Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Ryu_Darkwood A beautiful story on the age-old themes: who is guilty on a crime? Does true innocence exist? Too bad the outcome spoils a lot by being a bit infantile. I felt it didn't do justice to the movie as a whole.The scenery of Canadian life in the 19th century is really captivating and draws you as a viewer into its raw atmosphere. You really feel the battle against the elements as the characters are faced against it. Their harsh lives make it practically unbearable to keep a steady pace in life, let alone to have a decent love life. The acting is superb, with a huge extra plus for Caroline Dhavernes as the gorgeous but natural protagonist.

sddavis63 Call me unpatriotic, but I have never been much of an enthusiast for Canadian films. Too many of them are either lame sex comedies or "ethnic" stories about social issues. Nothing wrong with either of those genres if you're interested, but they're just not my cup of tea. This movie, however (the version I saw was entitled "Edge of Madness"), gave me hope that Canadian films can achieve some real heights.Set in Manitoba in 1851, the story is a truly compelling mystery. Annie (Caroline Dhavernas) is a young woman who staggers out of the bush and admits to having killed her abusive husband Simon (Brendan Fehr). Something about her story doesn't ring true to Henry Mullen (Paul Johansson) - the closest thing there is to law enforcement in this village. The movie is then primarily a flashback as Mullen pieces together what actually happened to Simon.The lead actors (Dhavernas, Fehr, Johansson and Corey Sevier as Simon's brother George) all put on excellent performances, and the story moves along crisply. Never once did I find my attention wandering. The sets had a realistic feel to them, as did the characters (the Scottish accents were at times a bit thick and difficult to follow). There were a couple of problems. A bit more research should have been done before the scene in which the girls in the church-run school were singing "What A Friend We Have In Jesus." It's a lovely hymn (and a Canadian hymn, written in Port Hope, Ontario by Joseph Scriven,) but the movie is set in 1851, and this scene was a flashback to Annie as a younger girl (which would put it in the 1840's.) The problem is that Scriven didn't write the hymn until 1855 (and he actually wrote it as a poem) and it would have taken some time before it was set to music and became a popular church hymn. I also thought the ending was a little weak. There was a clear effort by Director Anne Wheeler to keep the viewer guessing about Annie's ultimate fate, but somehow the ending seemed far too contrived for my liking and a bit of a letdown after what had been a very good movie. Still, I liked this very much.7/10

zeid A lot of mystery in this beautiful movie as a terrible story unravels (lots of flashbacks). Very good acting, especially from the main character, played by Caroline Dhavernas, about whom Victor Hugo might have coined his famous phrase: "You're not pretty, you're worse."Loved it: 9/10

Scoopy These comments contain minor spoilers:Edge of Madness, also known as A Wilderness Station, is a quietly competent if decidedly uncommercial film about life in the Canadian wilderness circa 1850. It was filmed on location in Manitoba, directed by the same woman who did Better than Chocolate, an international success, and a film I really enjoyed.Sarah Polley was listed as a producer in this film's advance publicity, and she was to have starred as well, but Polley dropped out of the project for reasons unknown to me, and her role went to unknown Caroline Dhavernas. You've never heard of Dhavernas, but she is lovely and definitely has some talent. The role required a wide range of emotional states, physical challenges, a beautiful singing voice, and extensive nudity, all of which she delivered with the aplomb of a seasoned pro.As the story begins, a young woman stumbles into a remote town from somewhere in the wilderness. Half-crazed, starved, and frost-bitten from a long trek through harsh and frozen country, she spins a mad tale of killing her husband. The young man who passes for a constable in this outback hamlet must try to determine who she is and what, if any, truth resides in her story. The actual story is revealed slowly, inside her flashbacks, as he interrogates her.It seems that she was a good and talented student, pretty and sincere, at an orphanage school for girls when she was chosen by a pioneer to be his bride. Although she was originally ecstatic about a chance to begin a life and start a family, her husband turned out to be an emotionally distant man who wanted a wife for the value of free labor, and to act as a release for his violent sexual urges. She therefore found herself trapped in the middle of the wilderness, isolated from human society, with a brutal monster.The young investigator was torn by his responsibilities. The woman had already confessed to actions which clearly constituted premeditated murder under the law. She had waited until her husband's back was turned, then clubbed him over the head with the biggest rock she could wield. Yet the constable and everyone else could see that she was a gentle and good person who was only doing what must have seemed like the only thing she could have done to escape her life of involuntary imprisonment. In order to further accentuate the helpless of her predicament, the story adds a sub-plot about a local man who tried to rape her while she was in her cell, only to be foiled at the last minute by the constable.The film would have been much better if it had decided to follow that excellent premise through to the end, because at that point it was standing very solidly on the kind of profound moral ground normally reserved for Kieslowski, asking the audience to determine exactly what was "right" in this context. She was in fact guilty of murder, but who among us could cast the first stone. Who could prosecute her after knowing her predicament? And if a society does prosecute and hang such a person, what does that say about the value of its laws and institutions?Unfortunately, the director was not Kieslowski, and her source material was not that profound. The story took some easy cop-outs, thus completely resolving the moral dilemma without ever confronting it.In essence, although it is a small Canadian film, it managed to create a Hollywood ending.Even so, the yarn wasn't bad, to tell you the truth. I think the story gave a believable account of life in those times and the motivations of the various characters.My only complaint was that it had profundity in its grasp, and let it go.