Rating: 
Summary: Joan not a timid kitten... real accounts far more inspiring
Review: If you like joan and her story, please read about her since this mini series does not do her justice. She was not some timid little kitten that only found strength when she was told she was the girl in some prophecy. She was much stronger and purpose minded. This was a girl that talked to saints in heaven very often, she did not need some strong man to give her the OK or strength to do something. She went to orleans (1st defeat) on the begging of her generals to do so and after it they felt terrible because they were the ones who asked and pleaded with her to go there.
The trial was also a travisty. It was the english who tried her and not a member of her own court and the only thing they could pin her on was wearing mans cloths, which unfortunately was enough to convict her. During that time this little girl (19 i believe) alone faced a unrelenting barrage of religious lawyers with only the guidance of the saints to help her along. That is strength, both religious and earthly.
The medieval period was a very dark place in history where women were treated as dirt and property and that is why joans story was so compelling. A simple girl would defeat the might of the english army under God's guidance. The sword scene was wasted too. A group of priests were told by joan where to go and dig up a buried sword that had belonged to one of the saints. Critical at first, they were amazed when they dug it up right where she had said it would be. It was not simply found causally under some rubble on her way to somewhere.
As far as the costumes, they were somewhat accurate for that time period - plate armor was in use but not to the extent as shown which was lending itself more toward the 1450's and up not the 1420's.
Overall it was a cute family version of the story but simply did not portray joan as it should of. At least it was far better than that atrosity "the messenger" that used vengence as joans motivation - so bad it made me sick.
Anyway please read a book that looks at joan in her own words, what she and those around her really said. The trial was well documented, esp. for the medieval period. I would like to rate this one higher but the misfire on joan's character keeps it at a 2.
Rating: 
Summary: Historical FICTION
Review: This made-for-television miniseries is historical fiction, giving us a dramatization of the life of Jean d'Arc (a.k.a. Joan of Arc or Saint Joan). It is not a documentary, and it plays around with the facts, for dramatic effect.
That said, the end result is good, dramatic story-telling. Leelee Sobieski is Joan, and portrays here as a driven, conflicted young woman, who is usually sure that God has spoken to her, through Saint Catherine, and charged her with the mission of helping France to find its way toward unification and a true national identity. She is, however, also plagued with doubts, at times, and questions her own sanity, as well as the justness of the mission given to her by God.
When I saw that Neal Patrick Harris was to portray the Dauphin, I was quite skeptical. Instead, he suprised me with his range and versatility. He portrayed the Dauphin as exuding charm and political wile, but still holding on to a shred of sincere hope that Joan was more than just a tool to be used.
Is that an accurate portrayal of the life of Jean d'Arc? No. I didn't expect that. I hoped for a good story, at least loosely based upon the life of the Maid of Orleans. It did deliver that.
Rating:
Summary: This Movie Is Amazing...
Review: My French class watched this movie in French class the other week and when I got home I immediatly asked my mom for this for Christmas, (my mom went shopping today and said she got it for me, I can't wait for Christmas so I can watch it again)!! This movie is truly awesome... Go buy it...NOW!! Lmfao!! XD
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie
Review: This is a fantastic movie! I thoroughly enjoyed it! Has a wonderful cast and Charlotte Church did a fabulous job on the vocals. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: The good, the bad, but nothing ugly
Review: This is one of the better Joan of Arc movies. Yeah, Leelee does look the part, but, at times, her acting is flat, at other times, really good. The historical inaccuracies are bothersome: Baudricourt's hens did not stop laying eggs until he gave Joan a letter of introduction; Joan did not willingly let herself ride off with the Burgundians; Bishop Cauchon was not at Chinon, Joan never returned home after she met Baudricourt, and there are others. I felt the best actor was Peter Strauss, followed closely by O'Toole. Yes, it's worth seeing again. However, to know more about what really happened, one should not get their history homework from movies. Start reading.
Rating:
Summary: Now I know why the French love their Joan
Review: This is my favorite depiction of Joan of Arc. Leelee Sobieski does a wonderful job of portraying Joan as simultaneously pious and petulant, refusing to waver in the face of opposition to her visions. The Czech countryside is a terrific stand-in for France. Battles are portrayed with terrifying realism and valor. Plenty of blood and dirt for everyone. The acting is occasionally stilted, but the characters are wonderful, especially Peter Strauss as a skeptical La Hire and Chad Willett as steadfast Jean de Metz. Peter O'Toole is his tormented best as Bishop Cauchon, who wavers between fearsome Inquisitor and confused man fearful of losing his soul. Powers Boothe is both tough and tender as Joan's controlling father. A terrific costuming department renders the rough-hewn quality of 14th century armor.
This film doesn't take too many liberties with Joan's story, unlike the execrable "The Messenger". I objected a bit to the *obligatoire* scene suggesting a sexual assault in prison as Joan awaits execution. But overall, the film preserves Joan's sanctity without sacrificing her humanity.
Rating:
Summary: historical problems but great acting
Review: The movie makes some cheap, ineffective attempts to give the Joan of Arc story a bit more punch - including a "prophecy" from Merlin and the mis-characterization of the 100 Years' War as a War for France's freedom from Britain.However, there is some good acting in this movie, especially from Peter O'Toole - he brings humanity to a character that could have easily been a one-dimensional, generic bad guy. Is it a great movie? no Is it entertaining? Yes - and you get the bonus of watching a real pro like O'Toole show you how its done.
Rating: 
Summary: Maybe The Worst Film EVER (no joke)
Review: This is a sad excuse for a movie; it's terribly uninteresting, uninspired, and bland. It may be the worst film I have ever seen, at least in along time. Technically, it's more than flawed, it's broken; shattered really. First, the acting is awful and inexcusable. Blame should be spread evenly amongst the whole cast with a huge mound piled on Leelee Sobieski for her role as Joan. As Joan, she is asked to carry the movie, and she fails miserably. She lacks charisma and screen presence; there is also the odd way in which she speaks sometimes. When reciting some of her poorly written lines, she almost closes he mouth and mumbles them out all while making a weird face. Next problem: 95 percent of the shots are close-ups. This is not an exaggeration. The shot selection isn't varied with the only change in the opening, ending, and battle scenes (sometimes). The film suffers greatly and is a result of a director and cinematographer not suitable to work on second-rate hip-hop music videos. This made-for-tv movie (very obvious) is a perfect example of everything you wouldn't want to happen in a film including some you wouldn't even think of. Included are bad costumes, unbelievable sets, and extremely weak writing. Bad special effects are also present as well as bad music at crucial times. The cameras can be jumpy, probably due to the cameramen dozing off inbetween takes (no one could blame them). Plus, the story seems stretched, and that was before I read the factual account. It seemed like all the facts were skewered with the only thing historically accurate in the name. One more thing, they are supposed to be French but nothing other then a few over pronounced French words thrown in their conversations suggest that they are. If they speak English, that's one thing. But if they all have different English accents (no French accents, not even an attempted one) but the try to throw in French words randomly in their already awkward and cheesy dialogue, that's completely different. Joan of Arc is unforgivable with all its mistakes, and there was many of them, it led to and excruciatingly bad movie that was way to long (poor editing), one of the worst that I have ever seen.
|
