Reviews (3)

Puberty Blues
As I live in Cronulla Sydney Australia where this movie is based its pretty much a MUST HAVE CULT movie around here!!!I LOVE it and its pretty much true to what growing up in this area was like in those days.
-weazle

Puberty Blues = Social Cues
This is the most perf bible on chick-pulling in the Australian culture -deadset. For all those Olympic tourists who are a little nervous aboutapproaching those Bondi babes in Sydney, Puberty Blues provides the perfectsocial cues. And it's not just for the fella's. Every foreign chick to theland down under will get some action in their land down under after alittle Puberty Blues education. Want to impress an Aussie bloke? Chickorolls are the answer, as long as you don't eat any of it you slack-@rsemole. Want to score with most popular guy at school? Then you'll have tolook 'rootable' - how do you achieve that? Only Puberty Blues has theanswer...

Puberty Blues
An odd title but a pretty cool movie. It's sort of an Australian version of Fast Times At Ridgemont High but better. The Australian accents are great, and these guys get chics with lamest lines but the chics just wantsome anyway. It was one of those movies that you see late at night on someobscure cable channel and never forget. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

An enjoyable, lighthearted bit of fluff
Tom Selleck plays a mystery novelist with writer's block who "discovers" his next story in Nina (Paulina Porizkova), a woman so beautiful that she could not possibly commit the murder she is accused of. Selleck offers her an alibi and spends the rest of the movie worrying about whether she really did commit murder and if he is her next victim.

The story line is weak and has an overly pollyanna ending. But the casting is exceptional and the weak plot is lost in the delightful interaction between the characters. Selleck is always good, but Ms Porizkova is surprisingly believable as the almost childlike mysterious woman. The supporting cast bathes the story in a consistent dry humor that makes the outrageous antics of Selleck's character more hilarious by comparison.

While the film is often too cutsy and you have to be in the mood for slapstick to enjoy much of the humor, it is a gentle bit of fluff, perfect for a lighthearted evening with your sweetheart.

"Do you feel the points of my love globes?"
Tom Selleck and Paulina Porizkova do a decent acting job in the movie. The last part of the movie was a bit of a let-down, but overall it is OK. In a nutshell, Porizkova is suspected of a crime, and Selleck offers an alibi for her in exchange for a story.

The best part, responsible for all three stars I've given the DVD, is Selleck's narration of the book his character is writing. That is really funny. The plot and story is mostly non-existent or far-fetched, but the contrast between reality and what he writes is amusing.

No extras at all on the DVD. Rated PG for some language. No sex or nudity - rats!

Strangely Compelling
I have to agree with most of the other reviews. This movie not great art but to me it is great comedy and strangely compelling. I have found myself watching it over and over again. I would rate the film as five-stars. Unfortunately, I can not buy the DVD because the cheapskates at Warner have only released this in butchered full-screen format. As such, I can only rate this DVD as two-stars and certainly no stars for Warner.

Awesome drama!
After CBS television pulled the plug on Tom Selleck's detective drama,"Magnum P.I.",Tom Selleck concentrated on his film career which would last several more years. This film is Selleck's post-Magnum first. It is based on the book by Philip Blackwood,played by Selleck. Philip has written several novels in the past. Blackwood's novel of the same title inspired what was seen in this film. A bearded Philip is present at the arraignment of a young Romanian girl named Nina(Paulina Porizkova). Nina was accused of murder and was convicted. After Philip shaves his beard down to a moustache,he visits Nina in prison,dressed as a minister and bails her out. This is where their romance began. One memorable scene was where Philip is shot in the derriere by a hunting arrow,fired by Nina who was hunting some kind of animal. In the last scene,at a circus,Philip,Nina and a few other people are there as clowns. The few other people are criminals out to get Nina and are arrested. The closing theme entitled "Falling In Love",was written and performed by Randy Newman.

I agree with the review before mine
Wonderful comedy, Fun and intelligent.
Definetly a movie to watch more than ounce. ... Read more

Description

Academy Award nominee Bruce Beresford (Tender Mercies) directs this beautifully rendered period piece and charming coming-of-age tale of a gifted young girl (Laura) sent from the Australian bush to a proper Victorian Ladies school. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

A Gem Of a Film
This is a gem of a film from Australia. Susannah Fowle in the lead role as Laura is well acted and keeps you interested right to the end. I love this film and would highly recommend it.

A Secret Treasure, an Overlooked Gem
This is a beautiful film.
This vaults into my Top 10 Coming of Age films EVER.
I don't want to give out plot details, like the other misguided reviewer did.

Masterful filmmaking. Strong Acting.
Lovely script.
Makes you want to cheer and yell.
See this film, it will make you think of what happened to you when you were growing up.

wisdom from opportunity
This Australian film directed by Bruce Beresford was made in 1977 but not released in the U.S. until 1980, when overseas interest in Australian films was fueled by titles like My Brilliant Career and The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. However Beresford is a lesser talent than either of the directors of those two films, Gillian Armstrong and Fred Schepisi. This film is like the underbelly of Peter Weir's 1975 Picnic at Hanging Rock, also set in a turn of the century ladies college, but while Weir's title is all romantic lyricism, Beresford goes for lowbrow comedy. Beresford's out to show how schoolgirls are just as cruel as schoolboys by placing a fish-out-of-water into their "well-bred" environment. Of course, it's no surprise that the impoverished heroine Laura is far more civilised than the other girls. That is, until she learns that the "wisdom" to be got is being an opportunist. Pauline Kael put it best when she wrote "what she learns is the principle of contagion - that you get close to the powerful, so that their power can rub off on you, and stay clear of the helpless and weak, so their failure won't infect you". Such is the rewards of finishing schools. Beresford even gives us a freeze-frame close-up of Laura with over-bite begging for acceptance. He isn't interested in presenting these girls as beautiful or sensuous, and deliberately shows their facial pimples and awkward bodies. Even the suggestion of lesbianism in Laura's relationships with 2 girls are diffused by making one fat and expelled (for stealing from the others to buy a ring for Laura), and the other a rich older student, who cradles Laura in bed like a mother. The female staff are also grotesques - Sheila Helpmann as the schoolmistress wears an unwavering look of disdain, though when she drops it at Laura's graduation, we get a laugh, and Beresford undercuts the sight of floating black swans that Laura feeds by having them bleet loudly. The film works the best with Beresford's use of Laura's piano playing, when he edits to his comic routines, but he unfortunately indulges Barry Humphries as the school's minister in a long monologue where he denounces the thieving friend. ... Read more

Reviews (181)

Good Acting - Predictable Ending
Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd are two phenominal actors, and anything that either one of them is in is usually good. Double Jeopardy is merely okay.

Judd plays a woman, named Libby Parsons, who lives a fairly nice life, until one day, her husband goes missing while on a sailing expedition. Libby is found covered in his blood, and he is declared dead, after searches turn up nothing. All evidence points towards her, and she is sent to prison for his murder. While incarcerated, she finds out that he faked his death, and is living abroad with their young child. Upon release, she meets Jones, who plays the caretaker of the halfway house she now lives in. The rest of the movie deals with her trying to find her husband and, more importantly, her son.

Judd and Jones are truly exceptional in the film. The role seemed to be made for Jones, and Ashley Judd did a wonderful job as always, and she was said to have performed all of her own stunts.

The real problem with the film is that it is extremely predictable. This is Hollywood, and about twenty-five minutes into the movie, when her so-called "great awakening" takes place in prison, it is so obvious as to how the film will end. There were some very minor twists throughout the film, but the ending still remained crystal clear.

Overall, the film was okay. Besides the good acting, there were some nice action scenes. Unfortunately, the plot was too predictable, as it tried to uplhold the typical Hollywood standards way too much. If you're a fan of Jones or Judd, you will probably enjoy it from an acting standpoint, but don't expect much else.

Tommy Lee Jones fan
"Double Jeopardy" is one of the best action films i've seen in a long time, by far. If you decide to purchase this film, I guarantee you won't be disapointed. I highly recommend it!

Great Premise...
...Terrible movie. Ashley Judd holds your attention but the script has a lot of holes, Jones is playing his "Fugitive" role again as he has too many times before. There are a few well done action scenes, but that is about it...Otherwise this is one of the worst of its kind. Do not buy this film. There are too many other better films in this genre.

No surprises, but fast-paced script and good photography
This 1999 film stars Ashley Judd as a woman who is convicted of killing her husband. His body is never found and the audience knows she's been framed. While she's in prison she finds out she can never be tried for the same crime twice, so when she gets out she goes hunting for him. Naturally there is a darling little child involved and naturally our heart goes out to the woman who's been terribly wronged. Tommy Lee Jones is cast as her parole officer who runs a half-way house. She spends a lot of time running away from him and this leads to some wonderful chase scenes. At one point they are both underwater after she's been handcuffed inside a car.

There are no real surprises in the film, just some fine acting, good photography and a fast-paced script that throws Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones into conflict. In spite of the formula however, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Therefore, I suggest it as a escape film to keep you mind involved in the perils of the people on the screen instead of focusing on your own day-to-day issues. Recommended.

JUDD AND JONES SAVE THE DAY
We all can tend to be a little too critical at times..I've had that problem for years. Sure this movie is predictable and has a lot of those old cliches we've seen dozens of times before. So the real issue is did I still enjoy it? Yes, very much so. Bruce Beresford's direction brought out splendid performances from Ashley Judd, Tommy Lee Jones and Bruce Greenwood. Even though Ashley's Libby does some incredibly stupid and dangerous things, I jumped right in and rooted her on. Greenwood's Nicholas/Simon/Jonathan is a lesson in sociopathic sleeze. Not only does he let his wife go to prison for his murder, he tells their son that his mother is dead, marries his wife's best friend, and then kills her in a gas explosion. One of the vilest creatures to hit film in some time. Tommy Lee is once again the Fugitive Hunter, but he's cool. Some of the action scenes are great and the ending serves up what you wanted..revenge and reunion.
I liked it. ... Read more

Reviews (28)

An Interesting True Story and an Excellent Movie
Director Bruce Beresford does an excellent job of translating this true story into an understated yet moving and ultimately heartwarming story of perserverance, love, human frailty, and faith. Pierce Brosman is both the coproducer and central character Desmond Doyle (although only one of the stars). The attraction for Brosnan of both the story and the role are obvious; he and Beresford deserve praise for their belief in the power of the story and their choice to tell it in a straightforward way with minimal embellishments or sentimentality.

Doyle is an Irish tradesman whose wife tires of their struggles and leaves him and their two boys and daughter Emily on the day after Christmas,1953. Given Doyle's unemployment and limited prospects and under the dictates of Irish family law at that time, the government places the brothers and Emily in separate Catholic orphanages. The film traces Desmond's efforts to both gain employment and eventually reform his heavy drinking habits, followed by his subsequent frustration with the government bureaucratic and court decisions that prohibit him from reuniting his family. He eventually enlists the support of two lawyers (Steven Rhea, Aidan Quinn) who consult a retired well known law professor (Alan Bates, coincidently Desmond's childhood idol as a famous rugby player) who reluctantly agrees to aid in the preparation of their case and eventually devises a strategy to challenge the law as unconstitutional. But this is not presented as a David vs. Goliath battle, but simply as an imperfect but devoted father determined to explore all possible means to be reunited with his children.

All the performaces were excellent and true to the story. Frank Kelly had an essential role as Desmond's father, and helped provide some of the infectious Irish music which was a key element in Desmond's transformation. Juliana Margulies played the barmaid and love interest to whom his lawyer was also attracted (in one of the few devices utilized to enliven the plot). Alan Bates role was wonderful and his performance was superb; however, the story rang true because of the acting of Sophie Vavasseur in the title role of Evelyn, Desmond's smart, loving, principled daughter whose love for her father and religious conviction in the truth and belief in goodness and God's love allowed her to maintain her faith that their family would eventually be reunited and helped provide her father with the strength that he needed.

I strongly recommend this movie for those theater goers who want to see excellent performances and an interesting and powerful story. It is relatively short (just over an hour and a half), and is in direct contrast to most modern films which attempt to overwhelm you with some combination of special effects, action, comedy, extreme emotional impact, excruciating detail or vulgarity. I was tempted to rate it five stars, and while in the end I decided that it did not quite rise to the top rating it is definitely a four star plus.

A Tender Story, This
EVELYN is one of those quiet films that doesn't get a lot of brouhaha when released but becomes a classic when it is widely available in the video stores. Based on an actual incident in Ireland in 1953 when a father deprived of his children by quirky twists of the courts perseveres in the name of fatherly love to achieve a challenge at the highest Supreme Court level to achieve a modification fo the Irish Constitution. Pierce Brosnan portrays the lovable father in question and his legal support comes from some the finest actors avialable today - Stephen Rea, Aidan Quinn, Alan Bates, and a bench full of sedate curmudgeons. Love interest is ably provided by the as usual superb Julianna Marguiles and a terrific cast of children. The atmosphere of the film is wholly Irish, from the views of the countryside, to Dublin skylines, to the interiors of the Catholic schools for girls and those for boys. Though the outcome of the movie is never in doubt, it is the getting there that provides a wholly satisfying glimpse of a bit of social reform history lovingly re-enacted.

Heartstrings & Clover
This little jewel of a film is as potent as it has been unheralded. Australian Director Bruce Beresford who was nominated for a Best Director Oscar for "Tender Mercies" and has also done "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Double Jeopardy" does a marvelous job with the small independent feature. From the informative featurette on the DVD, he was instrumental in pruning screenwriter Paul Pender's screenplay and insisting on Pierce Brosnan's final courtroom speech.

This film is one that touches your heartstrings. The theme of love a parent has for their children is universal and allows this to be a movie that is important to us. With the Irish setting and plot that centers on the Irish judicial system, it seems like heartstrings & clover.

Pierce Brosnan was the moving force behind putting the picture together; and it is an admirable project. Brosnan turns in one of his best performances as the father who fights to get his children back. His voice cracks with emotion as he tells how much he loves them and that he wants to bring them up surrounded by love. It's not corny or overly sentimental; it's what makes the world go round!

Sophie Vavasseur is wonderful as the title character Evelyn. She has the pureness and faith of a child's heart and nails the sweetness of the character. The scene where she watches her mother run off with another man is heartbreaking as the audience understands more than the child who watches with puzzlement. If there were more to wish for, additional time for the two boys to show their father's connection to them would have focused on the whole family.

ER's Julianna Margulies does a nice job as the supportive Bernadette who tends bar. She refers Brosnan's Desmond Doyle character to her brother lawyer Michael Beattie played by Stephen Rea. Rea's subdued solicitor character leads Doyle to yet another lawyer, barrister Nick Barron played by Aidan Quinn. They get Thomas Connolly on the team played by Alan Bates, recently from "Gosford Park" and "The Mothman Prophecy." Bates passed away from cancer in December 2003, but is full of feisty spirit as he shepherds the case to Irish Supreme Court. As Charlotte Doyle, Mairead Devlin gives a brief but memorable performance as the restless wife.

"Evelyn" was a small film, but it works wonderfully. It tugs at the heartstrings and is a great family film to help us recall how much our families mean in our lives. The shooting on the film started shortly after 9/11 and seems to draw inspiration from the time in which it was shot. The fact that this is based on a true story makes it poignant. This is essential viewing! Enjoy!

A Must See for Fathers (and Mothers and, especially, Judges)
Pierce Brosnan delivers a great performance in a serious role--a true story of Desmond Doyle, a man who changed Irish custody law. Doyle, whose wife left him with two small children, gave the children up temporarily (he thought) to the care of the Catholic church. He fought the Church and the state courts to the Irish Supreme Court to get his children back. Those who believe in a parent's constitutional right to be a parent to his children should buy this movie and watch it. It is a story of encouragement for fathers everywhere who are fighting for their children.

Don Hubin

Perfectly charming family film.
This is one of those rare films in which you will find a quality plot, good dialogue, and fine performances. Also I appreciate that it is such a clean movie that I can watch it with my mother without her being shocked or offended. ... Read more

Description

An autistic boy is the only witness to his parents' murder. A psychiatrist with a troubled past of his own attempts to help the boy deal with his loss and to recount his recollection of the crime. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

sleeper hit of the year
This was a very intriguing movie. I liked it for its plot. Nice little whodunit. It was different. Very quiet movie. Not slow, just very quiet and steady. Parents murdered in their bedroom and the only witness is a little boy who's autistic and can't tell what he saw. Richard Dreyfus, Liv Tyler, and especially the little boy were all good. Linda Hamilton has a very minor role. I believe this was Liv Tyler's first movie -- she's not great, but not bad either.

Intriguing
I liked this movie. I saw it a long time ago and would like to see it again. It was interesting, but I don't remember much about it. The only thing that is wrong with it is that Liv Tyler is in it. She has to be the worst actress in the world!!! I don't know why people like her. If she hadn't been in it the movie would be better, but I still liked it. I reconmend it.

Wonderful
I saw this movie several years ago and loved it. I thought it was suspensful, well acted and a great story. Liv Tyler, Richard Dryfus and Linda Hamilton all did a wonderful job. I highly recommend this movie to those who like the suspense/murder mystrey genre.

Not Silent Enough...
Oh man, is this movie ever bad! Richard Dreyfuss, Linda Hamilton and Liv Tyler star in this convoluted yet ultimately stupid stew of tv movie cliches (the troubles of an autistic boy), a murder mystery and "Fatal Attraction" with a little "Lolita" for spice, because Liv's so hot. In fact, the only reason I watched this in the first place was because she's in it! Curse my manly urges for visiting this film upon me!

It features one of the most misconceived plot devices yet employed in mainstream cinema- the kid can perfectly imitate any voice he's ever heard, and has a photographic memory, so they overdub his vocals, which turns him into a mini-"Mercury Theatre on the Air" and the whole movie goes straight into the toilet. You have to see this scene to believe how horrible it plays.

Really, if Liv wasn't in this, it'd be a 1-star effort.

Do you like to play poker?
This movie is one of the best sleeper hits ever. with a stunning performance by the little guy, and dont forget, the girl from Armaggedon is in this movie too. And Richard Dreyfuss gives an excellent performance as well. I must say the script is a little messy and the film is a little shaky, but deffinently over way too fast. It actually looks like a real life crime, with real life People (who make real mistakes like overlooking certain OBVIOUS clues), so with that in mind it really makes for a sort 48 hours (tv show not movie) aproach to a murder that is ultimately very intersting and invigorating. Plot: An autistic boy with a bad memory (the little guy), a teenage girl asleep in her bedroom (the girl from armaggedon), two parents butchard to death with a large knife that the boy is left holding when the police and the child psychiatrist (Dreyfuss) arrives. The case is set and the boy is the only witness, but the only words he can say are the words he heard from that night. Now a detective (I think John Litgo) and the psychiastrist along with some women i think is his wife (Linda Hamilton) Have to find out what the boy knows and protect him at the same time from the killer, but who is the killer, was it the boy...or someone else? Sorry about not explaining the characters too much but its been along time since iv seen it, and it took me forever to find out where I could buy it, then it dawned on me, AMAZON.COM. anyway, buy this movie, it is so cool, you'll never figure it out till its too late. ... Read more

Reviews (48)

An Unlikely Pair
This Academy Award winning drama is a touching story about the coexistence of an aging southern woman and her chauffer. Miss Daisy played by Jessica Tandy (Academy Award for Best Actress) is a feisty Jewish woman forced to endure the tragedy of growing older. Her son played by Dan Aykroyd is faced with the dilemma of playing parent to his parent. Morgan Freeman plays Hoke, the black chauffer hired by her son. Set in Atlanta, GA beginning in the late 1940's this film spans 25 years of an unlikely friendship before and during the fight for Civil Rights. A must see classic, this story keeps the audience wondering what will she think of next, and how will he handle it. Skillfully done with everyday events and situations it is certainly deserving of the Best Picture Academy Award.

A Great Tale of an Unlikely Friendship
"Driving Miss Daisy" is one of the best films released in 1989, rightfully winning four Oscars: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Makeup. This adaptation of the play version is brilliant. It tells the story, set between 1940's-1960's, of a fiesty elderly woman who's unhappy of growing old. As she meets a man who becomes her driver, the story develops into something special. The combination of stories become increasingly interesting as the two develop a close friendship. Their relationship beats the racist society and the painful past that the man has endured. Through everything, their lives change forever. Her son's frequent visits to her house offer the added entertainment value as it adds to the emotional value. Despite the twenty-five year plot span, the storyline flows smoothly. The warm, loving story offers an unforgettable viewing experience.

Jessica Tandy performs her role as the unhappy elderly woman splendidly. Her every expressed emotion is felt upon audiences. She became the oldest person to win an Oscar, at age 80. Morgan Freeman and Dan Ackroyd's Oscar nominated roles (Best Actor/ Best Supporting Actor) offer the added unique theme to this great film. All other actors also performed wonderfully.

The quality of "Driving Miss Daisy" proves that it's destined to become a classic in the following years. It's sure to continue pleasing audiences for many years to come. Most viewers will have to watch it multiple times to fully understand the movie because of its deep storyline. Afterwards, those who do will be glad they did.

Old Friends.
Lovely is such an old fashioned word, I know. But that's the word that describes this film, for me. The story of the developing friendship over many years between the black chaueffeur and the older Jewish woman is very heartwarming in its simplicity. Jessica Tandy is marvelous as "Miss Daisy" the fiercely independant, irascible widow, whose advancing age requires her son to employ, against her wishes, a driver/companion for her. Miss Tandy, who originated the role of Blanche DuBois on Broadway in "A Streetcar Named Desire", was a wonderful actress. This was one of her last films, and all the skill, sublety, and experience of her life-long craft come together to create a living, breathing "Miss Daisy." Morgan Freeman meets her skill in his portrayal of "Hoag", the accomodating chaueffeur. He has the manner of a certain resignation that an older black man may have felt in the turbulent, prejudiced south in which he lived, yet exudes dignity. He has the manner of "Hoag" down pat, right down to the closed mouth laugh that I have seen in the old black men who hang out on the corner. This is not a caricature, he IS "Hoag." His relationship with Miss Daisy starts out very rocky, to say the least, but, as time passes, their places in each others lives develope into almost a "marriage", with a quiet understanding of, and dependence on, each other. And though Miss Daisy insists she was not prejudiced, and inherently wasn't, it is touching to see her slowly let go of her last universally accepted beliefs of peoples place in society, where the "colored" help were always servants of some sort, and the line was just never crossed. Scenes such as the one where she and "Hoag" are both eating their dinner in the house, she in the dining room, he , alone in the kitchen, express this. The very thought of them dining together, it just wasn't done. As time goes on, and she becomes quietly aware of the similarities of the prejudices against her religion and the prejudices and injustice against Hoags race, the differences that seperate them become insignicant. Dan Akroyd and Patti Lupone are fine as Miss Daisy's son and his typically '50s wife, who admonishes her black maid for the unforgivable sin of forgetting to tell her she was out of coconut for the ambrosia she was serving to her guests... a '50s hostess' nightmare. There are a few moments when their performances threaten to lapse into parody, but one is only aware of this because this is basically a two person play, and the skill and realism of Tandys and Freemans performances just eclipse the others, they are basically props compared to the skill and, yes, sublety of the leads . The exception is Esther Rolle as "Idella" , Miss Daisys black maid. Though her part is small, and her lines few, she manages to convey a resigned dignity also, and her dead-pan delivery of several one liners is very humorous. Miss Daisys affection and respect for Idella is clearly etched upon her face, however, at Idella's funeral. This is just a wonderfully simple, beautiful film. It never treads into being overly sentimental, thanks to the casting of two very special stars. This film took many by surprise by winning the Oscar for best film of the year, proving that a movie with no special effects, and, that actually tells a story, can still move audiences. The final scene, where their years-long friendship comes full circle, will have tears in your eyes, as Miss Daisy conveys the sweet sad wisdom of the old, who know that "all shall soon pass...."

Fascinating, Memorable, Perfect
Not much can be added to the praise of others here, or to the film's enthusiastic reception by the public. I feel that this is one of those rare films that is simply perfect from beginning to end. Even if you don't develop an affection for the characters, and even if you don't care for the story line, it's a stretch to fault this movie in any way. The Special Edition DVD is preferred (not many extras, but those included are worth the effort). After watching my copy 7 times and trying to get really picky with it, I juist can't find anything amiss with Beresford's beautiful production. SO why didn't he win a Director Oscar? Must've been the competition that year, but he certainly deserved to win. Only other disappointment: Freeman nominated, but didn't win. And to think this film was made for less than $6 million, and racked in a fortune and a handful of Oscars!

Freeman and Tandy What a Combo!!
Freeman and Tandy are quite a combo!!

This is a sensitive film that says a lot about humanity.
Compassionate humanism oozes from this movie.
It certainly deserved the Picture of the Year in 1989. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

What The Road To Hell Is Paved With
Read Amazon.com's editorial review of this movie for a good overview of its setting. I can only add that the movie is a look at how good intentions can backfire, in this case that of the European view of progress mixing with African tradition like oil with water.

The outcome is tragic, yet the principal characters have nothing but fine motives for what they are about. Culture and other impersonal forces have the final say, and one is left to wonder if progress, or may I say "progress," should be forced on a reluctant people.

Director Bruce Beresford has been rather unfairly criticized for lop-sided portrayals of virtuous native cultures versus corruptive western civilization, but as with his superb "Black Robe" movie "Mister Johnson" shows some of the less flattering sides of primitive societies. Indeed, "Black Robe" set off a minor spate of protest for its unblinkingly frank portrayal of Indian tribes in North America several centuries ago.

Ultimately it's probably safe to say that "Mister Johnson" gives a fairly sympathetic showing of the Africans suddenly entangled in the road project headed up by Pierce Brosnan's character, but does so without truckling. This movie also shows that Brosnan has a broader range than just playing Bond, James Bond.

A Classic Tragedy
This deceptively simple, underrated drama is actually a very good classical tragedy, set in colonial Africa. The protagonist is brought down by his tragic character flaw; the rules of unity are also in evidence. Give it a chance, particularly if you are a student of classical literature.

Okay...
I did find this to be slow-moving, but nonetheless rewarding. So, that's a mixed review! But it was intelligently written, beautifully shot, and well-acted. And I lived in Africa for a year, and saw how some of the Africans really lived in the present, without regard for the future. And it's Mr. Johnson's disregard for the consequences of his actions that does him in. Very true to the African character, I'm afraid (call me a colonially-minded bigot if you want, but that was my experience). So I found the movie true-to-life on that score.

Terrible DVD quality! So-So Film.
This DVD has the worse quality of any DVD in my collection, even though the box reads "guaranteed superior quality". Grainy picture, washed out colors, and sound that plays more through rear speakers are some of the low points. This is the reason for the low rating of 2 stars.

As to the film, it contains beautiful African scenery which makes the poor DVD transfer that much more regretable. The acting is first rate. And the views of West African village society are insightful. However, the storyline is a rehash of the typical British colonial flick...you know, native mistreated by the overlords, gets into trouble and ends up road kill on the imperial super highway. Too bad that the director could not develop the characters better. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

What The Road To Hell Is Paved With
Read Amazon.com's editorial review of this movie for a good overview of its setting. I can only add that the movie is a look at how good intentions can backfire, in this case that of the European view of progress mixing with African tradition like oil with water.

The outcome is tragic, yet the principal characters have nothing but fine motives for what they are about. Culture and other impersonal forces have the final say, and one is left to wonder if progress, or may I say "progress," should be forced on a reluctant people.

Director Bruce Beresford has been rather unfairly criticized for lop-sided portrayals of virtuous native cultures versus corruptive western civilization, but as with his superb "Black Robe" movie "Mister Johnson" shows some of the less flattering sides of primitive societies. Indeed, "Black Robe" set off a minor spate of protest for its unblinkingly frank portrayal of Indian tribes in North America several centuries ago.

Ultimately it's probably safe to say that "Mister Johnson" gives a fairly sympathetic showing of the Africans suddenly entangled in the road project headed up by Pierce Brosnan's character, but does so without truckling. This movie also shows that Brosnan has a broader range than just playing Bond, James Bond.

A Classic Tragedy
This deceptively simple, underrated drama is actually a very good classical tragedy, set in colonial Africa. The protagonist is brought down by his tragic character flaw; the rules of unity are also in evidence. Give it a chance, particularly if you are a student of classical literature.

Okay...
I did find this to be slow-moving, but nonetheless rewarding. So, that's a mixed review! But it was intelligently written, beautifully shot, and well-acted. And I lived in Africa for a year, and saw how some of the Africans really lived in the present, without regard for the future. And it's Mr. Johnson's disregard for the consequences of his actions that does him in. Very true to the African character, I'm afraid (call me a colonially-minded bigot if you want, but that was my experience). So I found the movie true-to-life on that score.

Terrible DVD quality! So-So Film.
This DVD has the worse quality of any DVD in my collection, even though the box reads "guaranteed superior quality". Grainy picture, washed out colors, and sound that plays more through rear speakers are some of the low points. This is the reason for the low rating of 2 stars.

As to the film, it contains beautiful African scenery which makes the poor DVD transfer that much more regretable. The acting is first rate. And the views of West African village society are insightful. However, the storyline is a rehash of the typical British colonial flick...you know, native mistreated by the overlords, gets into trouble and ends up road kill on the imperial super highway. Too bad that the director could not develop the characters better. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The Fraternity of the Who Done It
As an armored car rolls over the iconic Sydney harbor bridge Bruce Beresford establishes the location for what is otherwise a non site-specific heist story that attempts to quell the omnipresence of urban malaise. Quickly paced cross cutting alludes to the monetary volume of the armored car's destination, a security firm owned by Lionel Darcy (Frank Wilson). Who doesn't want a piece of that action? Immediately, the viewer is oriented with the network involved in the movement of Australian currency and, subsequently, the number of hands the bills pass through. Laundering beckons.

A screenplay loosely based on the 1972 work of Donald Minchin, Beresford blends the framework with a true crime story, credited in the opening sequence. The camera meanders through the blue-collar operation floor and driver's depot to settle behind the closed doors of the technocrats. After being shaken down by local crooked cop Sammy Rose (Alan Cassell), Lionel Darcy receives an anonymous tip from his object of a secretary, a warning that his firm is soon to be hit, worrying more than just the boss.

Eric Jackson (Terence Donovon) his brother Brian (Brian Brown) and a mate (who could be mistaken as their father) Ed Gallagher (Ray Marshall) have been planning an inside job for almost five years. These Ockers aren't going allow some "poof" to rock up asking where his piece is? They have their own suspicions regarding the culprit, new employee Leo Bassett (Tony Bonner). The amateur sleuths plan to initiate the rookie as means to their own ends, a true mask for self-interest.
Other than Beresford's introduction to operations and interest groups, there exists no further marring of public and private, each character riddled with the presence of corruption. Any further duality is developed through action, the result governing over whether he becomes victimized or acts as victimizer.

The first "action" is a mob hit on a Darcy's armored car, fisticuffs ending in a shotgun blast so visceral, it alone warrants the 18+ rating. Was it the mob that sent the letter? When the press gets word of the heist, the ensuing public relations blunders solidify the ineptness of corporate crisis management, foreshadowing further assaults on the company. Local crime boss Jack Henderson (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell) obviously wants a piece of the action. The Ockers have spent so much time planning that they rebuilt a custom armored car for heist day. What about they new guy? The fraternity amongst interest groups ranges from professional to amateur, each camp knowing full well that "if someone was to rip the joint off if would be done from the inside."

Beresford deconstructs the effects of money and subsequence on business, personal and family relations and presents it in a classic plot design that makes the stigma of the "who done it" malleable. Money Movers asks who's going to do it?
"I remember that one," says Brian Brown. "I had done a couple of movies, and got to read the part for the cop, but knew I wasn't anything like him." Asking which part he preferred Brian told Bruce that he "...could play the brother, but I knew it had been cast. It had been cast." Two hours later Brian got his wish, cast as Brian Jackson, along side Terence Donovan, the brother to the leading role. "I was young, too much of a kid play the gritty cop, but the brother," remembers Brian, "I could do that."

The official line on Money Movers has tended to focus the fraternity between male characters and "their" women; secondary objects who legitimize their function by getting coffee or being a lamb and leaving the room when business is on the table. It appears as if little within the genre, certainly in terms of gender relations, has been revised in the last twenty years. David Caesar recalls that like most heist or crime genre films, "...it's important not to pretend otherwise, it's a guys film. Money Movers is a good film, an underrated film that not enough Australian's have seen." The fraternity in Money Movers, the "boys club" mentality, has acted as a catalyst for many of the generic successes that are popular today.

Watching Money Movers is only possible on VHS at this point. Its structure popularized the Australian crime film with undertones present in Hollywood films such as Michael Mann's Thief, 1981. Money Movers houses a subtext that most viewers can relate to, which is why a reprise warrants further research. Wouldn't it be nice to have all that money? How would my life be different...surely for the better? Bruce Beresford showed, with eloquence, how this idealism could backfire, without the cynicism often associated with the down and out, or the stereotypes of big business or organized crime. As such the film is an important landmark on Australian cinematic spectrum for, as Brian Brown concludes "it was a fun movie to do, and now that we are doing quite a few crime genre movies like Chopper and Dirty Deeds, it was really Money Movers that first put us into that sort of territory."

Brian Brown and David Caesar interview by Ashley Allinson on September 11, 2002 in Toronto.

Running Time: 94 minutes
Video Release: July 2, 1991
Distributed by: Roadshow, Imperial Entertainment Corporation

Cast:
Terence Donovon: Eric Jackson
Ed Devereaux: Dick Martin
Tony Bonner: Leo Bassett
Lucky Grills: Robert Conway
Alan Cassell: Sammy Ross
Frank Wilson: Lionel Darcy
Candy Raymod: Mindel Seagers
Bryan Brown: Brain Jackson

Crew:
Bruce Beresford: Director
Matthew Carrol: Producer
Donald McAlpine: Director of Photography
David Copping: Art Editor
William Anderson: Editor ... Read more

Reviews (4)

What The Road To Hell Is Paved With
Read Amazon.com's editorial review of this movie for a good overview of its setting. I can only add that the movie is a look at how good intentions can backfire, in this case that of the European view of progress mixing with African tradition like oil with water.

The outcome is tragic, yet the principal characters have nothing but fine motives for what they are about. Culture and other impersonal forces have the final say, and one is left to wonder if progress, or may I say "progress," should be forced on a reluctant people.

Director Bruce Beresford has been rather unfairly criticized for lop-sided portrayals of virtuous native cultures versus corruptive western civilization, but as with his superb "Black Robe" movie "Mister Johnson" shows some of the less flattering sides of primitive societies. Indeed, "Black Robe" set off a minor spate of protest for its unblinkingly frank portrayal of Indian tribes in North America several centuries ago.

Ultimately it's probably safe to say that "Mister Johnson" gives a fairly sympathetic showing of the Africans suddenly entangled in the road project headed up by Pierce Brosnan's character, but does so without truckling. This movie also shows that Brosnan has a broader range than just playing Bond, James Bond.

A Classic Tragedy
This deceptively simple, underrated drama is actually a very good classical tragedy, set in colonial Africa. The protagonist is brought down by his tragic character flaw; the rules of unity are also in evidence. Give it a chance, particularly if you are a student of classical literature.

Okay...
I did find this to be slow-moving, but nonetheless rewarding. So, that's a mixed review! But it was intelligently written, beautifully shot, and well-acted. And I lived in Africa for a year, and saw how some of the Africans really lived in the present, without regard for the future. And it's Mr. Johnson's disregard for the consequences of his actions that does him in. Very true to the African character, I'm afraid (call me a colonially-minded bigot if you want, but that was my experience). So I found the movie true-to-life on that score.

Terrible DVD quality! So-So Film.
This DVD has the worse quality of any DVD in my collection, even though the box reads "guaranteed superior quality". Grainy picture, washed out colors, and sound that plays more through rear speakers are some of the low points. This is the reason for the low rating of 2 stars.

As to the film, it contains beautiful African scenery which makes the poor DVD transfer that much more regretable. The acting is first rate. And the views of West African village society are insightful. However, the storyline is a rehash of the typical British colonial flick...you know, native mistreated by the overlords, gets into trouble and ends up road kill on the imperial super highway. Too bad that the director could not develop the characters better. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Escape to the past and come to the present
A great history / love story DVD in IMAX, I especially liked the Phil Jones special feature that teaches about the Didgeridoo and Australia.

Also some cool folk stories about Emus andnew slant on how the world was created.

Much more than a love story
"Sydney: A Story of a City" is an attempt to make a hip IMAX film. The tagline is "a modern love story ...with a past" but the romance element is hardly visible. It's by and large a documentary on the history of Sydney, told through the eyes of Virginia (Lucy Bell), an English woman searching for her ancestors. Along the way she meets Marco (Paul Mercurio), an archaeologist uncovering relics from the first years of the colony. He helps with her search, pointing out the highlights of Sydney along the way.

As usual with IMAX, the views of Sydney are glorious and quite diverse. It's not just shots of the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, as one might expect. There are views of The Rocks, the Blue Mountains, Bondi beach, the Hyde Park War Memorial, and many of the oldest buildings in the city. Unfortunately, they are rarely identified, so it helps to have some familiarity with the city. This is possibly the only IMAX film to actually include an IMAX theater, seen zooming past as the duo drive across a bridge.

There are four bonus features, each running 5-10 minutes. The first is a crash course on how to play the digeridoo. The next is a digeridoo performance with pop-up info-bites about the instrument. The last two features are Aboriginal stories with some very low-budget special effects. I found none of these to be particularly interesting, but when the main feature runs just 40 minutes, it's nice to have any special features at all.

I recommend this DVD to anyone looking for picturesque views of Sydney with a light history lesson. The actors are often shown as small dots in the foreground, so I couldn't recommend it to their fans. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

good idea but not for a full movie
the idea has merit and could have been greattly entertaining the only problem is that I can tell you the whole movie in two sentences it is just not enough for a movie yet it is still a intriging idea ... Read more

Reviews (7)

sleeper hit of the year
This was a very intriguing movie. I liked it for its plot. Nice little whodunit. It was different. Very quiet movie. Not slow, just very quiet and steady. Parents murdered in their bedroom and the only witness is a little boy who's autistic and can't tell what he saw. Richard Dreyfus, Liv Tyler, and especially the little boy were all good. Linda Hamilton has a very minor role. I believe this was Liv Tyler's first movie -- she's not great, but not bad either.

Intriguing
I liked this movie. I saw it a long time ago and would like to see it again. It was interesting, but I don't remember much about it. The only thing that is wrong with it is that Liv Tyler is in it. She has to be the worst actress in the world!!! I don't know why people like her. If she hadn't been in it the movie would be better, but I still liked it. I reconmend it.

Wonderful
I saw this movie several years ago and loved it. I thought it was suspensful, well acted and a great story. Liv Tyler, Richard Dryfus and Linda Hamilton all did a wonderful job. I highly recommend this movie to those who like the suspense/murder mystrey genre.

Not Silent Enough...
Oh man, is this movie ever bad! Richard Dreyfuss, Linda Hamilton and Liv Tyler star in this convoluted yet ultimately stupid stew of tv movie cliches (the troubles of an autistic boy), a murder mystery and "Fatal Attraction" with a little "Lolita" for spice, because Liv's so hot. In fact, the only reason I watched this in the first place was because she's in it! Curse my manly urges for visiting this film upon me!

It features one of the most misconceived plot devices yet employed in mainstream cinema- the kid can perfectly imitate any voice he's ever heard, and has a photographic memory, so they overdub his vocals, which turns him into a mini-"Mercury Theatre on the Air" and the whole movie goes straight into the toilet. You have to see this scene to believe how horrible it plays.

Really, if Liv wasn't in this, it'd be a 1-star effort.

Do you like to play poker?
This movie is one of the best sleeper hits ever. with a stunning performance by the little guy, and dont forget, the girl from Armaggedon is in this movie too. And Richard Dreyfuss gives an excellent performance as well. I must say the script is a little messy and the film is a little shaky, but deffinently over way too fast. It actually looks like a real life crime, with real life People (who make real mistakes like overlooking certain OBVIOUS clues), so with that in mind it really makes for a sort 48 hours (tv show not movie) aproach to a murder that is ultimately very intersting and invigorating. Plot: An autistic boy with a bad memory (the little guy), a teenage girl asleep in her bedroom (the girl from armaggedon), two parents butchard to death with a large knife that the boy is left holding when the police and the child psychiatrist (Dreyfuss) arrives. The case is set and the boy is the only witness, but the only words he can say are the words he heard from that night. Now a detective (I think John Litgo) and the psychiastrist along with some women i think is his wife (Linda Hamilton) Have to find out what the boy knows and protect him at the same time from the killer, but who is the killer, was it the boy...or someone else? Sorry about not explaining the characters too much but its been along time since iv seen it, and it took me forever to find out where I could buy it, then it dawned on me, AMAZON.COM. anyway, buy this movie, it is so cool, you'll never figure it out till its too late. ... 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