The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

Rating:
Summary: Horrible.
Review: Joan was not crazy, was not a schizophrenic, and did not look like that. This movie tarnishes her memory. If I had lightening bolts, I would strike down the crew and actors of this movie, who BLATANTLY decided to throw away pure fact and focus instead on "Can we make a lot of money of this instead of telling the truth?? CAN WE??!!" Disagree? ...I am very vehement about this subject and would be glad to prove you wrong...I mean...talk with you about this.

Rating:
Summary: The Messenger Review
Review: This movie portrayed the story of Joan of Ark in a new perspective which must be respected. It is interesting through out the entirty of the movie. A main reason for this movies sucsess was Milla Jovovitche's part as Joan of Ark with out her such a masterpeice could not be performed.

Rating:
Summary: How can one sum up this silly movie:
Review: In a phrase- "Joan of Arc- SUPER MODEL!"

Rating:
Summary: When an Angry God Screams In Your Ear
Review: Milla Jovovich is astonishingly good in her performance as Joan of Arc. The supporting cast is excellent as well. Cinematography, sets, costumes are all perfection. Mystical sequences are suitably bewildering...are they from the mouth of God or madness? The seemingly endless battle scenes, the thick dark brutality of 15th century warfare, the ruthless machinations of power and betrayal are filmed mercilessly to great effect. The blunt, relentless savagery bludgeons us as we are plunged ferociously into the fray, urged on by a frenzied, schrieking berserker with an angel's face. Regardless of whether you prefer to see Joan's story as myth or history or a combination of the two, this film is a powerful depiction of the mayhem and miracles of martyrdom that can occur when an individual's voice of conscience and reason are lost in the blast of an angry god's screams of retribution. Whether manufactured by religion, manipulated by the state, morphed from some secret personal madness, "holy war" has never been the work of the Creative and Loving Spirit that moves the Universe. Suffering and the horrors of war come from people. I didn't see this film when it was in the theatres, but saw it on VHS three years later. It stikes me that the people behind the 9/11 tragedy, the people who clamored for the death penalty the moment the D.C. snipers were caught, the kamikaze pilots of World War II, and all those down through history who call upon death with a righteous voice have a little of Joan of Arc within them. Who spoke to Joan...the God or the Satan of her religion? Or were the voices from the deep well of her own psyche twisted and turned about by the times in which she lived? Can it be that Bin Laden and Joan of Arc are cut from the same cloth? When will it end? When will it ever end? This movie asks powerful questions that need asking today more than ever.

Rating:
Summary: Well done-period.
Review: First of all, this movie is based on facts. Many reviews charged the makers of the movie that it is a complete nonsense. Well, some parts are made up, probably to empahsize the groundbraking concept of the movie but overall it is historically correct. If you buy the DVD version, you will have the opportunity to see a documentary that is dedicated to all the research the Joan of Arc Research Center in France spent time on before the actual shooting of the movie began.

Now that you know that this is not your everyday historical movie, let us talk about the concept of the movie. Many reviews before me said that the movie basically tells a story of an insane woman who can not be Joan because she is this and that, according to the legend. The whole point is that this movie challenges that legend. Have you ever wondered how could a simple peasant girl lead an army living in a very rigid society of medieval times? Was it really a divine will that put her on the stage of history or maybe her self-determination and circumstances shaped her fate?. Besson asks these question almost completely abandoning the legend of Joan that became accepted by scholars and everyday people. The movie makes you think and, in my belief that is the sole purpose of it. It is not really a biography of some sort but a new way of explaining the known historical facts. Dustin Hoffmann's character is the perfect tool to achieve that. By the way, Mr. Hoffmann does an excellent job.
The other actors do a fine job as well considering that it was an international cast. Many say that Milla was terrible in the movie. Well, she is not Meryl Streep but tried her best. Mr. Malkovich did as much with his small part as much as he could. The other bright spot besides Mr. Hoffmann was Faye Dunaway's excellent portrait of the King of France's mother-in-law.

The battle scenes were very realistic and exciting. One other thing that deserves to be mentioned is the costumes. All the clothing and armor the actors wore were in some cases complete reproductions. The jewelry were copies of pieces from the times of Joan. These provide an atmosphere like you are really in the fifteenth century.

If you buy this title, buy the DVD version. The sound and picture quality is excellent and the widescreen format is truely great.
So, before you watch this title, open your mind and immerse yourself in the fascinating history of medieval times

Rating:
Summary: History-I dont care!
Review: ...If one is not a Joan of Arc obsessed fan who has done numerous school projects on how "incredible she was" or if they are not history teachers (or maybe they can just put that aside) they would enjoy this movie. It is not for the weak hearted for its gore and graphic detailing of medieval battle is ridiculously fantastic. Fight scenes are fabulous and the depiction of rage and fight is riveting. It is a long movie and (as stated above) if you don't know the true history you will very likely be sucked into the depth of this story and incredible depiction of a young disturbed and very religious young woman.
That said it is fact that this movie depicts Joan not as one who actually hears god but instead is one who hears herself (she thinks its god) telling her to go after the English that have brutally raped her sister. It is very believable in that aspect. If you forget you're watching the story of Jean of Arc you WILL be entertained. ...

Rating:
Summary: What Becomes a Legend Most?
Review: Based on the polarity of reviews here, I knew this was a film that would leave a strong impression. I land on the very positive side. This is a fascinating film- gorgeous in its settings and costumes, powerful in its depiction of medieval war, and profound in its exploration of the life of a paradoxical heroine.

Milla Jovovich's take on Joan is an intriguing blend of shy farm girl, zealot, religious fanatic, saint, and tormented soul. There is some interesting casting here: Dustin Hoffmann is appropriately eerie as God/Satan/Joan's conscience/Joan's subconscious; John Malkovich, although perhaps a bit too old (the Dauphin/King was only about 9 years older than Joan), is effectively petulant and ethics-free. Faye Dunaway looks absolutely horrid, thanks in part to the bizarre attire and hair style of the time, and in part to really, really bad plastic surgery. A large supporting cast demonstrates the extremes that Joan provoked: loyalty, hatred, fear, and adulation.

The criticism for the film's lack of historical accuracy makes me laugh. Some reviewers fervently deride some of the films events, as if they were witnesses to the historical reality. These events happened almost 600 years ago. Much of the "facts" about Joan's life come from testimony twenty years after her death, when her family was trying to reverse the guilty verdict. Joan was already a legend, and the testimony of her reality was certainly already tinged by her fame.

If you want a 100 percent historically accurate version of the life of Jehanne Darc, find a time machine and head back to Doméremy, France, January 6, 1412 (or thereabouts-the exact year of her birth is not known). If you want a film that vividly and passionately tells a tale of a mythical legend, buy The Messenger.

Rating:
Summary: Jovovich is great, but the movie is poor
Review: Yes, Jovovich is a great actress. Yes, the battle scences give a good impression of what war was like back then. But the story is LOOSELY based on Joan of Arc's true story, and the truth here is better than fiction. So many errors and additions to the true story, that the title should be renamed. This is not the story of Joan of Arc. I would rate it higher if it did not pretend to be the story of Joan of Arc, as Jovovich really does some powerful acting, even if the script was wrong, and the battle scenes will leave a lasting impression on your mind. But I was so disappointed otherwise. The version with Leelee Sobieski captured the story better, much better; it stilled conveyed the question whether Joan was dillusional or actually was a messenger of God without having to badly distort the real story. Leelee Sobieski, another great actress, was a much more believeable Joan of Arc. Jovovich played another character -- she played that other character well, but it wasn't Joan of Arc.

Rating:
Summary: The "Mess"...
Review: I decided to intentionally not watch this movie on the big screen, after hearing reviews from several people. I then wasn't sure if I wanted see the movie at all, but I broke down and rented it anyway, as I am a big fan of Joan of Arc.

From the moment I read about her sister's rape on the cover, I knew I'd have a difficult time watching this movie, since that event never happened. After watching the whole thing, I found that my initial impressions were correct. This movie was just a movie, _not_ a historical documentary, which is something to definitely keep in mind. It would've been nice if Besson had referenced the trial transcripts for a better idea of how Joan actually lived, but alas.

I (generously) give a rating of one star, only because this work has spread a little more awareness of the life and death of Joan of Arc. I would also give this movie two enthusiastic thumbs down, except for the battle scenes, and Besson didn't even get all of those right, so a somewhat shaky one thumb up for the battle scenes. The reason for this rating is quite simple - Monty Python and the Holy Grail was much more historically accurate than easily at least half of this hellishly awful piece-of-... movie that rotted sea monkeys could've done better with. It's much more entertaining, as well.

The beginning did not impress me at all. I found the scrolling white text to be rather small, and I had to pause to read what was trying to be conveyed. Also, Joan did not find her sword as it was portrayed in this movie. (Why a small shepherdess would need a huge sword to tend sheep is still beyond me.) I didn't really care for the hooked-on-drugs vision in the forest, either.

The scene in which Joan's sister was raped may have been appropriate if the event had actually happened. I found it to be distasteful, especially as there were so many things in Joan's life that Besson could have chosen to emphasize. The invention of a falsity to "enhance" an already miraculous story just strikes me as ridiculous.

The scene where Joan rushes in to drink from the communion chalice is not accurate at all. Speaking as a Catholic liturgist, the Blood of Christ (communion wine after consecration) was and still is never stored in the tabernacle (where the extra consecrated bread goes after communion), which would have been locked anyway. Joan also would not have had access to drinking the wine to begin with. She was not full of manufactured rage, as Besson would like us to think. Lisa Simpson from television's "The Simpsons" was more accurately portrayed, as far as young Joans go. "Who, me? But I'm just a little girl!"

Joan also never said anything about God being angry with the English... the trial records clearly state that she didn't know if God was against the English, but he wanted them out of France. The scene with the arrow in her chest was very touching, but she went straight back to the battle, and the battle was won that same day, NOT the next day as shown. The more exciting storyline in this section lies in actual fact - how amazing!

I do like how Milla plays Jehanne, except for the unnecessary hysterics. (I liked Milla in "The Fifth Element" and in "Zoolander", too.) I also liked the concept of Dustin Hoffman's role. This was a nice spin on things, along with the symbolic meaning of Joan's hair turning from lightness to darkness through the course of the movie. I also liked how John Malkovich played Charles, and appreciated that Besson was accurate in the "Find the Dauphin" game.

History records Joan wearing male clothing during the trial, and with her head shaved for the burning. The miter Joan wore on "stake day" was noticeably absent. A cross was not held up as Joan's body burned; it was a crucifix (amazing what difference a little body makes).

I am now wondering about how many other things I've missed, since I was too bewildered at Besson's storytelling approach to write most of my thoughts down. Factual accuracy aside, this movie could have been made into so much more. It's highly disappointing, yet somewhat pretty to look at if you aren't aware of "the real story".

Bleaach. See "The Passion of Joan of Arc" by Carl Dreyer instead! At least that made Ebert's top 100 great movies list.

Rating:
Summary: Hollywood interprets Religion
Review: Kinda sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? Well, Hollywood and Luc Besson don't do a bad job here in "The Messenger", the latest interpretation of Joan of Arc starring Milla Jovovich. To take up such ambitious subjects as the 15th century, Hundred Years' War, and Joan herself really made this film interesting. Beforehand, television tried to make a mini-series out of this with Leelee Sobieski, but this stuff needed the silver screen treatment.

We all know the story. Joan is supposedly chosen by God to free France from English oppressors, succeeds in Orleans, but is betrayed by the King and burned by the English. Now in "The Messenger", it takes two and a half hours, but it's well worth it. The movie slowly exposes all the main characters. Joan (Jovovich), dauphin Charles (John Malkovich), and her mother-in-law, Yolande D'Aragon (Faye Dunaway), and then rockets into midieval battle. We then meet Dunois (Tcheky Karyo) and de Rais (Vincent Cassel). Near the end, we meet the second-best part of the film, Joan's Conscience (Dustin Hoffman). An extrodinary cast for such a film.

But, once again, Hollywood must take dramatic license. Besson portrays Joan as a blood-thirsty lunatic yelling at the top of her lungs for death and destruction. Not likely. The real Joan was more inspirational then what is portrayed here. The battle scenes are excellent and entirely historical, but we soon find Joan to be at the bad end of the stick, and in the hands of the English because Charles is now king, and wants to talk things out rather than fight an "expensive" war.

Jovovich really stands out here - she's pretty much the entire movie and everyone helps her out along the way. Her trial and talks with Conscience are some of the best acting i've seen Jovovich perform. The costumes work, the environment and scenes all paint out, it's a great movie! Just sit back and be patient, some things can long, and of course, we've got the realistic gore in the battle scenes. So everything is covered.

To sum this all up, "The Messenger" is probably Jovovich's best, supported well by the great cast, and researched very well by the historical viewpoint. Four stars out of five for twisting Joan of Arc herself around.