Rating: 
Summary: 'Jeanne d'Arc' - a piece of art for those who understand it
Review: . . .I think this is the best movie on the theme of JeanneD'Arc and that Luc Besson did a great job. The same thing with MillaJovovich and all the crew. It was a great movie from all the aspects(especialy the image and OST). And ther is no way that a person could say this is an 'one star' movie and not having an antipathy on the director,the character of Jeanne or Milla J.In my opinion, this reay is a 5 star movie! (escuse my pour english)LX
Rating: 
Summary: Overlong, overdone, over the top~~
Review: If you think that this is an inspiring movie such as Braveheart which Mel Gibson acted so brilliantly as Sir Richard Wallace, you would be extremely disappointed with this offering. Luc Besson's movies are always interesting to watch with beautiful cinematography & French flair. But this latest offering, despite it still shares those traits, it could become disillusioned at times. I couldn't stand Milla Jovovich running around the set screaming her head off. If I were one of her soldiers, I wouldn't be inspired by her at all to fight for France. Rather, the English looked more like those civilised type. With due respect, Milla is not a bad actress after seeing her in the Fifth Element & her minor role as the prostitute in You've Got Game with Denzel Washington. So, the decision for her to depict Joan as that mad woman is questionable. The part of her arguing with her conscience acted by Dustin Hoffman is like watching X Files, you want to know the truth but the truth you shall not find. At times, I just wished that she could be burned & done with so that I could get on with life. Well, a completely forgettable film & I wouldn't dream of watching it one more time, just like putting myself over a guillotine. Having said that, Faye Dunaway & John Malkovich were superb in their amoral roles being calculative, manipulative, conniving to serve their own interests.
Rating: 
Summary: This movie has a bad rap
Review: This movie was doomed from the start by film critics who don'tlike Luc Besson--a French director making English-language films--andwould rather watch 16 hour arthouse version of Joan of Arc than pay attention to some French sell-out. The movie is further hurt by dopey people who wonder why Joan had to be burned at the end. :/ It definitely has flaws. Milla is fine, except I can't stand her whiny scratchy voice during the battles, and I wish Besson would've done a better job of showing that Joan was a naturally talented battle tactician, and not just a headstrong mad woman. This version of Joan of Arc focuses more on Joan's confession of heresy, and her self-doubt. If you're looking for a glorification of her, look elsewhere. I enjoyed this film, but I'm a Besson fan, and I'm certainly biased. This movie definitely has a bad rap. END
Rating: 
Summary: One-dimensional disappointment
Review: I eagerly awaited this film as I missed the chance to see it in the theatres. I think I could have gone through the rest of my life content with never having seen this abominable film. I spent money that would have been more wisely invested in a lottery ticket! Besson tries to impress grandeur with a heavy hand and overblown performances from his cast. I felt badly that Faye Dunaway had anything to do with this piece of trash. John Malkovich, however, progressively chooses roles not really suited for his style of acting and he sticks out like an English lance in this movie. I don't know if perhaps the director incorrectly informed his actors if they were in a comedy or not, but man, avoid this like the plague! At least you have a choice - the victims of the plague never did.
Rating:
Summary: "It's my heart seeing...what it wants to see..."
Review: I hardly ever compose and publish reviews of any sort around here...but due to the maligning of this movie by a number of other reviewers, I feel compelled to step in and speak a few words to counterbalance theirs, not to antagonise, but simply to give a review from the Orleans' side of the river, if I may use the metaphor. It is an irrefutable fact among nearly all movie-goers that Braveheart set the standard by which all other epic medieval war movies are judged. It was inevitable and unavoidable that reviewers would not compare The Messenger to Braveheart. I, however, believe that it is imperative to evaluate a movie on its own merit, not on its comparison with Braveheart. I love Braveheart. I will always love Braveheart. But I don't think it's fair to compare it with The Messenger. Therefore I will try my best henceforth to avoid references to Braveheart. The Messenger's timing was unfortunate. NBC's Joan of Arc was released barely half a year before, and The Messenger has therefore been thought of by some as "oh, boy, another Joan of Arc movie". To those who would speak thus, I would like to know whether you have seen both and are therefore in any sort of position to even begin to condemn The Messenger as an inferior or a repetitive movie. I, for one, have not seen enough of NBC's film to make a judgement, so I will also refrain from comparing these two films throughout the remainder of the review. Now that I have put forth a few important points to discourage prejudice, I will discuss the merit of the film itself. Where to begin, where to begin. As others before me have said (so I will not dwell on this point too long), the movie is quite impressive visually. Thousands and thousands of weapons, armour suits, mitres and other items of religious clothing, and many other medieval garments were custom-made for this movie with an eye toward period accuracy. I am not as well read as I desire to be on the Hundred Years' War, but my impressions are that the costumes' and weapons' historical realism is quite sound. A lot of work went into the battle choreography, obviously, and I was most impressed with Marshall Gilles de Rais' well-coordinated use of a pair of morning stars in the battle to take the Tourelles, a French citadel across the river from Orleans which the English captured earlier in the campaign. Speaking of the Tourelles, I was very pleased with the portrayal of the siege and taking of the fortress in this movie. Never before in a film have I seen a siege presented in such detail. The cinematography and acting throughout that battle was particularly impressive. One could almost feel the nervousness and even fear of the English defenders as the French assailed the Tourelles' great walls. They seemed so safe in their fortress, but once the French rallied under Joan, who had recently recovered from an arrow wound, the English knew this juggernaut posed a real threat to them. And when the outer walls were breached, well, all who could retreated in fear into the Tourelles' keep. But even there they were not safe from the staunch and resolute French, and several of the Englishmen lost their cool during the fight. But I degress. I merely wish to relate the vividness of the siege and the feeling that it was real, that those were real men fighting for their lives, fighting for their freedom...or dominance. Another impressive bit about the siege was the number of primitive but interesting defensive mechanisms the English used to protect themselves. Of greatest note was the porcupine, a spring-loaded arrow launching battery that simultaneously fired volleys of fifty or so arrows through murder holes in the Tourelles keep's gate to discourage attack upon it. But enough of warfare and such, for there is so much more to this movie than that. Character development was absolutely wonderful. Aside from Joan, Charles, Charles' mother-in-law Yolande D'Aragon, and The Conscience, the characters of most import in this film were the French officers and noblemen with whom Joan served. Each had a certain personality, certain traits. There was Dunois, the battle-hardened and pessimistic lord who had been holding Orleans together ere Joan's arrival. There was the Duke de Alençon, the rich, roguish, and most gung-ho member of the French generals, he who "always votes to attack." There was La Hire, the massive Goliath of the French, who possessed the roudiest manner of all the generals and was often reprimanded by Joan for cursing. Joan herself was brilliantly portrayed. I've never seen Milla Jovovich in anything else before, so I had a wonderful first impression, having seen her in this film. Joan's was a unique character, an interesting mix of child-like naivety, firm assertiveness, and then downright aggression. In the heat of battle she was a screaming banshee of a warrior, but when she is alone in her cell after being captured by Bergundians and given to the English with no one but herself, she becomes unsure, meek, even fearful. With all the adrenaline during the battles, she has one clear objective and believes that the means to reach that goal are justified by the goal itself. But alone in her cell with The Conscience, she begins to question the ways she has followed for the last two years, the ways of blood and steel. And finally, with the help of The Conscience, she comes to realise her wrongs, her immoralities, her flaws. Her transformations throughout the movie are quite remarkable
Rating: 
Summary: Great film, but could have been better
Review: The idea that every person of faith in the past needs to be 'demythologized' by a modern enlightned director is alive and well. Like Scorsese's 'Last Temptation of Christ', this film presents what some call a 'more human' Joan. That is, one that can be understood without making any real reference at all to a messy, impolite God who does not deign to make all his actions sensible to us. For provoking thought with this humanist version of Joan, I'll give this movie 4 stars. But for playing too fast and loose with the actual historical facts, I'll hold one star back. yes, I know it's only a movie. But the liberty's taken are so crucial to the real story that they must not be discounted. 1. Joan's older sister Catherine was never raped and killed by Engilsh soldiers. Besson presents this mythical event and the trauma induced by it to explain Joan's hatred of the english and explain why perhaps her mind became unbalanced enough to believe she was some sort of divine messenger. 2. Joan and La Hire, the French Captain, ended the siege of Orleans by crossing the Loire river on horses by boat, and then when the English began to pursue some retreating French Soldiers, Joan and La Hire unexpectedly charged, causing what became a panicked retreat. This is what caused the siege to be broken, not Joan leaping alone into the enemy camp itself and singlehandedly cutting a rope to open the gate. 3. Joan never left her parents. Indeed, her brothers rode with her on her campaigns, and her father and mother were there at the crowning of Charles, King of France. 4. There is no record that Joan was ever beaten or physically assaulted as is depicted in the film. They may have burned her at the stake, but there is no record she was knocked about like this. 4. When Joan was burned at the stake, she requested of several churchmen who did not agree with her sentence and were sympathetic to her that they hold a cross up high where she could see it, so that her last earthly sight would be of the cross of her Lord. She also cried the name of Jesus more than once as she burned. This is different from the depiction of this event, where Joan seems to die silently in terror as some churchmen seem to mock her by waving a cross up where she can see it. A good film, but not accurate as to what actually happened.
Rating:
Summary: Great Joan of Arc Movie
Review: I saw this movie and was blown away. Milla Jovavich was stunning showing a troubled, emotional girl who can't keep her temper and pride in check. The battles were excellent, almost on par with Braveheart. I saw this movie after the NBC mini-series, which I was disappointed with, so this one I had high expectations for. The NBC mini-series was good but there was no emotion shown in the Joan character, not good at all. Besides the historical inaccuracies, it is a movie after all, it was a great and fun movie. Check it out
Rating:
Summary: THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF NIKITA OF ARC
Review: In my whole 26 years long life I had never undergone such a test of human resistance until I saw this Besson's nightmare in the cinema. I don't speak so much English to express my absolute disgustance after seeing this unbelievable film phantom, but I am sure I would have problems to express the feelings decently even using my own language. There is no doubt that Besson and his "Joan Jovovich" have brutally abused the legend of the medieval heroine because of their private film careers. I couldn't believe my eyes: the medieval saint is beating her soldiers with a fist and during her hysterical fit, she is furiously cutting her hair with a dagger! Besson and Jovovich say that they have devoted a lot of time for the study of historical sources. So if they have found that Joan of Arc was an insane, furious, psychotic, fanatic (etc.) monster, they should immediately show these super top secret sources to all historians! In any case, Besson shows that he is really a big creator; he doesn't need historical facts or testimonies of Joan's contemporaries. But already in the middle of the movie, the difference between a big creator and a big creature is not distinct at all and one could change them very easily. If this is not a product of an insane brain, it is at least a work of an arrogant, narrow-minded and self-satisfied man. No, I have never seen such a awful historical spectacle. And I can't believe that some people can appreciate it as an "excellent work". I can understand that they have no idea about Joan and French history, but I can't understand how some human being can stand the scenes I mentioned above. Do they really think that the French national heroine was such a demented lunatic and the French army could follow someone like that! My Goodness! Have I perhaps seen some other movie! I think that such cold-blooded people could join Chuck Norris' Delta Force brigade. After this horror, any discussion about artistic qualities of this grotesque patchwork is unnecessary. The battle scenes are not above the average (If someone wanted to deny it, he should see War Lord or some another great historical movie)and the mad Milla Jovovich is confusedly running among Moravian stunts with an absent look like a frightened animal - I missed only foam on her mouth. I think that this movie could have been a good, although very provoking parody. What a pity! (P.S.: Besson, give me back my money!)
Rating:
Summary: Cinematic style battles substance
Review: ..and is defeated. The main problem appears to stem from the lack of realism, it is simply not sufficiently believable for a historical epic. Jovovich is not remotely convincing as a leader of men, showing neither charisma nor divinity. She's just plain mental. John Malkovich is totally miscast as the young King, and quite why Dustin Hoffman's part exists at all is a mystery. The battle scenes are visually impressive but show us only the spectacular gore, and none undoubted horror and fear of the battlefield. Five invincible nobles cutting a bloody swathe through dozens of doomed English Knights and foot soldiers would be more at home in a Conan film than a historical epic. And the accents? Although nowhere near the farce that The Man In the Iron Mask was, the mixture just doesn't work. English and Americans playing Frenchmen share dialogue with Frenchmen playing Frenchmen and we end up with a compromised mess. The only way to tell identify who's supposed to be English is that they have as yet undiscovered Northern English dialects and swear. On the positive side, Faye Dunaway is good, as are all the French cast. I can't help thinking that had this been made in French with a French cast, a more subtle Joan and more realism in battle, it could have been a great film. But it wasn't, and it isn't.
Rating:
Summary: A good movie
Review: Historical relevance aside, Messenger is a pretty cool movie. If you don't take it as an accurate chronicle of a figure who may or may not have existed several hundred years ago and instead just think of it as the fantastical chronicle of a confused girl, it works very well indeed. The battle scenes were awesome, the humor, if full of colloquialisms, was good but not overdone, and the acting was solid if not great. My biggest complaint is one that I am finding more and more in recent movies. At some points, the beautiful panoramic scenes which work so well on the big screen backfire on TV screens...for example, when Jeanne is running across the fields in the beginning, she is barely visible as a little speck on a big-screen TV. Overall, this was quite an enjoyable movie with some likeable characters, some utterly despicable ones, and shining fight scenes. Recommended.
| 
