit and the strident, unyielding religious ethic. The cinematographyby Peter James is relentlessly cruel and bleak, but it absolutely conveysthe obstacles that face the idealistic and blind young priest, who by theend, has faced his own awakening. The film also features one of the late, great composer Georges Delerue's most noble scores. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Horrifying realism, but profound in picturing culture clash.
Quebec 1634. Jesuit missionaries from France venture bravely into New France (Canada) to convert the Indian savages from their paganism. That's the historical background of "Black Robe", a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. It portrays the story of a fictional black robe Father Laforgue, who undertakes an arduous 1500 mile journey at the onset of a harsh winter. Guided by Algonquin Indians, threatened by Iroquois Indians, his destination is the Huron Indians. He is threatened by the elements, but most of all by the Indian paganism which construes him as a demon. The plot, however, is neither memorable nor outstanding - it is merely the background for a careful contemplation of characterization and complex questions about culture clash.

Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals.

But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer.

Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.

If You Liked Last of the Mohicans, Do Not Miss This Film!
Few movies of recent memory arrived with such little fanfare but had such enormous impact on the viewer as did Black Robe. As powerful a tribute to good film making as Dances With Wolves or Last of the Mohicans [1992], this film transports you back to the North American wilderness of the seventeenth century, and gives the viewer a dose of realism that will live in your consciousness for days on end. Epic in it's scope and historically accurate in it's story, this movie captures on film what few others have accomplished for this period of history. If your idea of good cinema is an opportunity to be educated as well as to be entertained, and to relive a time in history long since past, then DO NOT miss this fine film! It is a must see movie for all history buffs... Excellent!

An antidote for the neo-romanticism of the AmerIndian
"Black Robe" is based on a novel of the same title written by the late Brian Moore, who also wrote the film's screenplay. Moore's idea for the plot of his novel and most of the details he used within it came from the Jesuit Relations- a 17th century chronicle of the day to day events of the North American mission of the Society of Jesus. While the Relations' main purpose was to describe successful conversions, miracles, and battles fought against Satan, they are also one of the most important historical records of the lives and customs of many American Indian tribes.

The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language.

However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs.

Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife.

One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.)

The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.)

"Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly.

As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests.

I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.

Clash of Culture
Black Robe

The Black Robe reminds me of those classics during the 1960's of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Another recent image for me is that of the movie the Last of the Mohicans (1992), based on the book of the same title by James Fenimore Cooper. Not to mention Dances with Wolves with Kevin Costner (1990) and directed by Kevin Costner. I happen to love most movies where that Native Americas are depicted in story that is uplifting about their lives. Black Robe was directed by Bruce Beresford, and is based on the novel written by Brian Moore. I found similarities in both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe.

The use of the natural settings of woods and rivers were fantastic and beautiful. The use of rivers as means of transportation is very realistic in Native American culture, especially since water is seen as the source of all life. This film at times seems to be more about the inner spiritual life of Chief Chomina (August Schellenberg) and his quest to follow his vision than about the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) to minister to the Indians in Quebec. While the Father did not show much spirituality, he did however have his memories which seemed very stark compared to the chief's visions. The differences of their cultures really did stand out in this movie. The Hurons were used to sharing their resources amongst themselves while Father Laforgue tried to keep things back for later use. Another culture shock for the Father was that of the Natives procreating at night. This bothered him greatly, so much so that he was tormented by it and had to leave his bed. This scene also took place in Dances with Wolves, here again was a white guy (Lt. John Dunbar) sleeping by a Native fire. Yet his reaction to what was happening brought him into a relationship where he married a member of the tribe and became one of them. Whereas Father Laforgue cut himself off from relationship and went off alone to do penance.

One phrase at the end of both films caught my attention: 15 years later. In the case of Dances with Wolves the phrase dealt with the fact that the expansion of white men into Native American territory meant the demise of their way of life. In Black Robe the Native Indians in Quebec who converted to Christianity became too docile and therefore were killed by other warring tribes after Father Laforgue's arrival. Interestingly spiritually they knew that this was going to happen. This film was great, but sadly since it came out not too long after Dances with Wolves, I believe that it was overshadowed by the former film.

For those who want to add to the Native American story collection, it is a great film that could be watched and compared to two other Native American epics: Last of the Mohicans, and Dances with Wolves.

Neo-Colonial Propaganda at its best
To begin with, I think this film is a true cineastic masterpiece. From its hauntingly beautiful score through the breathtaking landscape shots to the meticulous detail observed with any buildings, item of clothing and other equipment down to the last little piece of Native jewellery used, this film let's you immerse into a powerful image of 17th century eastern Canada "as it really was". The film is at its best when it illustrates mutual misunderstandings in the encounter of two completely different cultures.

The film endeavours to illustrate how the French "penetrated" Indian societies as opposed to the Spanish model of total exploitation or the English model of sheer destruction. It centers on the religious activities of French missionaries and decides to filter French military and economic engagements in the raging "Beaver Wars" out of the picture.

The clash of cultures is often illustrated by sharp cuts between Native and European worlds. These are always interesting, sometimes quite amusing. Often they amount to sheer propaganda of "savagery" vs. "civilisation". Indians huddle together, fart and copulate in dark, dirty and stinking wigwams while Europeans walk across beautiful Old World city squares conspiciously devoid of beggars, cripples and the omipresent garbage and sewage of the time. Indians practice primitive shamanism in forests while Europeans stride through light-flooded cathedrals and vow to relinquish the amenities of western Civilisation to salvage the infidels (even if "they" already cut of one of your ears in the process). Europeans do well-mannered house music in aristocratic mansions. Indians do it doggy-style in the dirt. Always, anywhere and with anyone, as the film will teach us through relentless repetition.

The clash of belief systems is personalised in an encounter of the dignified Jesuit priest with an Indian shaman - impersonalised by a ridiculously behaving and profounfly vicious yellow painted dwarf. What could have been an interesting example of Indian attitudes towards disabled and retarded people - worshipping people who are different as a manifestation of the divine instead of confining them to the margins of society - is turned into just another example of the film's leitmotif - the savagery of the barbaric Indian.

When the film was released a New York Times critic lauded the fact that this historical film got by with portraying American colonial history"without villains". Without white villains that is, of course. Set in a time when the Thirty Years War was raging through central Europe where entire populations of large cities were laughtered to the last woman and infant while seeking refuge in churches and when one third of Germany's population was slaughtered by armies of fellow Christians, the film centers entirely on what it presents as a realistic portray of "Indian savagery". When the Algonquin party with its European guests is captured by Iroquoians (the Algonquians speak neither Algonquian nor do the Iroquois speak Iroquoian but all happen to speak Cree here in fact but who would notice anyway) the male captives are forced to run the gauntlet in their captor's village. Once, badly battered, of course, they had survived this indeed pretty brutal initiation procedure, I , having at least a superficial knowledge of Iroquois culture, prepared myself for wittnessing the usual next step, the adoption of all captives into the tribe. I soon learned that the makers of the film seemed to have an agenda which would not permit such a less than traumatic ending.

It is towards the end that an ambitious yet heavily slanted portrayal of culture clash tilts into point-blank atrocity propaganda. Portraying matriarchic Iroqois societiy with its democratic decision making processes as a male-commandeered dictatorship is in itself a surprising failure given Beresford's claim to show everything "the way it really was". One wonders if this distortive rendering of Iroquois social life occurred unintentionally. How could they get such basic things so wrong? However, this appears like a lesser evil compared to the what we are supposed to learn of the treatment of captives by Iroqois. Captured women and children were regularly adopted into the tribe. In fact the Iroqois waged numerous wars on neighbours and absorbed their vanquished foes through something that amounted to genocide by hostile takeover, if you like. There was a time when 25,000 out of 35,000 Iroquois were adopted former enemies. The biggest indian killers of the time were disease, not war. Tribes replenished their thinned-out ranks with captured enemies and could hardly afford to kill them "unnecessarily". Male captives were in for a tougher ride and were only adopted after having endured the gauntlet.

The film shows none of this. Instead, the captured boy has his throat cut before his father's eyes for no apparent reason - exept "Indian savagery" which is, by definition, beyond any rationality. The captured woman is announced to be tortured to death the next day. The same fate awaits the male captives - although they just passed the initiation rite. One previous commentator hoped that the research done for the scenes in the Iroquois village was profound. Well, it was not. In fact, the makers of the film got everything beyond mere outfits wrong here. This is certainly not "a sensitive and earnest portrayal of Indians" as one previous reviewer reasoned.

At the end the film raises "the profound question" if it was right to bring the light of Christianity to the Hurons since they were later on "annihilated" by their heathen Iroquois enemies (in reality parts of the survivors were adopted into the tribe, others formed the influental Wiandot nation). What the film fails to mention is that it was hardly a Christian "turn the other cheek" attitude that brought about the demise of the Hurons but the fact that only partial conversion of the Hurons occurred which split the disease-stricken nation at a time of war when unity was most needed and that the French had chosen the Hurons as their allies and prime proxy fighters in the Beaver Wars against their Iroquois enemies - and finally let them down militarily when the Hurons needed their support (For some reading check out http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html).

How to rate such a film? Five stars for its technical merits. One star for its often distortive, elaborate defamation of Native culture. I think that the latter weighs more heavily than the former. Two stars. See it. Carefully. I rented it. I wouldn't buy it. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

One of my favorites....
I meant to see this movie when it came out, and I never did, but then a couple of years later, I saw it in a video store, rented it and fell in love with it. It's by no means perfect, but I loved how things didn't quite come out as expected for any of the characters. Yes, they're quirky, outrageous, etc., but they are very human.

Best of all, I loved how one of the main female characters sticks to her guns and follows her dreams, instead of waiting around for one more man. *He* has to wait around for her, until she's ready (and then it's a whopper of a scene as someone has already commented). There's some very fine writing in this movie, and I keep hoping that Craig Rosenberg will write and direct another small intimate piece in the near future.

A movie of spirit & heart that gets me every time.
This is a movie that I would put in a very special category. It may not be the most well made, or well acted movie. It certainly doesn't have the best script. It isn't the funniest movie I've seen, and it isn't the most romantic. But that doesn't matter. I still loved this movie. Some movies weren't meant to be analyzed, they were just meant to be enjoyed.

Now on to the plot. The story revolves around twin brothers Stephen and Rick Dunne. Both brothers fall for the same girl when they are teenagers. She moves away and ten years pass. In those ten years, Stephen obsesses over her, and Rick gets stood up at the altar. They all meet again at a tacky hotel where Rick is the manager. Let the games begin!!

Aside from being a very attractive woman, Melissa never gave me any reason why a person should be in love with her for 10 years. She was just sort of there. Allison, on the other hand, is a person I could see a guy fussing about for way more then 10 years. I loved how Ronny had the perfect song for every occasion in the film. And I still get chills every time I watch that last frame of the movie when the two lovers just say "Hi" to each other.

I give this movie a 5/5 just for the sheer reason that I have seen it well over 35 times and I still love watching it every time. That is why this movie get a Doctor's Recommendation.

Woody Allen meets Paul Hogan...
Be forewarned--this Aussie charmer may unexpectedly blindside even the most cynical of viewers...only the clinically dead will fail to fall under its spell. In some ways, this is a gender-switched version of "Hannah And Her Sisters" with its themes of romantic competition between two brothers; the bickering elder parents (the morbidly hypochondriac Dad gets to mutter some of the choicest and most hilarious lines under his breath); the age-old debate of whether destiny plays a part regarding whom you end up being partnered with, etc. If you enjoy Woody Allen's less cynical romantic comedies (you know, the Early, Funnier Movies) or recent indie films like "Next Stop, Wonderland", you'll have a good time at the "Hotel de Love"!

A very pleasant surprise
I rented this primarily because Saffron Burrows was in it, and she's just so beautiful I frankly didn't even care what genre the movie was -- it could have been action, sci-fi, horror, western, drama, whatever. It is a really fun romantic comedy, though, and I found myself laughing out loud on several occasions. The seventies music in the soundtrack worked well, and the subplots were enough to keep you involved. Think of this as sort of around the same tone as "Picture Perfect", but with more well-rounded characters... Really well done, and quite romantic. I'm sorry this movie didn't make a bigger splash when it came out, I wish I'd heard of it sooner.

Quirky, amusing, highly entertaining, I loved it!
I had seen the laserdisc version of this film at a friend's house, and I enjoyed it so much that I think I'll purchase it for myself. The 70's soundtrack pulled me in at first, and the piano player is absolutely *hysterical*! The accents are polished, and the wonderful acting is beyond compare. Not to be missed! ... Read more

Reviews (20)

interesting period drama
Jessica Lange stars as Cousin Bette, the older spinster aunt recruited to help those relatives who have all the beauty and wealth --- and therefore all the love (it's a bit odd because Lange is really attractive even when they are playing her looks down. you just have to give in and believe it.)

When Bette finds a boyfriend in a younger artist, her pretty niece Hortense goes after him because she does not see why Bette should have ANYTHING at all. Bette, meantime, is a costumer at a local Parisian theater, where she meets Jennie, a courtsean (played by Elizabeth Shue), who is also single but with quite a different take on life. Bette decides to put her spoiled selfish nasty relatives in their place once and for all.

This is a great little movie and well worth watching!!!

Not Quite
"Cousin Bette" is one of those modern costume dramas where people muck about with British accents, (even the American actors--in France, no less!) that purport to make them civilized, yet behave more or less like animals rather than people. The Balzac novel on which the film is based managed to satirize much of "high" culture of the period-where privileged people behaved more or less like animals than civilized people--yet the film seems resigned to revel in the broad, soap-opera-ish plot of a woman wronged taking her revenge than anything else. (It's difficult to find subtlety in a film that finds excuses to repeatedly show Elizabeth Shue's naked, muscular backside.) The film features a who's who "B" list of capable actors--Shue, Bob Hoskins, Hugh Laurie, and others, though the real star of the movie is the production, which is better than the typical BBC production but not quite the best of Merchant/Ivory fare. The biggest flaw is the characterization of Bette. Lange brings Bette to life with a bit too much darkness--she often comes across more as a snake waiting to be provoked than a plain woman abused by the selfishness of the beautiful and wealthy--which undermines our sympathy for her. In the end, Bette gets her revenge, but she lowers herself to the level of villain to do it, making the film seem more a poor imitator of "Dangerous Liaisons" than anything else.

Absolute trash!
I'll never forget the Masterpiece Theater mini-series from 1971. It was a sheer delight. Jessica Lange's Bette is a defanged, declawed pussy cat when compared to Margaret Tyzack's fierce tigeress whose fangs and claws are lethally sharp and carefully concealed.

I keep hoping PBS will rebroadcast the original series. Until then, forget the insipid movie.

Fantastic Lange
As always Jessica Lange does an incredible job. The movie is worth to buy just to watch her perform. In my view she's the greatest actress alive today!!

Jessica Lange is excellent as Bette.
This is a story of revenge as though Shakespeare had written it. Jessica Lange becomes Bette and you find yourself on her side from the start. All the actors are believeable and the story carries you along. If you enjoy british period films, this one is for you. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Tom Berenger and Billy Zane head the cast in this silly action film about a tough Marine and an Olympics marksman who team up in the Panamanian jungle to take out a rebel leader and the drug kingpin financing him. Berenger's done this switched-off soul bit before, but Zane doesn't seem quite ready for his part. In any case, the acting doesn't matter as much to director Luis Llosa as fancy camerawork to give viewers the sense of a bullet hurling along its trajectory. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (34)

annoying
I usually enjoy a Tom Berenger movie but was disappointed with this one. Tom Berenger (jungle dude and sniper) and the other guy (a government twit sent along to pester Tom and cause all sorts of trouble, kind of like an armed George Stephanopolous) are sent to Panama to 'take out' a bad guy. The problem is Miller (government guy) doesn't seem to know much of anything and refuses to listen to someone who does (Berenger). After a while, this became annoying and I kept waiting for Tom to whack him over the head with something. Unfortunately, he never does. In a scene where they are sneaking through a barnyard, I was waiting for Miller to step on a chicken when he was walking backwards-SQUAWK!! Neat parts of the movie are when Tom Berenger disguises himself as a haystack and watching the Panamanian militia run through the jungle like a bunch of squirrels. I gave this movie 2 stars because you get to watch Tom Berenger.

A Very Entertaining Film
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I've heard numerous times that this movie was to be a tribute to real life United States Marine Carlos Hathcock. If this in fact was a tribute to Gunny Hathcock I feel that it paid tribute to him in a way that he probably could have appreciated.Tom Berenger is probably the best actor to portray a no b.s., efficient military operator that Hollywood has to offer. His presence is enough to make you want to like who he is portraying.

Unless you are a USMC sniper you really have no way of knowing how true to life this movie actually is. I have spoken to a number of men serving with STA and they have given this movie mostly a thumbs up. USMC SS Tom Ferran was a consult on the set so that explains why many aspects of this movie are very good. Obviously there are some technical blunders where the producers have decided that entertainment is more important than reality.

The plot for this movie is very simple; sneak in, eliminate your target, sneak out. If you don't appreciate the fieldcraft of sniping you will probably not like this movie. Much of the film is very slow paced and more like a drama. There are a few scenes with explosions, lots of shooting, etc. I like this movie because the makers didn't completely sell out the legacy of the USMC snipers to make an action packed film.

I liked this movie because there wasn't a whole lot of unecessary action, though there was some. The movie was pretty slow paced and that is something many snipers can probably appreciate. If you have never studied sniping you'll probably not think much of this film. If you have studied it, you just may like the movie.

Old War Horse
Let me say that although the Billy Zane character had no place in this movie (Civilians are NOT assigned to Marine Snipers!), Tom Berenger did a OUTSTANDING portrayal of a Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant. He had the looks, the lingo and the mannerisms down pat. My wife watched the movie and told me "There's You!. Except the wrong scope reticle pattern, the gear was correct. Great movie! I bought it.

ONE GREAT MOVIE!
Who can say that this movie is bad? I read a review that it was boring, and no plot. All they did was wonder through a jungle, and one snaps and starts trying to kill the other. This is my reply to them: Ever heard of Character Development, and behaviour, how people react to things?
Just picture yourself in a jungle, and you can be shot at, at any moment without warning. Anyone can snap from that.
This film is more for adults, who understands more of what goes on. Younger people just look for action, and some great special effects, blowing up, etc.
Just buy it! It's a great movie!

COOL MOVIE !!!
I know this really isn't a 5 star movie, but to me, it is. I really like this movie a lot. Miller (Billy Zane) was a wimp throughout most of this film. He finally toughens up in the end, after he realizes that Becket (Tom Berenger) will die, do to his screw ups. ... "Sniper 2" came out. I haven't seen it yet. I plan on watching it this week. It's probably not as good as the first one. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

Crocs Not Only Rule, They Rock n' Roll!
If you're a fan of the ever enthusiastic Steve Irwin, aka Crocodile Hunter, then this is a film for you! My 10 year old loves Steve & thinks of him as her hero. (I admit it! I watch the shows even when she's not around!) So when the movie came out,we viewed it on the first day. It was pure delight whenever Steve, his lovely wife Terri, and the crocs were on camera. The plot is thin, but how thick do you need it to be? Rated PG, we both found the only offensive language to be thanks to the addition of the CIA? actors and it was not necessary. I am not sure if non Steve-O fans could appreciate the humor he brought to the film.But I loved the line about where a guy doesn't want to get bite by a Brown snake. Three Thumbs Up!(me, myself & I)

Watchable, But Plot Seems a Little Forced
I love Steve Irwin's Crocodile Hunter show and completely respect what he does for wildlife, but this movie was really lacking substance. I felt like I was watching outtakes of the Crocodile Hunter. My biggest complaint: taking a great show and trying to make it into a 90 minute movie. It comes out looking rather absurd because it tries to press this idea that somehow a crocodile in Austrailia is going to eat a intelligence satellite that has fallen from space and that the FBI is going to track the Irwins for withholding classified government information.
I realize that this idea is far-fetched on purpose and only for entertainment value, but still, most of the dialogue seems spoonfed and inane. Personally I think that they should have just taken the show and made a long documentary and released it onto video.

There are several positives to the movie: Steve Irwin and the extras on DVD. Steve Irwin is always fun to watch; his goofy and outlandish wisecracks and antics kept me attentive to the film. Whether he is talking about a deadly venomous spider from Austrailia, running down and trying to catch a lizard to show the audience, or trying to track down a crocodile, he is always entertaining to watch. The DVD gives you some of the extras like behind the scenes footage of the stunts from the movie, a few outtakes, as well as 10 deleted scenes that did not make it into the movie. For this reason, I suggest if you are purchasing this movie to get the DVD over the VHS.

Steve 'N' Terri To The Rescue!
Steve and Terri Irwin get caught up in an international incident after a croc' there trying to save eats a renegade satellite. Bungling agents are dispatched to retrieve the object, and are taught a good ol' fashioned Steve-O lesson in the process! A gun-totin' lady cattlerancher and her pack of vicious dogs add even more fun to the mix! Humorous and educational, with enough action to keep things hoppin' like a kangaroo in a briar patch! Great sequences with Steve 'n' Terri doing what they do best make this an all around great family croc-hunter fiesta! Highly recommended...

A Crocodile Hunter Adventure!
The Crocodile Hunter is also known as Steve Irwin. He is famous for his adventures in the wild, as he captures real animals. The best part is that none of it is a computer generated image or anything of the sort. All of the animal action in this movie is real, and that's what makes it fun. The Crocodile Hunter is the animal hunter who is always happy, and always ready for the next adventure. The only difference between his television show and his movie "The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" is that the movie actually has a plot. I feel that the plot killed the story a little bit. It is kind of like the "Garfield" movie. "Garfield" is about a fat, lazy cat who never seems to want to leave his home. The problem with that movie is that it has a boring plot. The beginning is good because we get a sense of Garfield's lifestyle and regular routines. The highlights of "The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" are the scenes where Steve Irwin is exploring the wildlife, and doing what he does best. Once the storyline kicks in, some of the scenes are stupid a childlike. The could have made a plot similar to the television show, and still have a good adventure story. Irwin makes up for the faults in the movie, because he is always having a good time, and wants us to have a good time watching him. 80% of this movie is fun, while the other 20% could have been changed when it was written. It's a shame this movie didn't make as much money at the box office. It would have probably been better on the big screen, but I missed this one and had to watch it on video.

The story is about a top secret government satellite which has blown up and brought a device that is very important into the Australian outback where it has been swallowed by a crocodile. If the device falls into the wrong hands, it could mean trouble. The CIA has two agents Bob and Vaughan to find the crocodile and get the device back. Another person is plotting to get the device. Their contact Jo has been assigned to get the device, by pretending to be helping them. They don't know how hard it'll be to find the crocodile because of two reasons. The first is the cattle farmer named Brozzie who hates crocodiles and people who go onto her land. The other reason is because of Steve Irwin and his wife Terri. They are a couple devoted to helping the animals. They believe that the government agents are really poachers who want to steal the crododile. They decide to go on a journey to the Austrilian outback, get the crocodile, take it with them, and release it far away and out of danger. The journey is not going to be easy, and the race to the crocodile is on.

"The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" may have a lame plot and some lame acting, but it is because of Steve Irwin that makes the movie work. I'm glad that Steve Irwin and his wife are playing themseleves, and not playing people similar to them or something like that. If they ever made a sequal to this movie, they should make it more about the jungle, and something that the Irwins have to do there because of something wrong with the animals instead of throwing in the governement and lame things like that. "The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" came out during the summer, and now that it is summer again, although two years later, it is the perfect family film to rent and watch anytime. It's action packed, full of fun, and should be satisfying to anybody who will give it the time of day.

ENJOY!

Rated PG for action violence/peril and mild language.

Crikey Review
Being a big fan of the Crocodile Hunter, I loved this movie!!
One of the great things of this movie is that it's great for all
ages. Like the Crocodile Hunter would say is that the beauty of the film is that everything is real and is right up with you. I was ethusiastic about all parts of the movie but one of my most favorite parts was when Steve Irwin got on the car and started to fight the CIA agent!! LOL!!! Those funny times!! Then there was also the part when he calmed down the biggest snake in Austrailia!! WOO!! It was amazing!!!!! I th ink the biggest reason that this movie is great was because of Steve Irwin himself!! Well I hope I convinced you into buying this great film!! ... Read more

Description

An aged mother buys a hotrod and goes on a cross-country journey of self-discovery in Australia, before mustering up the courage to face her estranged daughter. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Over The Hill is very entertaining
"Over The Hill" is good. I watched it on the Independent Film Channel. What I liked most about the film: 1)The main character. 2)The engaging road story. 3)What HAPPENS in the road story. 4)The action. What I didn't exactly like about the film: 1)The ending. Way too fast of an ending. 2)The main character's downward slope into depression and anger. It's a George Miller film. It seems as though he can make anything interesting. Whether it be about driving on mindless roads or cooking fish, it's all just too entertaining. Rent first. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This is another one of those Cuckoo's Nest mental patient liberation stories, but with a clever "let's put on a show" twist. A group of melancholy Australian patients dares to pull off a theatrical version of Mozart's Cosi Fan Tutte. This film adaptation of Louis Nowra's play is quite absurd and quite erratic, yet quite affecting in the second half when the patients finally commit to the quixotic project. But how to relate to Mozart's 1790 opera about true love? By identifying with the theme of infidelity as a therapeutic exercise. And how do they pull of this madcap farce? By relying on their ability to pretend, of course. This is most difficult for the unimaginative and uncaring director (Mendelsohn), who finds himself in a life-imitates-art conflict with his curt girlfriend and a damaged yet flirtatious patient. However, it is the passionate patient (Otto) who won't let Cosi die who is the film's emotional center. He's a neurotic perfectionist and a delusional addict--a sad, desperate man with a dream to show the world how to love and be loved. --Bill Desowitz ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt!
I love this movie! I am Australian and you may think that makes me biased, but I'm not a great fan of all Australian movies. Having worked in another Psychiatric Hospital very near to the one where this was filmed, I can vouch for the characterization of the patients and staff. I saw exact replicas of patients I'd known, and yes a lot of them really do act like that. No-one gave a bad performance but the three knockout actors were Jackie Weaver( Cherry), Barry Otto (Roy) and David Wenham (Doug). We don't make many formula movies in Australia-we leave that up to Hollywood ,but if you like something different, offbeat and gritty and you're a fan of movies like Strictly Ballroom, Priscilla or Muriel's Wedding, you'll love this. I found it hilariously funny but also touching in a not-so soppy way.

A rare treasure in a sea of bad Aussie movies! ;)
Cosi is an absolutely fantastic find in the sea of Australian movies that are often total trash! A truly honest and original film, it creates several hilarious psychiatric patients including a pyromaniac to make Cosi a captivating story that really does entertain you for a couple of hours.

Based on the play written by Louis Nowra, Cosi is the uplifting story of how a group of psychiatric hospital tenants come together to perform an Italian opera Cosi Fan Tutte (Mozart) against the initial thoughts of the amateur director who has agreed to help the patients "come out of their shells". This is a tale of how "Jerry" (as one of the patient labels him) learns to accept these people and eventually he discovers and reveals to the audience that although these people are considered "crazy lunatics", they are, in essence, no more crazy than the people on the 'outside'.

This movie is for those looking for an original, creative film that guarantees laughs and smiles as well as entertaining characters and good ol' Aussie humour.

Enjoyable!
This is a funny and poignant story- our hero is hired to direct a play at a mental hospital as a type of therapy for the patients. Lewis is not quite sure what he is in for. He meets an vaired assortment of societal outcasts and oddballs who in the end don't appear to be all that different from the people outside the institution.

Notable performances-
Ben Mendelsohn as Lewis the director
Rachel Griffiths as Lucy his girlfriend
Toni Collette as Julie a troubled young woman whose parents have sent her to a mental institution to deal with her drug problem
David Wenham ( aka Faramir from Return of the King) plays Doug a disturbed pyromaniac who stirs up trouble for the production.

The patients do not settle for some lame variety show and push to put on an opera- Cosi Fan Tutte by Mozart. They do the opera as a play in English with singing for the finale. The play's theme is echoed by the events of the film- Lewis's friend Nick moves in with Lewis and Lucy and tells Lewis she is cheating on him. They make a bet. The play revolves around two young soldiers who make a bet that their women will be true- and then deceive them and the women fall in love with the new men they think they have met while their men are off at war.

The comedy is typical Aussie- a combo of physical slapstick and sight gags and some biting verbal barbs.

Toni Collette proves here she can sing beautifully- does an a cappella rendition of Stand By Me that steals the show.

Enjoyable overall- a gem in the rough I was pleased to stumble onto!

Haven't received it yet
After two full months after my Visa was charged, my copy of Cosi (one of my favourite movies) hasn't arrived. There's no way I can contact the company directly, so I have to use this medium. I can only hope that someone will read this and try to fix this problem. Otherwise, they've stolen my money!

the most hillarious of all time
ive loved this movie since the first day i saw it 6 yrs ago. every time i see it i still find myself laughing till im purple. you will never see a movie that has so many interesting characters doing so many different styles of comedy. if you like anything from the wedding singer to spy hard, space balls to theres something about mary, youll love this one. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

I can't believe it
one of the best dramas i have ever seen

Very engaging
I rented this movie on a whim and was delighted to find I'd stumbled upon one of the best films I'd seen in quite some time. I loved the way the story followed the growth of the three central characters, and how profoundly (and interestingly) they changed as a result of their lives colliding. The main love scene was emotionally moving, very unconventional, and HOT! I cried my way through a half box of Kleenex by the time this movie was over, got up the next morning, and watched it all over again. Seeing it twice made me realize what a simple, yet rich, film it really is--a rare achievement nowadays. I highly recommend it.

Lush modernisation of classic
A lush modern take on the Henry James novel Wings of the Dove. Joely Richardson and Aden Young create enough chemistry to believe their feelings for each other. Beautiful to watch and enagaging enough to keep your interest. Aden Young deserves his career to rocket.

exquisite
a visually gorgeous, well-crafted film, with -- above all -- amazing dramatic performances by molly parker and joely richardson. these characters are incredibly real and sympathetic, and a provocative moral twist at the end of their story gets you thinking.

Wonderful film
It is a shame that we didn't get a chance to see this movie in the theatres. That was a really big mistake. This movie really surprised me. All I can really say about it is please check it out, I don't think you'll be disappointed. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

Crocs Not Only Rule, They Rock n' Roll!
If you're a fan of the ever enthusiastic Steve Irwin, aka Crocodile Hunter, then this is a film for you! My 10 year old loves Steve & thinks of him as her hero. (I admit it! I watch the shows even when she's not around!) So when the movie came out,we viewed it on the first day. It was pure delight whenever Steve, his lovely wife Terri, and the crocs were on camera. The plot is thin, but how thick do you need it to be? Rated PG, we both found the only offensive language to be thanks to the addition of the CIA? actors and it was not necessary. I am not sure if non Steve-O fans could appreciate the humor he brought to the film.But I loved the line about where a guy doesn't want to get bite by a Brown snake. Three Thumbs Up!(me, myself & I)

Watchable, But Plot Seems a Little Forced
I love Steve Irwin's Crocodile Hunter show and completely respect what he does for wildlife, but this movie was really lacking substance. I felt like I was watching outtakes of the Crocodile Hunter. My biggest complaint: taking a great show and trying to make it into a 90 minute movie. It comes out looking rather absurd because it tries to press this idea that somehow a crocodile in Austrailia is going to eat a intelligence satellite that has fallen from space and that the FBI is going to track the Irwins for withholding classified government information.
I realize that this idea is far-fetched on purpose and only for entertainment value, but still, most of the dialogue seems spoonfed and inane. Personally I think that they should have just taken the show and made a long documentary and released it onto video.

There are several positives to the movie: Steve Irwin and the extras on DVD. Steve Irwin is always fun to watch; his goofy and outlandish wisecracks and antics kept me attentive to the film. Whether he is talking about a deadly venomous spider from Austrailia, running down and trying to catch a lizard to show the audience, or trying to track down a crocodile, he is always entertaining to watch. The DVD gives you some of the extras like behind the scenes footage of the stunts from the movie, a few outtakes, as well as 10 deleted scenes that did not make it into the movie. For this reason, I suggest if you are purchasing this movie to get the DVD over the VHS.

Steve 'N' Terri To The Rescue!
Steve and Terri Irwin get caught up in an international incident after a croc' there trying to save eats a renegade satellite. Bungling agents are dispatched to retrieve the object, and are taught a good ol' fashioned Steve-O lesson in the process! A gun-totin' lady cattlerancher and her pack of vicious dogs add even more fun to the mix! Humorous and educational, with enough action to keep things hoppin' like a kangaroo in a briar patch! Great sequences with Steve 'n' Terri doing what they do best make this an all around great family croc-hunter fiesta! Highly recommended...

A Crocodile Hunter Adventure!
The Crocodile Hunter is also known as Steve Irwin. He is famous for his adventures in the wild, as he captures real animals. The best part is that none of it is a computer generated image or anything of the sort. All of the animal action in this movie is real, and that's what makes it fun. The Crocodile Hunter is the animal hunter who is always happy, and always ready for the next adventure. The only difference between his television show and his movie "The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" is that the movie actually has a plot. I feel that the plot killed the story a little bit. It is kind of like the "Garfield" movie. "Garfield" is about a fat, lazy cat who never seems to want to leave his home. The problem with that movie is that it has a boring plot. The beginning is good because we get a sense of Garfield's lifestyle and regular routines. The highlights of "The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" are the scenes where Steve Irwin is exploring the wildlife, and doing what he does best. Once the storyline kicks in, some of the scenes are stupid a childlike. The could have made a plot similar to the television show, and still have a good adventure story. Irwin makes up for the faults in the movie, because he is always having a good time, and wants us to have a good time watching him. 80% of this movie is fun, while the other 20% could have been changed when it was written. It's a shame this movie didn't make as much money at the box office. It would have probably been better on the big screen, but I missed this one and had to watch it on video.

The story is about a top secret government satellite which has blown up and brought a device that is very important into the Australian outback where it has been swallowed by a crocodile. If the device falls into the wrong hands, it could mean trouble. The CIA has two agents Bob and Vaughan to find the crocodile and get the device back. Another person is plotting to get the device. Their contact Jo has been assigned to get the device, by pretending to be helping them. They don't know how hard it'll be to find the crocodile because of two reasons. The first is the cattle farmer named Brozzie who hates crocodiles and people who go onto her land. The other reason is because of Steve Irwin and his wife Terri. They are a couple devoted to helping the animals. They believe that the government agents are really poachers who want to steal the crododile. They decide to go on a journey to the Austrilian outback, get the crocodile, take it with them, and release it far away and out of danger. The journey is not going to be easy, and the race to the crocodile is on.

"The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" may have a lame plot and some lame acting, but it is because of Steve Irwin that makes the movie work. I'm glad that Steve Irwin and his wife are playing themseleves, and not playing people similar to them or something like that. If they ever made a sequal to this movie, they should make it more about the jungle, and something that the Irwins have to do there because of something wrong with the animals instead of throwing in the governement and lame things like that. "The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course" came out during the summer, and now that it is summer again, although two years later, it is the perfect family film to rent and watch anytime. It's action packed, full of fun, and should be satisfying to anybody who will give it the time of day.

ENJOY!

Rated PG for action violence/peril and mild language.

Crikey Review
Being a big fan of the Crocodile Hunter, I loved this movie!!
One of the great things of this movie is that it's great for all
ages. Like the Crocodile Hunter would say is that the beauty of the film is that everything is real and is right up with you. I was ethusiastic about all parts of the movie but one of my most favorite parts was when Steve Irwin got on the car and started to fight the CIA agent!! LOL!!! Those funny times!! Then there was also the part when he calmed down the biggest snake in Austrailia!! WOO!! It was amazing!!!!! I th ink the biggest reason that this movie is great was because of Steve Irwin himself!! Well I hope I convinced you into buying this great film!! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Forget about Kevin Costner's sun-kissed, water-colored,Oscar-winning Dances with Wolves. Black Robe, which was directed byBruce Beresford, a director who gave the world the finest film of the early '80sAustralian new wave, Breaker Morant, and who continually collides cultures and ethnicity in his films (Mister Johnson, Driving Miss Daisy), matchesand surpasses the Costner epic as an expertly crafted, brutal saga of redemption and salvation. In 1634 a youngFrench Jesuit missionary is assigned to trek 1,500 miles through the New France wilderness to a mission settled in Huron Indian country.Black Robe chronicles the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Blutheau) as heleaves his Jesuit brothers and, with the aid of a young translator and guide,Daniel (Aden Young), and eight canoes of Algonquin Indians, moves into the uncompromising Canadian northern territory on a die-hard mission toconvert the natives. Mixing elements of Michael Mann's The Last of the Mohicans and Roland Joffé's The Mission, Beresford offers a restlesstale of Laforgue's conflicted faith juxtaposed against the sublime spiritual harmony withthe land that the Huron and Algonquin already hold. Black Robedances to its own drummer and is tuned into the precarious balance between nature'smystery and spirit and the strident, unyielding religious ethic. The cinematographyby Peter James is relentlessly cruel and bleak, but it absolutely conveysthe obstacles that face the idealistic and blind young priest, who by theend, has faced his own awakening. The film also features one of the late, great composer Georges Delerue's most noble scores. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Horrifying realism, but profound in picturing culture clash.
Quebec 1634. Jesuit missionaries from France venture bravely into New France (Canada) to convert the Indian savages from their paganism. That's the historical background of "Black Robe", a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. It portrays the story of a fictional black robe Father Laforgue, who undertakes an arduous 1500 mile journey at the onset of a harsh winter. Guided by Algonquin Indians, threatened by Iroquois Indians, his destination is the Huron Indians. He is threatened by the elements, but most of all by the Indian paganism which construes him as a demon. The plot, however, is neither memorable nor outstanding - it is merely the background for a careful contemplation of characterization and complex questions about culture clash.

Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals.

But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer.

Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also port