• Unrated, 1 hr. 53 min.
  • Drama
  • Directed By:
    Paul Gross
    On DVD:
    Nov 3, 2009
  • Alliance Atlantis

Critic Review - Hollywood Reporter

A war movie that can't make up its mind whether war is bad or something one can be proud of.

October 3, 2008 | Comments (12)
Hollywood Reporter
Top Critic IconTop Critic



Travis Hill

It's a really well-made WWI epic and you've horribly misjudged it. The ambivalence was intended, and it's a shame that this fact escaped you. Even in the worst moments of man, a soldier can still carry himself with pride and honour.

The British major who bears a striking resemblance to a certain field marshal of the era was a treat. It's something that only those who are familiar with WWI history will catch. To others, he will doubtless appear to be a stock villain.

Oct 18 - 10:28 PM


Marcus S

I could disagree more with the reviewer, I think Livewire is spot on.
I think what you are describing as poor, are some of the best parts of the movie.
Maybe it's a difference between Canadian and American patriotism and film making?

Oct 22 - 03:54 AM


Marcus S

Douldn't, not could disagree.

Oct 22 - 03:55 AM

Conor MacNeill

Conor MacNeill

Couldn't* -_-

Feb 22 - 11:12 PM


Richard Whittaker

"A war movie that can't make up its mind whether war is bad or something one can be proud of."

I read the whole review, but really would like to comment on the headliner itself...

Why should war be "Bad" or "Good"?... War is what it is, and has elements of both... Death, destruction, etc... Yes, they're bad... Stories of courage, companionship and determination against all odds... Those are good.... So I wonder why the need to choose?...

Oct 22 - 01:34 PM


Marc Lacroix

This guy is just mad to find out half way through the movie that this is about Canadians and not Americans.

"...wait... what the hell is this? Canada! Where the hell is that?!"

Oct 26 - 12:00 PM

Glen M.

US Hypocrisy

I completely disagree this reviewer as well.

This movie was well made and didn't have the "Saving Private Ryan", over-the-top, hurray-hurray, we-are-American ambiance that this reviewer has most likely come to expect with Bush#2-era war movies. I believe that this reviewer should avoid rating Canadian made movies until he has actually been to Canada.

Stick to rating kid's films, Kirk.

Nov 9 - 11:21 PM

Victor S.

Victor Simons

Gee Kirk... perhaps if it was starring Americans, and the Americans were actually winning a battle [after side-stepping the war for almost three full years while the rest of the allies were slogging and dying!!] you might have a different take on the film. I just saw it... did you?

Nov 11 - 06:47 PM

Penis C.

Penis Cat

It's a REVIEW.
Reviews are SUBJECTIVE.

You like the movie? Great! Congratulations.
SOME PEOPLE DON'T. It's a true cancer of the internet that people with differing opinions always believe one of them is right and the other is wrong.

Grow up.

Jan 11 - 12:00 PM



Like most have said, you can feel both at the same time and most returning soldiers did.

To the guy that rightly points out America's non-involvement for years, by the time they actually got into battle it was closer to 4 years! ;)

Jan 12 - 03:57 PM

Daniel N.

Daniel Nguyen-Phuoc

Let's try not to be too subjective ourselves?

Personally I felt that the movie *didn't* do much for the memory of those Canadian soldiers. I have a lot of respect for the Canadian Corps and their accomplishments... but their entire dedication to a movie titled after one of their most significant battles took up very little of the movie.

It is, frankly, a misnomer. They could've called it "Canada", because you honestly saw more of that country than the place in the title, all the posters and most of the trailers.

Jan 22 - 01:39 PM



Yes, after actually seeing the movie I was very disappointed. Hope this isn't the best Canadian cinema can do.

Jan 26 - 08:06 PM

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile