Konterr Brilliant and touching

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

weezeralfalfa A film adaptation of Brian Moore's novel of the same title, which I haven't read. It concerns a 1634 expedition, starting from Quebec, up the St. Lawrence, and beyond to a Huron mission, led by Jesuit LaForgue, who wears the traditional black robe and broad-rimmed hat. Another member, Daniel, speaks Algonquin, and initially professes an interest in becoming a Jesuit, if he returns. There are also several canoes filled with Algonquin guides and some of their family. This includes Chomina, his wife, and marriageable daughter, Annuka. Along the way, they encounter another Algonquin tribe, as well as Mohawks, who take them prisoner, and Hurons suffering a smallpox epidemic.To me, the most revealing character is Daniel: the laymen who accompanied LaForgue on this expedition. When LaForgue talks up the advantages of Christianity to the Indians, Daniel notes that they are already acting more like true Christians than most Europeans, in that they live for each other, and forgive things that most Europeans would not forgive. They also have their own idea of an afterlife. They believe that the spirits of the deceased emerge at night to hunt the spirits of departed animals. They are not interested in a place where most of the spirits are Westerners, and where the spirits aren't allowed to smoke tobacco or make love to female spirits . Daniel, having the advantage of speaking Algonquin, feels more at ease with their beliefs and customs. Thus, he soon begins a sexual relationship with Annuka. However, it's clear she's not a virgin, as he watches her making love with an Indian in their Tepee. Also, she flaunts her sexuality toward the Iroquois guard of their tepee, when awaiting death in the morrow, to chance a possible rendering of the guard unconscious. This promiscuity doesn't particularly bother Daniel, although LaForgue considers it a sin for him to lust after even an unmarried girl. Annuka's father discourages her from continuing a relationship with Daniel, claiming he is ugly and a stupid European. Annuka thinks it's very strange that LaForgue isn't interested in sexual relations. In consequence, she suspects he may be a devil. But Daniel explains that his position requires him to be celibate. The last part of the film follows LaForgue, alone of the original party. Thus, we are left wondering what became of Daniel and Annuka, who are left at the threshold of entering the Huron mission.When LaForgue enters the Huron mission, and finds all the Europeans killed, except Rev. Jerome, Jerome tells him that the Hurons killed them because they blamed them for the smallpox epidemic, thinking that this plague was unleashed on them because they resisted converting to Christianity. Historically, frontier doctor Marcus Whitman along with other Europeans, were massacred because the Indians noticed that his European measles patients mostly recovered, whereas his Indian patients seldom did. I agree that LaForge and the Indians(Algonquin and Huron)gradually became more tolerant of the other's customs and thinking. He began to see the Indians as more than just fodder for his conversion ambitions. At the end, the Hurons ask if he loved them. After some delay, he answered "yes". Then, he baptized them with the understanding that this would not cure or prevent their smallpox sickness, but would qualify them to a chance of entering heaven.

Wuchak Released in 1991 and based on Brian Moore's researched novel, "Black Robe" relays the story of a young Jesuit priest in 1634 visiting the French settlement that later became Quebec City. Father LaForgue is assigned to a distant Huron mission accompanied by a young quasi-believing assistant and a family of Algonquin Indians. The group faces challenges beyond the harsh realities of the river trek itself, including an attack by hostile Iroquois. Of course the Indians question the "strange ways" of the priest and his dark attire and wonder whether he is a demon. Instead of addressing him as "Father" they simply call him "Black Robe." I've viewed "Black Robe" three times now and it never fails to capture my attention from beginning to end (the film runs 101 minutes), which is why I don't get the criticism that it's somehow unabsorbing. What strikes me most is the raw realism. Viewing "Black Robe" is the next best thing to going back in time and viewing the events firsthand.Other highlights include: Lothaire Bluteau's solid performance as the missionary priest; LaForgue's assistant, well played by Aden Young, and his developing love for the daughter of the Algonquin leader, played by the beautiful Sandrine Holt; the Algonquins themselves, particular the patriarch; the freaky midget shaman of a band of Montagnais natives; the harrowing events at an Iroquois fort; the subtext on the truth or falsity of spiritual beliefs, both of the Jesuits and the Indians; and the spectacular cinematography of the Quebec wilderness (mostly the Saint Lawrence River, filmed on location). The film successfully shows the desolate, untamed nature of the NE before the mass encroachment of Europeans.Some may wonder: How does it compare to "Last of the Mohicans" or "Dances with Wolves," two contemporary films also featuring realistic portrayals of AmerIndians? Of the two, "Black Robe" is closer to "Last of the Mohicans" since the story takes place in the East and there aren't any cowboys & Indians, although the story takes place well over a century earlier. The film differs from both in that there aren't really any Hollywood contrivances, including conventional movie plotting. As great and generally believable as those other films are, "Black Robe" shows the harsher, bleaker reality, which some may translate as boring.However, as raw and realistic as "Black Robe" is, it could've been more so, considering that it fails to show one disturbing reality of Eastern AmerIndian culture, as detailed in Moore's book (pointed out by another reviewer): The film avoids depicting the native practice of ritual cannibalism on a dead infant, a custom that was common among the tribes of the Eastern woodlands. To consume an enemy's flesh was to absorb his power. The heart of an especially courageous foe (such as Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by tribal leaders. But, don't get me wrong here, I'm kind of glad the movie left this aspect out."Black Robe" has the same vibe as 2007's "Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan," so if you appreciate that style of raw-realism you'll likely value "Black Robe." Needless to say, if you have ADHD or require constant explosions to maintain your attention, stay far away.GRADE: A

sddavis63 "Black Robe" is a beautifully filmed, sensitive and in the end emotionally moving film depicting the work of French Jesuit missionaries in New France in the 17th century and their interactions with the natives (particularly the Hurons) of the region. The real power of the movie comes from the authenticity with which both the Jesuits and the natives are portrayed. Too often we get caricatures from Hollywood. Missionaries and natives are either romanticized or demonized. But this isn't a big-budget Hollywood production. It's a Canadian-Australian film that presents a pretty balanced view of both groups. Neither are innocent: the Jesuits perhaps a bit too rabid in their determination to challenge what they perceive as the "savage" native culture, the natives perhaps a bit too cruel in their response to the Jesuits - but such is culture of any kind. All societies have their good and bad features. Overall, the good outweighed the bad for both cultures in this movie. The natives are depicted as having a rich culture and spirituality of their own; the Jesuits are depicted as having a true and sincere "love" for the natives and truly believe that they are offering them "paradise" by sharing their religious faith with them. The natives are shown quite appropriately as having mixed reactions to their European "visitors." They're intrigued by them and yet also recognize the dangers that European incursion pose for their culture. The Jesuits have an equally mixed reaction to the natives: appalled by what they perceive (by European standards) as some of the less civilized aspects of the culture, but also recognizing them as people loved by God and therefore deserving of love from them. I thought the story did a great job of balancing all of these different perspectives.Also a highlight here was a superb performance by Lothaire Bluteau as Father Laforge - the Jesuit priest whose missionary journey we follow after he's dispatched from Quebec by Champlain and heads for the inland Huron mission. Bluteau seemed to capture the character perfectly - both his hesitancy about the natives and his very sincere love for them. In fact, I found a scene near the end of the movie to be extremely moving, as a group of sick Hurons approach Bluteau at the mission and ask to be baptized. As Bluteau seems to hesitate (he's previously suggested that the natives shouldn't be baptized without a firm understanding of the faith) the leader of the group asks "do you love us." As Bluteau looks over the desperate people in front of him and remembers some of those he's encountered in the past he's finally moved to respond simply "yes" and the baptism proceeds. Too often the portrayal of European colonization of America portrays only the greed and self-interest of the Europeans. That's undoubtedly true in so many ways and demonstrated by so much tragedy for North American natives, but one should recognize that, especially in New France, the early Jesuit missionaries were in fact motivated by a sincere love for the natives. It may be hard to understand from a 21st century perspective, but offering Christ and the Gospel to the natives in that context was done out of love. Religion is so often offered in caricatures and portrayed in a negative or comic light today that to see it portrayed in a noble and loving way may grate on some viewers who can't understand that. But this movie, I thought, was a wonderful and realistic portrayal of the Jesuit motivation of the era, and a fair portrayal of native culture and response to the Jesuits.Strengthened by some stunning scenery which offered a very authentic feel to the "New France" being depicted, this is a very strong movie. If one can't imagine a movie featuring natives to be anything but bloodthirsty savages or missionaries being anything but greedy exploiters then the reaction to this will be negative. But anyone interested in a realistic and thoughtful presentation of the era and cultures and motivations depicted will find this well worth watching. (7/10)

Cristi_Ciopron The following quote might scare the kids; yet read it, because I deconstruct it after-wards.'No film better captures the strangeness and complexity of the Native-European collision in North America. The courage, fear, religious fervor, confusion, nobility, and savagery of the natives and Jesuits are conveyed with an almost anthropological dispassion, with the beautiful, brutal Canadian wilderness portrayed as the ultimate, sovereign force.'—wrote somewhere a _blogger; well, pals, he couldn't be farer from the truth. I don't like to bash a fellow _blogger—but this one is wholly wrong. Why? Why, fair reader? Because:--(1)—BLACK ROBE is a enormously enjoyable movie—a very fun movie; literate and original, yes, but in a mainstream and discreet ,unassuming way; Beresford is no Godard or other experimental directors; consequently, BLACK ROBE is straight fun, a dramatic thriller; --(2)—there are no scientific whims, no savant antics—it's a suspenseful drama, a thrilling and hugely palatable movie;--(3)—and where did he came with that sovereign nature from? Beresford's flick is entirely about people.On the funny side, there's sex, there's violence and brutality; on the priestly side, the movie's thorough and keen. It's nothing above Beresford's head, as it were—but an original, likable and straight movie.I remember that Lothaire Bluteau, a Canadian, was the lead.