There are many deviations from the accepted facts of Jeanne d'Arc's life as set out in her trial documentation and the writings of the time. This said, the central question of whether she was a saint, an inspired lunatic, wholly mentally ill, or simply a headstrong girl determined to grab her chances while she could is well asked. Many of the comments here assert that Besson makes it clear that the Maid was simply mentally ill, yet I read the film as deeply ambivalent about what was going on. Were her visions the hallucinations of a schizophrenic? Were they given by God? What's the difference? More questions are asked: Why does an omnipotent, omniscient, all-compassionate deity allow terrible things to happen? What is the meaning of kingship - to own or to serve? What is the difference between taking the lives of individuals and killing en masse? What's the difference between Christianity and the earthly institutions of that religion? Where does conviction end and fanaticism begin?

Jovavich's Jeanne is plagued by the difference between her idea of utter submission to God and the consequences of doing so; by doubt over the veracity of her visions; and by the gap between her ideals of the divine rights of kings and realpolitik. She is constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown - is this a manifestation of her mental illness, or of her "burning for God"? And where's the difference between the two?

The film raises more questions than it answers, and that's as it should be. It is something of a shame that Besson's film takes liberties with the facts as we understand them (though history is more often about our interpretation of events than the events themselves), but in terms of raising important questions on the nature of faith, it succeeds beyond measure.

I found Luc Besson's take on the story of Joan of Arc thoroughly compelling. Like all of Besson's films, The Messenger is highly stylized, nicely cast, and visually powerful. The film is also forgivably anachronistic in terms of language while developing a strong period feel through sets and costume.

Joan was, of course, the deeply religious teenage girl who lead Prince Charles' army to improbable victory over the invading English at Orleans and helped re-consolidate French sovereignty. Joan considered herself God's appointed messenger, and France apparently saw her as an avenging angel. Today, she is commonly regarded as a schizophrenic. She was canonized in the 1950s, 500 years after her death. Regardless of whether God or insanity was the source of her strength, power, will and incredible courage - there is little ambiguity about her role in the salvation of France nor the fate that awaited her afterward.

In general, the acting is quite good. Jovovich's much-maligned performance is actually very good and exactly appropriate for what Besson was trying to do with the film. Comparing Joan of Arc to her other Messianic role as Leelu in the Fifth Element is, frankly, ridiculous. I believe that the problems people find in Jovovich's performance are problems those same people bring to the film. Malkovich and Dunaway are phenomenal. Tcheky Karyo and Vincent Cassell provide excellent support.

Besson strays from what we think we know about the details of Joan's story, but only to present the truth of the big-picture more accurately. His film steadfastly refuses to answer the questions many people will bring to it:

* Was Joan schizophrenic? * Was she a catholic messiah or divinely inspired prophet?

Why is Besson so careful about accurately presenting the ambiguity of the story? I think he wanted to make a moving film, but not a film which would unsubtly challenge its audience's beliefs. If you do not believe, you will tend to explain Dustin Hoffman's character as a manifestation of Joan's psychological problems. If you do believe, you may want to think of him as Satan, am angel, perhaps both. Thus, Besson, who is a deeply spiritual person, makes a powerful statement about faith through his metanarrative while maintaining an appropriately unevangelical position. He took similar paths in his more uplifting films The Fifth Element and Angel-A.

Highly recommended for Besson and Jovovich fans. Not a biography - avoid this if you must have the "plain" facts! Mildly recommended as a piece of historical fiction.

I love epic historical movies, both old and new (although I must admit I lean towards the latter - the more realistic, more visceral ones, like Braveheart or Gladiator). The story of Joan of Arc has been put on the silver screen countless times, and most versions are good. With such a captivating story, you cannot really go wrong.

In Luc Besson's take, however, it's not Joan's trial that takes centre stage, as in, for example, Carl Theodor Dreyer's classic (The Passion of Joan of Arc, 1928), but Joan, the self-proclaimed godsend, the driven, suffering, obsessed warrior, and the very human core of her actions. The film remains wonderfully ambiguous throughout and leaves it to the audience to decide which of the different interpretations they believe to be true.

But it is Milla Jovovich's riveting performance that truly makes this movie. She's literally possessed in her role, playing with such fervour, such delirious passion that you cannot but believe and follow her. It is indeed one of the most visceral performances ever in the history of cinema.

Joan of Arc the legend which was described as saint, warrior, frantic, heretic etc. is brilliantly played by Milla Jovovich. This movie isn't the typical hero stuff you would expect. It has many sides to think of and gives you space to make your own thoughts about the character Joan of Arc. And that is exactly what I liked the most about the movie. You can almost feel what this very young woman must have felt to be on the battlefield at this age, fighting for her vision, faith or whatever it was. Intoxicated by the battles and her mission to fight the war for god, for France.

Besides from that you will see a lot of battles. Great visuals and good to memorable acting.

Most people seem to get the movie wrong. They probably wanted a clean hero saga or some documentary movie, I don't know. This movie is something different. Sometimes you have to read between the lines, make your own thoughts. But as I said, that's what I like and that's what I want from a good movie.

10/10

If it were not based on a true story, Luc Besson's `The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc' would be a tale filled with credibility gaps a mile wide. Since it is, however, a recounting of one of the world's most famous stories of military triumph and personal tragedy, the film actually generates the most interest when it concentrates on just those mind-boggling historical incredibilities.

Joan was, of course, the deeply devout, illiterate peasant girl who, spurred on by what she claimed were visions and voices sent directly by God - assuring her and France of a glorious victory over the advancing forces of the invading English army - managed to convince a desperate monarch to have her lead an army into the field, despite the fact that she brought with her no previous battle experience or even a rudimentary knowledge of the use of weapons in combat. We first see her as a young girl, strangely obsessed with religious piety, attending confession daily, running through the woods in a mad frenzy of ecstasy, encountering strange, inexplicable visions along the way, and, eventually, being driven to an intense hatred of the British by the rape and murder of her beloved older sister. We see the French royalty, so driven to desperation by the seemingly inexorable encroachment of the brutal British onto their native soil, that they lend credence to this child and give in to her demands, sending her out to lead the troops into what turns out to be some truly miraculous routs and victories. But glory is, more often than not, an ineffable entity that is lost as quickly as it is gained – and Joan learns tragically that, once her original goal of restoring the French monarch to his throne is achieved, her services are no longer of value, and she is allowed to be captured by the English, tried by the Catholic Church, and burned at the stake by the English government for the crime of witchcraft.

Given this fascinating and astonishing series of events, it would be difficult to make a film completely lacking in interest and insight. And, indeed, `The Messenger' is, perhaps, a better film than many of the harsh, almost bitter reviews by many critics would indicate. The first half of the film is a rather conventional telling of the tale. The warrior Joan often comes across as a shrill, petulant adolescent who somehow never convinces us that she is, indeed, someone all these military strategists would follow. But, about midway through the film, the screenwriters, Andrew Birkin and writer/director Besson, begin to apply some psychological depth to the character. After a particularly sanguine encounter with the English, in which hundreds of decapitated and limbless corpses strew the blood-soaked ground, Joan breaks down in despair over the horrifying inhumanity of the sight. From then on, her actions arise from a paradoxical conflict occurring within the very core of her being - between the righteousness of her pious cause, the pacifistic teachings of Christ and her single-minded devotion to her king and country. When she is finally captured and held in prison before and during her trial, she begins to question the veracity of her visions and to ponder whether the motivation for her cause really lay in divine inspiration or an obsession for personal glory and power. We're a long way from the astute psychological insights of Carl Dreyer's classic silent film version of the story, `The Passion of Jeanne d'Arc,' but `The Messenger' does take occasional time out from its action sequences to attempt to explore the question of whether Joan's miracles were the product of divine intervention or of mere happenstance and chance coupled with a determination and passion borne of insanity. Unfortunately, casting Dustin Hoffman as the Voice of Conscience who visits her in her cell and speaks for the side of reason as she descends more and more into seeming madness, renders much of this otherwise fascinating section faintly ludicrous. Every time his overly familiar face and voice arrive on the scene, we are immediately thrust out of the context of the story and find ourselves tempted to giggle out loud – hardly the tone one wants to establish as Joan of Arc marches grimly to the stake. Also, much of what he utters rings false in the context of the film's era; he sounds like he is mouthing psychobabble that would not arrive on the scene for at least another five hundred years.

In terms of dialogue, historical films have always it seems had to face an inevitable Hobson's Choice: should the writers employ language that reflects the reality of the time, thereby making the characters sound stilted or dated by today's standards, or should the authors resort to the use of more modern vernacular, enhancing the immediacy of the story, perhaps, but also possibly creating an uncomfortable and awkward sense of anachronism that weakens the verisimilitude of the film so painstakingly established by the elaborate set decoration and costume design of the film? The writers of `The Messenger' have, for the most part, taken the latter course, leading to mood-shattering declarations by the characters such as `she's nuts!' and `I'm gonna kill that f------ bitch' along with a barrage of four-letter word expletives with which no contemporary PG-13 or R-rated feature could ever do without.

Those with a queasiness when it comes to movie violence had best be forewarned: the battle scenes, though expertly shot and edited, register high on the bloodletting scale.

Of the performers, none matches in quality the exquisite photography, art direction or costume design that adorn the film. Milla Jovovich is, at best, adequate as Joan, rarely giving more than a surface interpretation of the complex psychological struggles occurring at the root of her personality. John Malkovich, as the would-be French king, for whose throne Joan lays her life on the line, has his moments, but the part is not really big enough in the context of the film to allow him to create a multifaceted performance. Faye Dunaway brings a cool, subtle intensity to her role as the future king's manipulative mother-in-law.

`The Messenger' emerges as an ultimately unsatisfying mixture of faults and virtues, yet, because it has such a fascinating story to tell, the film is far more interesting than the brutally hostile reviews that greeted the work's initial release would lead one to believe.

Milla Jovovich may have been the only woman who could have portrayed a 'Joan' believable enough for such a film and approach as that taken by Luc Besson, one which stops just short of suggesting some sort of 'shamanic visionary' as opposed to a character labelled everything from 'deranged schizophrenic' to 'lesbian', simply due to attire, while 'hearing voices' (all historical facts). The key ingredient: the eyes. Not since Faye Dunnaway's unforgetable portrayal in "The Eyes of Laura Mars" (1976), who coincidentally co-stars as an excellent Yolande d'Aragon herewith, has someone captivated an audience simply by a look or a glance. Spell-binding, riveting, and as true to the historical record as one can expect for this most noble of French heroines, while adding a plausible childhood, Besson, Jovovich, an excellent supporting cast and the film were all but ignored for the honours they so richly deserved. Rating five stars (of five) and a film I'll never forget!

Some movies would probably try to make a more divine spirit out of Joan but at least Besson examines all possibilities as regards to what inspired her. I think it was as honest a film you could make about Joan. Her quest for revenge combined with tremendous belief in the forces above that ignited her fire. Through Dustin Hoffman the viewer can question her motives and get her response. And what a performance! Milla was simply breathtaking as Joan.

I loved this movie. It's visually stunning and the casting and acting was superb. The story was already layed out (approximately), so Luc Besson concentrated on Jeanne herself, the person and what she was like and why she did what she did.

I have to admit to putting myself in Jeanne's place, feeling what she must have been feeling along the way. I think without that, it probably would have been a much duller movie, although probably entertaining.

The battles scenes, of which there were many, were graphic and brutal. Dismemberments, swords and maces swinging, lots of pain and death. The ensuing desolation at the end of a battle were weighty and gave a a horrible look at the conditions of the time.

My final impressions... Joan of Arc, if the portrayals were accurate was a driven young woman, deeply religious and deeply confused who was probably at least partially insane. If she were alive today, no doubt, she would be treated with common drugs and would lead a normal life. I felt very sorry for her and her situation and for the way that she was treated. I know people would argue that there is no need to feel this way, because she was clear and sure of her purpose. I don't feel that this was ever the case and she was sure only that she was going crazy if she didn't do something.

Movies don't usually move me this way and I'm really amazed.

This is not a movie I would have chosen, but Director Luc Besson has "Valerian" coming out soon, and this movie was mentioned in a review. There are reviews written by people with far greater knowledge. I have a casual understanding of the story of Joan of Arc, and know less about the events of the time. As a movie, I enjoyed this immensely. This movie gets the people right.

Milla Javovich hits it perfectly. She is vulnerable while unstoppable. She is full of doubt, but completely certain. And during the trial, she can do "caged animal" with just her eyes. I can't imagine anyone else pulling this off. Milla does unapologetically devote better than anyone since Audrey Hepburn in "The Nun's Story".

The supporting cast did a stellar job. There are a lot of medieval movies and TV shows, and most of them aren't believable because people aren't stern or earnest all the time. "Game of Thrones" is fun to watch because sometimes people laugh, and sometimes they fight. If you ever saw a medieval movie, and wondered what the guard standing next to the door does when the camera and the king aren't there, this movie has it. Some reviews called that filler, but it was fun and humanized the soldiers.

I gave it a 10 because it showed people in a way different than other medieval movies. Again, I don't know if the historical facts are correct, but I would not be surprised if the people acted just like they are portrayed.

THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF JOAN OF ARC (1999) ***

Starring: Milla Jovovich, John Malkovich, Faye Dunaway, Dustin Hoffman, and Pascal Greggory Directed & co-writer: Luc Besson Running Time: 141 minutes Rated R (for graphic violence, rape, and for language)

By Blake French:

Some classic stories just can't be updated. Example: "William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet" re-released in 1996. However, one of the greatest tragedies ever told, the story of Joan of Arc, has just been proven possible to be relateable even with time as its enemy. Luc Besson has created a fresh-feeling new version of Joan called "The Messenger," a historical epic that, for better or worse, concentrates mostly on visual style and realistic war scenes rather than answering questions we don't already know about the characters in focus here.

The historical Joan of Arc was a poor young French woman, who believed that there were spiritual signs that ordered her to be a messenger to aid the King of France to victory on the battle field. According to "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," Charles VII, married to the bitter Yolande D'Aragon, was very grateful of her assistance at the time, especially when Joan explained that God has sent her to lead French troops to war with the English and be victorious.

The visions seen (or imagined) by Joan are clearly brought to life here, with more effective qualities than ever before in a Joan of Arc picture. They are filmed with many unusual special effects, bizarre camera tricks, and a beautifully crafted atmosphere of imagery. In use with these elements to the credit of the depicted scenes, they do a good job of expressing the spiritual dream-like moments through Joan with an imaginative feeling of majesty and revealing emotion. The style, camera, and direction all contribute to making these sequences of the best material in the production.

The film was shot in the Czech Republic, as well as the country of France. Cinematographer Thierry Arbogast captures the courageous historical time period flawlessly in these locations. The battle scenes may get little off track at times; some sequences are meant more for brutality purposes rather than a strong, focused narrative story.

The actors interpret their characters with a precise energetic edge. Milla Jovovich has the ability to be a believable Joan of Arc, but does push the limit on convincing us. Some of the film's efforts are straining toward the idea that Joan was somewhat mentally retarded-and Jovovich does a great job presenting that. Other familiar faces found in "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" include John Malkovich as King Charles VII, and Faye Dunaway as his spouse, Yolande D'Aragon. Also the legendary Dustin Hoffman inhabits a brief but appropriate role as the Grand Inquisitor, and Pascal Greggory is The Duke of Alençon.

There are scenes in this movie that make the audience stare at the screen in awe, but also scenes that make us ask ourselves questions. Although much of the production is spent on developing Joan's character and motives, the film still doesn't manage to answer some questions being asked by viewers pondering minds. We never learn if the visions Joan experienced were a calling from God, or just a figment of her intellectual imagination. Was Joan really crazy, or only near eccentric? Were the physical objects that Joan felt were signs from a higher spirit actually what she thought they were? An ulterior source could have been Lucifer deceiving the trusting Joan. Or did the French actually triumph in battles because of the spiritual strength accorded by Joan, or was luck the element present? And I personally would have like a little more explanation of the Grand Inquisitor character.

"The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" is a serious dramatic tragedy, and it takes itself as that all of the time. Luc Besson has constructed a movie that is ambitious and inspiring, with no room for the compromising or modest. I recommend the picture weather you're a new comer or a veteran to the Joan of Arc mythology. Even if you already know the story of Joan of Arc like the back of your hand, this telling might just surprise you.

Brought to you by Columbia Pictures.

If you are wondering about Luc Besson's vaguely heretical "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc", try to imagine a cross between "Excalibur" and "Heaven's Gate". It looks great but the basic story gets lost in the histrionics and excess.

There really was a very religious young girl who was considered a savior to France during The Hundred Years War. Although things may have eventually sorted themselves out the same way without her. Three years after her birth, the new tactics of the English archers were responsible for arguably the most one-sided battle in military history at Agincourt. The result was credited to Henry V's piety and he got a great passage in Shakespeare. The French aristocracy was almost wiped out by the battle and the English became solidly entrenched in France. Fourteen years later a new generation of French nobility was beginning to assert itself and it was the English and their French allies who were having leadership problems.

Both countries were Catholic at the time and both claimed that God was on their side, a bit like the football player who thanks God for the victory over another team that apparently God did not favor.

Although there are records of both of Joan's trials (her Condemnation Trial and her Rehabilitation Trial) both proceedings had their own political agenda and should be taken with a grain of salt. Besson's film seems to follow the generally accepted version of the story but takes obvious liberties with Joan's mental condition and visions. There is no way to prove or disprove any of this so it is probably as plausible as any other speculation.

What hurts "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" is that Besson's best scenes are at the very beginning and set too high a standard for the remainder of the film. Jane Valentine is wonderful as the young Joan and Besson shows that his directing skills with young actors was not confined to Natalie Portman's performance in "Leon". This early stuff features some of the most interesting scene juxtaposition that you are likely to see in any film. IMHO it gets off to a better start than any film in cinema history. And the sequence where the young Joan is standing on a hill watching as the English burn her village is as visually stunning as anything ever filmed.

But once Milla Jovovich's grown-up Joan takes over most viewers will find it difficult to stay focused on the story. It's not miscasting, Jovovich is noted for aggressive and daring performances (see "The Dummy") rather than subtlety and nuance, making her a good fit for the take Besson wanted on Joan's personality. The problem is that while a viewer could identify with the young Joan, the older Joan is just repellent. Her story should be inspirational and tragic. Instead it is a bunch of comic book battle scenes and comical melodrama.

But it is worth watching for the production design and the beginning sequences.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

It's 15th century France. Joan of Arc (Milla Jovovich) is the teenage warrior leading the fight against the English.

This is Luc Besson's grand take on the heroine Joan of Arc with lots of gusto. Milla Jovovich certainly has the crazed intensity of a zealot. Sometimes, it drifts towards camp. Considering she got the job because she was married to Luc Besson at the time, it could have gone a lot worst.

The basic storyline is well known. The best parts of the story happens midway in the movie. That's where the big battle scenes occur. Certainly the battles are big especially for using real action in modern movies. After the battles, the story drags as she gets captured and tried. It may be better to climax the film with the big win in Orléans. Keep the slower parts as a postscript.

I absolutely love this movie. I remember the reviews being harsh at the time of release which was expected considering the subject matter. Personally i always get something out of Luc Besson films as they are so beautiful to look at with sweeping camera shots that give an epic feel and this is no different. The humour contrasts very well with some shocking scenes that balance the film very well. Credit must also be given to the costume and set crew as the attention to detail is fantastic. This is a film to get lost in (like any good film in my view) and enjoy.

Forget about the historical events and enjoy filmmaking at its best.

8/10

I wanted to see this one at the movies, but after hearing it was no good from what I considered good sources, I decided against it. Having seen it at the DVD-rental store many times, often almost grabbing it, but deciding against it remembering how horrible it was supposed to be. Finally one day, finding nothing else, I rented it. And I loved it! It is great, finding jewels unexpectedly like this, as when one watches as many films as I do, the only great films you see are the newest ones. After watching it, I went to the user comment area here on IMDb and tried to find out why people have given it such low rating. Further more, this was an Oscar performance from Milla Jovovich, but apparently the film wasn't even nominated (based on what I can see here on IMDb). This film is in the category, `either you get it, or you don't', or `either you love it or hate it'. I didn't know anything about Joan of Arc, and maybe that is why I liked it, watching it as a film rather then historical documentary. The film leaves me with a comfortable feeling. Before I watched it, I was afraid that we would see some saint of a woman, and how un-human and holy she was in what she did. Instead we see a young woman, plagued with the notion of purpose, extreme determination, while never fully understanding why or what is happening. Joan of Arc is much more of a hero to me after seeing this film, because the film is about her as a woman, rather then some supernatural being. 9/10

If Milla Jovovich does not receive an Academy Award as well as the film garnering the Palm D'or at Cannes, then I will be absolutely shocked. This is a movie with such terrible impact that half the audience was in tears. I can not speak to the authenticity of the history but anyone will see that the theme and message were crystal clear. A must see. Without reservation, I can give this film a rating of 10 and I thought that I'd never do anything so extreme, but this film deserves a 10.

In my opinion, it is a blessing to have a writer/director such as Luc Besson in the industry. This movie, "The Messenger Joan of Arc," is simply one of my favorites, with great performances from Milla Jovovich (one of my favorite actresses and I'm still doubting whether I spelled the name correctly or not!) I feel this is excellent, as well as educational, for I never would have known as much as I know about Joan of Arc if I had not watched this film. I can't wait for Luc to come out with some more movies that I just may be able to catch in theaters! Thanks for reading my response and have a great year.

A very clever screenplay: theologically, psychologically, historically and dramatically almost perfect. You can look at the story of Joan of Arc in all these four ways and Besson did it all four ways. And made a movie that satisfies you and makes you wonder, no matter which of the four is your favorite.

This film was a big surprise for me since it had more depth than I could hope for, more energy than action, more drama than spectacle (although it didn't exactly lack spectacle!) Dustin Hoffman and Mila Jovovich give brilliant performances. I rate this movie 9 out of 10.

We are already used to the original depictions Lus Besson did of humans on screen. How would he do with real events this time? I'm happy to say he suceeded. We are somewhat used to the regular "automatic pilot" depictions of Joan's life, the woman who loved god above all things and believed she was sent to save her people from the clutches of the British. But here we are entitled to a much more personal point of view: Besson's eye for Milla is particularly sensible, and we notice she as a particular shine no other character has. Therefore, we establish an empathy with her which starts even when she is only a child. The movie has a great period detail, and some incredible sequences, but, for some reason, it is the film by Besson that grabbed me the least, I can't explain why, although that isn't saying that I didn't like. In fact, I think there are things about this movie I haven't seen nowhere else, specially all the scenes where Joan hallucinates and has visions of God. This movie is totally different from all medieval adventures we have seen so far, and its shots are Luc Besson's own. The all-stellar cast helps a lot, and Dustin Hoffman turn out welcome at the end. The battle scenes are a wow!Thierry Arboghast's cinematography helps a lot to establish a cool look of medieval times, specially when fire is concerned. Eric Serra's score reaches depth levels he has never reached before. A great film altogether, which deserves to be seen with the heart willing to take whatever we get from it. The title song "My Heart Calling" is one of the most beautiful Eric Serra wrote for the movies. I recommend it for Besson fans who will like certainly, and to all the others who aren't, just for the fun of a different depiction of Joan's life.

If you really want to know the story of Jeanne d'Arc, you should better take a book... then you will learn that we do not know a lot of things about her. But the Luc Besson's movie never aimed to tell the << true >> story, but A story, it is very different. If you can't understand it, so you don't even understand what is cinema.

As a movie, I find it great. The story is moving in a different way. And the violence is necessary. The story to be told IS violent, but I do not think the entire movie is violent because the end of film annihilates this violence. The last confession is there to tell us that everybody can be blind when one has a cause to defend, this is a message of tolerance to the people who act badly, One has to understand them and know that they suffer too.

The scenes of combat are visceral and exciting but I'd have to say that this movie is genius if for no other reason than the fact that the incredible degree of ambiguity in the film remains completely and utterly unresolved up until the very end. It would qualify as an example of Tzvetan Todorov's FANTASTIC, where the reader (here the viewer) hesitates upon deciding if the events and phenomena witnessed in the work may be explained realistically or if they are due to the influence of magic and the supernatural, except that in this film there is a tripartite locus for the fantastic hesitation: either Jean is mad, a complete schizo who hallucinates all of her "holy" encounters, or she has indeed been chosen by Christ as a hero and a martyr for France (in which case Christ comes off looking not so nice to Jean a la book of Job), or a third possibility, the supernatural is indeed present, but in the form of the devil, who has beguiled Jean working exploiting her megalomania to make her his agent of unholy carnage upon the earth (the sheer goriness of some of the battle seem to support this satanic hypothesis). The balance and ambiguity between these three possibilities is never sacrificed and the viewer is allowed to decide for themselves: an excellent and unique film!

A briskly-paced Bio of Joan of Arc, including numerous graphic battle scenes. Characters portrayed "With The Bark On" - soldiers of both English and French forces covered in mud, with horribly rotten teeth and decorated with scars - probably what people really looked like, in the early 1400s. Other scenes adding Realism include watching people eat food (something you don't normally see, in movies). Whatever they ate, it came from a boiling pot - broth, some chunks of veggies and whatever meat might be had...again, the unusual portrayal of common people eating was deliberate, and added "Texture" to the surroundings.

Joan herself in the movie is all that she was portrayed to be in real life: A historical Fluke - a 17-year old girl, led by her "Visions", who becomes the leader of an army, and the "Difficult", she accomplishes quickly....the "Nearly Impossible", takes her a bit longer.

I was a bit confused about the role of Dustin Hoffman. At first, I was sure he was an Angel, sent to counsel Joan as a sort of "Doubting Thomas" - leading her to a true self-examination of her motives - lending Objectivity to her track record, in an effort to get her to understand why Fortunes ran against her. But, he is listed as her "Conscience"...her own inner voice.

I gave this movie a "9" rating. It will only be enjoyed by those who have an interest in History, or the life of Joan, but in anticipation that most of the audience will fit this description, I would say that 9 out of 10 will like it. The Rating above, of 6+, is probably a reflection of many viewers who were hoping for something else.....people who watch "Transformers", or Romantic Comedies.

This movie is a descent historical interpretation of the events of the French wars with England as seen through the prism of the deeply devout Joan of Arc. With all its movie sensationalism I wish to believe that at the heart of the film is the view that a patriotic young girl fought to save her country from rape and ravine at the hands of invaders. This might seem to most naïve as the French were just as violent as the English and the notion that Joan was incapable of cruelty is hard for many to see.

Towards the end we see her conscience reminding us that she was capable of self criticism and felt sorrow for her actions. Whether the true Joan felt like this, a moral individual is hard to tell with definitive proof but the one thing that this movie does demonstrate is how all of the characters were bound by their religion including the Dauphin, the ecclesiastical court and the Knights. All used religion for political gain while Joan was certainly motivated by the love of her fellow Frenchmen and Frenchwomen.

When God (Dustin Hoffman) challenges Joan of Arc's (Milla Jovanovich - spelling ?) understanding of finding a sword in the field, what he does is say that reality is what we want to see - not necessarily what is. Jean Paul Sartre would be proud - Kirkegard would roll over in his grave.

A young girl confused about her purpose in life could not lead the French to victory - God is not wishy washy about what he calls us to do. But beyond the weak theology; this is an excellent film - well written, great acting - yes I even enjoyed Hoffman's portrayal of God.

This story surrounds Joan of Arc's quest to drive out the British from 15th Century France to establish Charles the VII as king of France. In the process she also avenges her sister's rape and death at the hands of a British soldier. Joan's possible self doubt and confusion is well portrayed by Jovanovich.

The good news is that there is no gratuitous nudity.

The bad news is that there is much blood and gore - but I have seen worse (such as Saving Private Ryan.

There is also much use of the F--- word which is derived from the 17th Century reason for punishment of people "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge". So the use of that word I believe is anachronistic.

Even though; I enjoyed the movie and recommend it to mature audiences.

Andy Smith

I have seen a few other adaptations of the Joan of Arc story. This one was the best. I liked the special effects. The acting was convincing. This movie kept me interested the entire time I was watching it. You must see this movie.

The only reason I'm spending the time to post a comment here is to warn you not to waste two and half hours of your life on this film, like I did.

Even though I had heard mixed reviews, I went into the theatre with a very positive attitude about this film, since I've enjoyed Besson's past films, as well as the work of many of this cast.

Looking back, I should have followed my gut instinct and left about a minute and a half into the film: pretty much any time a filmmaker uses a Gothic typeface in titles and expository text and then adds something ridiculous like blood running over a map, you can bet your life that the rest of the film will show the same stupidity, lack of taste, and disrespect for the intelligence of the viewer. The murder/rape (in that order) a few minutes later confirmed my first impression, but for some reason I stayed.

Maybe I stayed because I teach classes on film and watch a lot of movies, and I am more than willing to give ANY film a fair shot (and sometimes two or three). I wanted this film to succeed. But it falls down on so many levels that I felt my own calling from God, as it were, to wage a small battle against it.

The reviews published by the San Francisco papers, NY Times and Chicago Sun-Times (Ebert) give a pretty good summary of what's wrong with this film, even though I think their "two stars" ratings are quite generous.

To summarize my own thoughts on the film, I feel that the script doesn't know what story it's trying to tell, and Besson and Jovovich seem to have no sense at all for the complexities of Joan's story, as it has come down to us.

The acting is as overwrought and void of subtlety as any I've seen in a long time. The only highlights are a couple of performances from supporting characters (who unfortunately are shackled by the poor screenplay) and Dustin Hoffman's appearance toward the end of the film (way too little, way too late to save the film). I felt particularly saddened by the clownish performance John Malkovich gives, although I can't help but think/hope that he was forced to do it by Besson. (I wondered while watching the scene where Joan tells Charles about her revelations whether Malkovich was mocking Jovovich . . . and the whole production for that matter.)

Everything else you see in the film (art direction, costume design, soundtrack, special effects, even the look of every single supporting and bit player, etc. etc.) is as cliche and unimaginative as the screenplay and acting. It feels as if Besson and Co. sat down and said, "What is the absolutely most stereotypical image that the average moviegoer who knows nothing about 15th-century France or Joan of Arc or who has never thought about spiritual things in a meaningful way will expect when he or she sits down to watch this film?" And then, having done little thinking themselves, they filmed it.