Rating: 
Summary: Several great bowl-cuts, but a stinker of a film.
Review: Well, you can be sure you'll be treated to your fair share of glorious Plantagenet hairdos if you rent this DVD. Almost everyone in the (fabulous) cast - even John Malkovich - has one. But alas the hair styles are about the only source of genuine cheer; almost everything else is a let-down. Malkovich had a peach of a part as the dastardly, conniving Dauphin, but played it amazingly straight, with nary a hint of the cheeky chappie the role was crying out for. What would Alan Rickman have made of it, I wonder. Or even Bruce Willis? He certainly wasn't helped by the dreadful pacing of the first half - it is a full hour before Joan has even got her army, let alone used it - the first 60 minutes being devoted to tedious back story leading to Joan's appearance in the Dauphin's court; by turns voyeuristic (was she a virgin? Spend ten minutes finding out!), gratuitously violent (the murder and necrophilia of Joan's sister), and just plain daft (recurring visions of a remarkably camp Jesus in a forest surrounded by wolves). The gratuitous violence is a serious blight on the film; the murder/rape scene was arguably relevant to the plot but still was depicted with more detail and relish than necessary, and the remainder of the film overflows with dogs, wolves and crows gobbling human carrion and more battlefield amputations and decapitations than probability would dictate. I'm sure these earned the film its 18 restriction when, fundamentally, it could have quite easily avoided them. But for all the above, I think the main problem with this film is Luc Besson himself. The early stages are laden with meaningless cliches - wolves streaming through the forest, girl running through meadows - and laboured imagery (crucifix, fire, dripping blood and a combination thereof) which get the film off to a bad start from which it never recovers. And thereafter Besson unwisely tries to have a bob each way. On one hand, he takes the historically faithful/dramatised documentary angle - this is really how it happened, you see - but on the other he plays the dreamy, psychedelic/quasi-spiritual card at the same time. Which isn't how it happened, at all. Most peculiar were Joan's visions of Jesus. It really isn't clear what we are meant to take from these: Did Joan really see visions of Jesus (as a boy and - heavily made up with eye-shadow, a beard and a toga - apparently as a member of Slade), or was she simply a paranoid schizophrenic, not in need of an army to march on the British so much as Professional Help? Besson doesn't answer this fundamental question, and the introduction of Dustin Hoffman at the end of the film, seemingly imbued with magical powers, really doesn't help. I still don't know what Hoffman was meant to do in the film or who he was. Was he Jesus? Was he Joan's conscience? Or just more evidence that she really was nuts? Or was HE the lead guitarist from Slade? All in all, hairdos aside, a pretty dissatisfying night in.
Rating: 
Summary: It was okay
Review: Milla Jovovich no matter how people delight in demeaning her (as model turned actress) She has a gift for acting (in my opinion) she got my attention, in this film and I've began watching her other work. The fight scenes are pretty gory, but my stomach can stand that. I could've done without the rape scene...but I'm sure that's probably historically accurate.... Dustin Hoffman...well at times I found him a little annoying as her "conscience".
The way Jesus was portrayed was kinda interesting
I remember a moment in the film, in the middle or near the end of the war when the land is drenched in blood from both sides, and Jesus "appears" to her and says "what are you doing to me, Joan?" (or something like that lol) It had become somewhat of a "holy war" Joan in the film tells the English to surrender to the King of Heaven in the beginning. One of the French soldiers says 'God's on our side" and another remarks "let's hope God never becomes neutral" sarcastically. What ever it was, "The Messenger" is just a movie, and it was a brave portrayal and made an interesting film.
Rating: 
Summary: Different Point Of View
Review: Just as most of reviewes said, this movie is not too "sticked" to facts about Joan D'Arc, but the value of the movie is not the historical one. It is the first movie that gives an atheistic point of view on Joan of Arc. In the movie, St. Joan was pretty schizophrenic and she expiriences religious trances from time to time. Dustin Hoffman as her conscience, represents the logical side of the story and he, in fact, represents the new, atheistic, analysis of Joan D'Arc biography.
From artistic point of you, at the end of the movie, I had feeling that I've got too much explanations, although I understood the filmmakers allegation at the middle of the movie, trough excelent allusions that they gave. Every other aspect of movie is done excellent - the acting, the coreography, the directing...
There are many people that will deeply disagree with the claims of the movie, but it is still interesting to see it and see what the "other" side thinks. For atheists, the movie answers exactly on the question: who REALLY Joan D'Arc was, inspite of some historical mistaces that are made in the story.
Rating: 
Summary: Missed the Boat
Review: This movie is a WASTE of your time money mind and morals.
If Mr Besson doesn't believe in GOD and therefore wanted to know why a young peasant girl would take up arms against the British than he would have to deal with FACTS: The part of France Joan was born in was NEVER attacked by the English but by the French Burgundians allied with them; her village was NEVER attacked by anybody and none of her sisters were murdered and raped (according to this flick in that order) so Mr Besson is not trying to figure out Joan but to trot out a sex and sleeze flick.
And by the by the Catholic Church burned no body: according to the law at that time they could CONDEMN but they had to have the SECULAR arm do that. Nice if the audience were a little better informed that the makers of this shlock.
Rating:
Summary: An overblown mess...
Review: This is definatly one film by Luc Besson that disappointed me. It's a shame that a great soundtrack and some good special affects were wasted on it. The plot is difficult to follow thanks to the sorry acting and bad script that accompany the gasy scenes. Half of the characters talk as if they were fighting the One Hundred Years War on their summer off from junior high. To many pointless things happen that don't have much to do with anything in the film, other than making Joan of Arc seem like an off-the-wall madwoman. Milla Jovovich over acts in such a way that it ruins the character of Joan. Because of the overall quality of this movie, one finds it hard to feel for Besson's Joan when she is tried and her sentence carried out. If you were looking for an interesing, touching film that told at least a semi-true story about Joan of Arc, you would be better off to forget about this raunchy, obnoxious joke of a movie.
Rating:
Summary: Did we see the same movie?
Review: A fascinating movie. Much of the negative criticism here objects to the movie's treatment of history and to the depiction of the medieval Catholicism that roasted so many at the stake. Both critical strains miss the movie. Joan has long since ceased being a historical person and has entered the realm of myth and legend; as for her being a saint, well, I have no idea what a saint is. But the movie presents a very human Joan in a drama superbly acted and incredibly filmed. Other objections are to beheadings and dogs gnawing at the slain. Fascinating -- we want our saints saintly and wars antiseptic. If that's what you want, don't watch this movie. Admittedly, the war scenes are not historically accurate. They are far too mild to reveal the nature of death in the Hundred Years War. But here the objection was not with the historical accuracy. For viewers less comfortable with ambiguity and blood, perhaps an G-rated version is more appropriate. But Joan lived in X-rated times. The Messenger is a very good movie, much more controlled and sustained than The Fifth Element or La Femme Nikita.
Rating:
Summary: A reason to revive the Inquistion.
Review: Where to start criticizing this movie? It fails so miserably on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to begin. It's obvious from watching this movie that the people who made it either didn't read the historical facts concerning Joan or did read them and simply chose to ignore them. Furthermore, you would never know Joan of Arc was a devout Catholic from seeing this movie. Aside from a few one sentence requests to see a priest, Joan's deep faith and spirituality are totally left out. Not that Milla Jovovich has that kind of range as an actress anyway but couldn't they have at least tried? Other than that I don't know what to say about a movie that seems to go out of its way to demonize a young girl who, by all contemporary accounts, was literally a living saint. It's just a terrible movie. Please don't waste your money.
Rating:
Summary: Disapointing
Review: This is pretty disapoiting compared to other Luc Besson movies; if you think that the Fifth Element is one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever made and if you kept saying "BIG BADDA BOOM" for a year, you'll be totally turned off by Nana Vovovich's character.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good movie
Review: Many people are hot or cold on this movie. Some say it is not accurate, others say it is accurate. Some say the lead is wrong, (Jovovich,) others say she is perfect. Here is what I think.
I know little about French history. Even in my Western Civ class in college, the Hundred Years War was a bit lacking in material, so I cannot claim to be well versed in Joan of Arc. However, what I do know about her meshes into the film. What exactly was she? Who knows. Crazy? Maybe. A faithful servant of her God? She thought so. Are there erreors in the movie? Most movies do. Are they a detriment to the film? I really don't know.
The film is well produced. The actors play their roles well, the battle scenes are fantastic, the atmosphere is outstanding. I think the movie is the best movie Besson has made, over Leon and La Femme Nikita both. If Joan was a homely girl, or if some sequence in the battle wasn't quite historically accurate, I don't think it matters. After all, look at Pearl Harbor. Loads of people think that movie is the greatest thing since buttered toast, and errors abound. not that that is an excuse, just there is a difference between openly making something politically correct and an historical error. Nothing I saw in The Messenger was a blaring error.
Rating:
Summary: 1 star is being very generous
Review: This movie of Joan of Arc is the WORST representation of her life ever produced. The history is not very accurate and Joan's mission was totally missed. The director seems to have forgotten that this 19 yr old girl was the catylst that eventually ended the Hundred Years War, but under God's command. This is a cheezy "Hollywood" production; looks are very deceiving. Don't waste your money. If you are truly interested in seeing a GOOD and more accurate movie, I suggest THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, the 1928 silent film, or JOAN OF ARC with Leelee Sobieski, from 1999.
| 
