Rating: 
Summary: Quite possibly one of the best movies on the Middle Ages.
Review: Joan of Arc has been the subject of numerous films, probably more than any other medieval figure. This is one of the best of the lot. It's generally historically accurate, although it has its flaws. The acting was solid and the cinematography and technical elements were surprisingly good for a TV movie.For the actors, LeeLee Sobieski was an excellent Joan. I have yet to see another actress successfully capture all elements of Joan's personality. Her spirituality, confidence, strength, and courage are all portrayed very well. Peter O'Toole is, of course, excellent as Bishop Cochon and Peter Strauss played a convincing, if somewhat subdued Le Hire. The biggest surprise was Niel Patrick Harris's phenominal performance as Charles. He turned in a performance that splendidly captured the man who, despite being trapped in a bad situation prior to Joan's arrival, grew into one of the finest kings in French history. Historically, the movie does an excellent job at portraying the period and the characters. The writers, director, and Sobieski, for instance, resisted the temptaion to write Joan off as a mindless fanatic she's often made out to be, despite the fact that no such description occurs in any source, French, English, or Burgundian. Instead, they accurately portrayed her as the charismatic girl who convinced hardened generals to follow her and confounded the judges at her trial with her faith and intellect. Similarly, the movie captured the despair in France during the losing days of the Hundred Years War, a despair that turned to optimism surprisingly quickly. However, the movie does have several major historical flaws, and these are the only reasons I feel it doesn't deserve a fifth star. There was no attempt to rescue Joan from Rouen, nor were any of her key supporters present. More importantly, the movie tends to combine characters - partly to keep the cast size down and make the movie more watcheable, but also to give some of their big-name actors more to do. That said, the choices are forgiveable (they arguably make it a better movie). The movie combines Jean de Metz and Jean d'Aulon. De Metz, while faithful to Joan, played only a minor role after bringing Joan to Charles. From that point on, the movie uses him in place of d'Aulon. Similarly, the movie combines Cochon and Reignault of Chartres, Charles's spiritual advisor. Other deficiencies are minor (Cochon never received an archbishopric and was demoted to a lesser see, Joan is burned in the winter rather than spring, etc.). What the movie does exceedingly well, however, is create a sense of doubt. The movie lets the viewer interpret some of the elements for him or herself. O'Toole, like the historical record, leaves the audience guessing as to whether or not Cochon believed in Joan and was merely following orders, as well as whether or not the trial left him a broken man. Similarly, the movie leaves the extent of Charles's machinations and the true nature of Joan's belief open to question. It is a rare movie that captures this fundamental historiographical problem. For that alone it's worth a watch.
Rating: 
Summary: Incredible
Review: Nothing short of amazing. I originally bought this DVD because it looked interesting, but I was skeptical; I hadn't heard much about it. It turned out to be an excellent movie, primarily because of the cast. Leelee Sobieski shines as Joan; they could not have picked a better lead. She is perfect. I can see why, as a movie, it has not attracted much interest from the general public. It's kinda long, but beautifully done. Definitely one of the best movies I have seen.
Rating: 
Summary: Inspirational, But Fantasy
Review: My apologies, but Medieval History is my academic field and I am a bit of a stick in the mud about historicity. This version of the Joan of Arc tale is quite entertaining and watchable, don't get me wrong. But my fingers were turning into vices against my couch pillows at the sacrifice of historical accuracy for "a good story". The big dramatic panorama of Joan's execution in a snowfall, for example, is poignant but wrong--Joan was executed in May, 1431, so snow would have been unlikely. This version is also perpetrating an idea of Joan which according to historical accounts is inaccurate. She wasn't some calm, kind, cool-headed individual, but rather an uneducated peasant girl maniacally spurred on by her fanatical devotion. For what I believe is a more authentic treatment, try The Messenger.
Rating:
Summary: As a lover of history, I was drawn in to this film
Review: This film is a must for anyone who loves history and good acting. The cast and portrayal are outstanding. To believe that this was a made for TV movie is a stretch. Most are... ...well, simply put, not compelling. LeeLee's portrayal of Jehanne is riviting. The movie drew me in from the beginning. There are slow parts mind you, however the bulk of the movie brings you into the realm of the time. The scenery is beautiful and there is no scimping on the wardrobe or settings. The supporting actors and actresses are the icing on the cake. Peter O'Toole is outstanding in his role as Bishop Causchon. Although his role is small, Chad Willet shows how Jehanne was supported by those who believed in her. Neil Patrick Haarris adds a bit of satire to his role that helps with a couple of the slower scenes in the film. This is an outstanding film for students to understand what role Joan of Arc (Jehanne D'Arc) played in the melding of history. My hats off to LeeLee Sobieski for her portrayal. Innocense, Strength and understanding are her strengths in this film. Thanks to Christian Duguay for his casting and brilliance in this outstanding life story!!!
Rating: 
Summary: a soft Joan D'arc and poor acting
Review: As everybody, I saw both Joan D'arc and the Messenger from Besson and I was disappointed not only from the poor acting of the movie (Where are the flamboyant La Hire,Dunois and D'alancon who are so well depicted in the Besson Movie) but also on the too soft and spiritless Joan D'arc. Historical description of Joan D'arc are quite precise on this particular point : Joan was an exalted and fanatical women not the pleasant and delicate women that this movie wants us to believe. From this point, I can only say that the Messenger from Besson remains far ahead of this movie not only because it is more accurate but also because of the superb acting.
Rating:
Summary: The Messenger is the Message (The Sequel)
Review: After seeing the Messenger only a week after Hallmark's Joan of Arc, I think it's a testimony to the real life enigma that she could be interpreted in such very different ways- from a girl of incredible strength and courage ready to die for her faith to a woman made neurotic by circumstance and visions fueled by her faith in God despite all she had seen. Leelee vs. Milla? I think both women simply found a part of Joan they identified with and ran with it, though I must say, I enjoyed Leelee's portrayal more. We got to see how Joan won the heart of the people and Leelee does it flawlessly, you don't see that in Messenger. The Messenger skips how she got to be St. Joan in the eyes of the people. In Leelee's Joan, I can believe she led her people to victory in battle because Leelee is so exceptional in the battle scenes while Milla seemed completely lost. And visually, it is hard to believe this movie was made for television as it was so beautiful to look at. Definitely worth the cost of buying.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent movie based on an awesome story!
Review: I LOVE this movie! It told the Joan Of Arc story VERY well, i felt. While you obviously can't tell a story of this length and detail 100% accurately in a movie, they did an excellent job of covering all the important parts, and the feelings that may have gone thru the people involved. O'Toole playes an EXCELLENT Bishop Cauchon. And Sobieski plays an excellent Joan Of Arc as well. Not perfect, but then, who is? :> A must see by anyone who is interested even remotely in Joan Of Arc and her story. If i had to list one complaint of the movie, it was the part where she is captured. I didn't feel that part was very accurate, and it felt like they were a little rushed for time. The rest of the movie by far made up for that flaw, though!
Rating:
Summary: A five Star Movie
Review: "Ah! I would far rather have my head chopped off seven times over, than to be burned!" --- Joan of Arc I first watched this movie on TV (a two-part mini series), and I liked it. The DVD runs for 180 minutes (not 140 min) and is essentially the same as what originally showed on TV. It depictures the life and death of the 15th-century French heroine and martyr, "Maid of Orleans". The movie keeps a good balance for different stages of Joan of Arc's life. The performance is excellent. Leelee Sobieski's interpretation for Joan of Arc is probably the best, and Peter O'Toole as the Bishop is definitely a plus. Though a TV movie, Christian Duguay did a wonderful job. The preference between this movie and its competitor, Message, depends on personal taste. I like "Joan of Arc" better because of Sobieski's outstanding performance. Anyhow, this movie is worth to watch. Joan of Arc is the most famous to be burned alive (most died at the stake were actually first strangulated with a rope so that the fire just burned an already dead body). Her martyrdom and tragic fate is emphasized by starting with the burning and ending with the execution at the market. Scenes, such as bounded bare feet, cross in front of the victim, surrounding by fire, and crying for the God, are appropriately used for this purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Good but they butchered it.
Review: When I saw this on TV I distinctly remember it being longer. *checks his video tape then checks his DVD* Yup I'm right. I own both the DVD and the video of this movie. The video is about 45 minutes longer. Anyway that's why I give this DVD 4 instead of 5 stars. Other than that I love this movie. Very moving and very beautifully filmed. And the music is gorgeous. Again my only complaint is that they cut out loads of scenes on the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Leelee vs. Milla
Review: I own both Joan of Arc, and The Messenger, and I've gotta give the clear victory to Milla. I think Joan of Arc suffers from its television roots. The production values are fine but TVs tentacles extend far into this feature, sanitizing it too much. Joan of Arc is too clean, too void of grit. It is told more as a reverent fantasy, even choosing to link Joan's reality with the prophecy of the fictional Merlyn. I'll never get that one. The standout here is Peter O'Toole, who, after years of walking through roles, actually finds an emotional root here, and runs with it. It's his best work in quite a while. The weak link is Doogie Howser as the Dauphin. His performance is too contemporary, and very cowardly. His total lack of presence makes the role a black hole. Tim Roth should have done this role in both versions. I've seen Sobieski do better than this. Her Joan is made for the Hallmark Hall of Fame crowd. At its worst, the drama can seem too Highway to Heavenish. At no time does Joan not look pretty, and often she is bathed in Disneyesque golden light, as if we don't already understand that Here We Have a Saint. This is not subtle stuff. In contrast, Luc Besson's The Messenger is vivid, dirty dirty dirty, passionate, and ocassionally haunting. While Milla Jovahich sometimes misses the mark, her fervor is more believable than Leelee's. This is much more realistic, and much more impressive. I might have looked a little harder for a leading actress. No matter what Joan of Arc may have been like, she must have had presence! Think of it - a seventeen year old girl leading soldiers at a time when women were little more than breeding machines! That is not a small personality. Milla tries really hard, but she lacks that special quality. Still, she is excellent. In fact, it was my second viewing that greatly improved my opinion of Milla's performance, and I found myself often wishing for her interpretation while watching Sobieski. I challenge those men out there who own Braveheart and Gladiator to try this one. It has many of the same fine qualities. At least, that's the way I see it.
|
