The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

Rating:
Summary: imperfect but often interesting historical drama
Review: If it were not based on a true story, Luc Besson's `The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc' would be a tale filled with credibility gaps a mile wide. Since it is, however, a recounting of one of the world's most famous stories of military triumph and personal tragedy, the film actually generates the most interest when it concentrates on just those mind-boggling historical incredibilities.

Joan was, of course, the deeply devout, illiterate peasant girl who, spurred on by what she claimed were visions and voices sent directly by God - assuring her and France of a glorious victory over the advancing forces of the invading English army - managed to convince a desperate monarch to have her lead an army into the field, despite the fact that she brought with her no previous battle experience or even a rudimentary knowledge of the use of weapons in combat. We first see her as a young girl, strangely obsessed with religious piety, attending confession daily, running through the woods in a mad frenzy of ecstasy, encountering strange, inexplicable visions along the way, and, eventually, being driven to an intense hatred of the British by the rape and murder of her beloved older sister. We see the French royalty, so driven to desperation by the seemingly inexorable encroachment of the brutal British onto their native soil, that they lend credence to this child and give in to her demands, sending her out to lead the troops into what turns out to be some truly miraculous routs and victories. But glory is, more often than not, an ineffable entity that is lost as quickly as it is gained - and Joan learns tragically that, once her original goal of restoring the French monarch to his throne is achieved, her services are no longer of value, and she is allowed to be captured by the English, tried by the Catholic Church, and burned at the stake by the English government for the crime of witchcraft.

Given this fascinating and astonishing series of events, it would be difficult to make a film completely lacking in interest and insight. And, indeed, `The Messenger' is, perhaps, a better film than many of the harsh, almost bitter reviews by many critics would indicate. The first half of the film is a rather conventional telling of the tale. The warrior Joan often comes across as a shrill, petulant adolescent who somehow never convinces us that she is, indeed, someone all these military strategists would follow. But, about midway through the film, the screenwriters, Andrew Birkin and writer/director Besson, begin to apply some psychological depth to the character. After a particularly sanguine encounter with the English, in which hundreds of decapitated and limbless corpses strew the blood-soaked ground, Joan breaks down in despair over the horrifying inhumanity of the sight. From then on, her actions arise from a paradoxical conflict occurring within the very core of her being - between the righteousness of her pious cause, the pacifistic teachings of Christ and her single-minded devotion to her king and country. When she is finally captured and held in prison before and during her trial, she begins to question the veracity of her visions and to ponder whether the motivation for her cause really lay in divine inspiration or an obsession for personal glory and power. We're a long way from the astute psychological insights of Carl Dreyer's classic silent film version of the story, `The Passion of Jeanne d'Arc,' but `The Messenger' does take occasional time out from its action sequences to attempt to explore the question of whether Joan's miracles were the product of divine intervention or of mere happenstance and chance coupled with a determination and passion borne of insanity. Unfortunately, casting Dustin Hoffman as the Voice of Conscience who visits her in her cell and speaks for the side of reason as she descends more and more into seeming madness, renders much of this otherwise fascinating section faintly ludicrous. Every time his overly familiar face and voice arrive on the scene, we are immediately thrust out of the context of the story and find ourselves tempted to giggle out loud - hardly the tone one wants to establish as Joan of Arc marches grimly to the stake. Also, much of what he utters rings false in the context of the film's era; he sounds like he is mouthing psychobabble that would not arrive on the scene for at least another five hundred years.

In terms of dialogue, historical films have always it seems had to face an inevitable Hobson's Choice: should the writers employ language that reflects the reality of the time, thereby making the characters sound stilted or dated by today's standards, or should the authors resort to the use of more modern vernacular, enhancing the immediacy of the story, perhaps, but also possibly creating an uncomfortable and awkward sense of anachronism that weakens the verisimilitude of the film so painstakingly established by the elaborate set decoration and costume design of the film? The writers of `The Messenger' have, for the most part, taken the latter course, leading to mood-shattering declarations by the characters such as `she's nuts!' and `I'm gonna kill that f------ bitch' along with a barrage of four-letter word expletives with which no contemporary PG-13 or R-rated feature could ever do without.

Those with a queasiness when it comes to movie violence had best be forewarned: the battle scenes, though expertly shot and edited, register high on the bloodletting scale.

Of the performers, none matches in quality the exquisite photography, art direction or costume design that adorn the film. Milla Jovovich is, at best, adequate as Joan, rarely giving more than a surface interpretation of the complex psychological struggles occurring at the root of her personality. John Malkovich, as the would-be French king, for whose throne Joan lays her life on the line, has his moments, but the part is not really big enough in the context of the film to allow him to create a multifaceted performance. Faye Dunaway brings a cool, subtle intensity to her role as the future king's manipulative mother-in-law.

`The Messenger' emerges as an ultimately unsatisfying mixture of faults and virtues, yet, because it has such a fascinating story to tell, the film is far more interesting than the brutally hostile reviews that greeted the work's initial release would lead one to believe.

Rating:
Summary: A Tale of Revenge and Madness
Review: It is hard to say if this is a good movie or not. What confuses the issue is that it purports to be the story of Joan of Arc, which it is not. So I ask myself, is it a good movie if we change all the names?. And I would have to say, yes, it's a good story. Implausible perhaps, but gripping, scary, weird, dramatic: a psychological study of frenzied revenge ending in insight, repentance and inner peace. But as a dramatization of the life of Joan of Arc it is a flop, an "F", a Zero. The Milla Jovovich character is as far from the winsome, simple, and tenderhearted peasant girl as the East is from the West. For those of you who want to learn about the real Joan, there is a wealth of information including extensive first hand accounts from the Trial of Nullification. It is well worth the effort. Joan's life is one of the most incredible in all history, very moving and thought provoking.

Rating:
Summary: Dissapointing Version of the Joan Of Arc Story!
Review: Unfocused, overproduced, over-ambitious and overlong, that is the best way to describe this uneven period action movie/tragedy/religious melodrama. That's really too bad because it had potential and some great actors in it; Faye Dunaway, John Malkovich and Dustin Hoffman. Starting with the cast, Mila Jovovich was simply wrong for the role, 'Joan of Arc' is just as complex a character as 'Blance DuBois', it was just too difficult for her but who can blame her for trying. She was miscast in a vital role and overdoes it a lot, but then she isn't even an actress, she was originally a model that's always been typecast for roles where exotic looks where needed. Faye Dunaway is under-appreciated, John Malkovich is simply miscast in a role that makes him look silly and childish and Dustin Hoffman just plain seems awkward in the role of devil?/angel?/conscience?. For a period film it is too Hollywoodized, strange considering the French cast and foreign director, it also fails to capture the times with silly accents and unimpressive sets, costumes and makeup. The battle scenes have an extremely low credibility level and look cartoonish. And the 'miracle sequences' where Joan is visited by God are ridiculous, the guy that plays Jesus looked more like a freak that the son of God, his looks are really distracting. It tries to be 'Braveheart' (a much better film) at times but fails miserably and near the end it violently changes direction to religious melodrama. This are the film's best scenes where they start to question whether Joan really saw God and even those sequences are overlong. And the final burning at the stake, which should of been poignant or dramatically successful is dull and unrewarding. The stylized direction by Besson is completely inadequate here, it works well in films like 'La Femme Nikita' (his best film) or even 'The Professional', but not here. Note: if Joan really saw God (and I'm not saying she didn't), I wonder why he preferred the French armies to the English, there's a religious contradiction right there. God loves all and doesn't wish war and manslaughter for anybody. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 4!

Rating:
Summary: Burn the witch
Review: Gosh, this film disagreed with me. Overlong, extremely shallow and with a tone that varies from comical slapstick to brutal fight sequences, watching this film at that cinema was a mind, heart and buttock-numbing exercise. Confirming the suspicion that Luc Besson is essentially a grown-up man with a child's understanding of cinema, it's stylish, inconsistent, and with no depth of any kind. The film seems like a terrible waste of talent - Jovovich's edgy, verging-on-madness portrayal of the title character, whilst never particularly subtle, nonetheless explodes with gusto, and the battle sequences are highly entertaining in a grim and gritty, post-'Excalibur' style. The rest of the film is a mess, though. Jeanne's heavenly visions contain the worst kind of cliched mid-80's pop video imagery imaginable, not a single line of dialogue stands out (except for the well-known transcriptions of Jeanne's trial, taken from court records of the time), and Eric Serra's music sounds rooted in the 1930's, when it isn't using a 'Fifth Element'-style breathy 'thrum' noise. The tone veers alarmingly - the opening sequence features Asterix-style comic English soldiers, pantomime crooked teeth and all, brutally raping and murdering Jeanne's sister. Later on, Jeanne's expedition to attack Paris is reduced to a 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'-style 'attack the castle' fiasco, whilst the ending tries a stab at indie art, with Dustin Hoffman as Jeanne's 'conscience'. And it's much too long.

Rating:
Summary: Rented and now plan to buy it!
Review: Originally planned to buy this movie but the reviews concerned me. So I rented it assuming it wasn't that good. Baloney! The film is superb. Milla does an outstanding character and her turmoil comes through crystal clear. The soundtrack (5.1) is excellent and the scenes and color vibrant. Have seen some criticism that the story does not adhere strictly to JoA's real life story... and to that I only say... ITS A MOVIE! It is entertainment, not documentary, its purpose is entertain, not educate. All in all, excellent movie, I'm now buying it.

Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile epic
Review: I enjoyed this epic. Some key scenes are handled too abuptly or are disjointed (the final burning scene is a key one; the rape of Jeanne's sister is another in that it's obviously inserted to explain away the driving force of Jeanne's militant fervor). The politics of the French court was engaging. The battle scenes I thought were good. We see an accurate depiction of what happens to people in battle. As for Jeanne's character during this period, a lot of people have said she comes across as a raving lunatic. However, I thought it was handled perfectly. The fire that drives Jeanne's fire is the basis for her leadership, and I never expected her to =poof= all of a sudden turn into a professional military officer. In reality, I doubt she would really have had patient explanations of battlefield tactics by her peers, but those dialogues provide a nice contrast to her character. The later parts of the film involving her trial seem to drag out. I enjoyed them, but I doubt most American audiences liked sitting through it. Dustin Hoffman's character shows Jeanne her limitations, and he intellectualizes her visions. Her visions, by the way, are impressive in the way they are handled cinematically. Though they are extraordinary, Hoffman peels them away as easily as the real world tempers the fancies and dreams of a child. Overall, this is a really good film with some strong performances.

Rating:
Summary: Er, interesting....
Review: Well, after just finished watching this rather, er, unusual video, I can finally give my honest opinion. First of all, I can agree with many others that the historical accuracy left something to be desired seeing as how much of today's generation seems to take historical movies as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As for the acting, I found her to be rather, shall we say, odd? As I stared at her I couldn't help myself wonder if she was about to scream in rage and burst into flames. It would make someone wonder if she was sane of mind. In my opinion, the actress who played Joan of Arc made her appear to be a religeous nut case and a complete lunatic. And as far as the comment one of the other reviewers made saying only a "...religeous fanatic...Pat Robertson." would ever buy this video, I can't help perhaps think the contrary. I was rather disturbed seeing Christ protrayed as a rather frightening man with almost lunatic seeming eyes and an expression of one about to be executed. In any case, presenting all these down sides, I can at least say that at least the movie had some good special effects and recreating some of those moments were good. I'd comment on the good acting if it wasn't downright unnerving watching it.

Rating:
Summary: I'd rather see the Swanson version
Review: THis movie was an insulting depiction of the visions of St. Joan of Arc. Looking through the eyes of a twentieth century thinker...the writer and director decided to throw out the idea of Joan and her divine visions and imply the idea that she was mad. The movie takes the Character of a powerful woman who entered a man's world and controled it with grace and strength...and turns her into a childish mad woman who seem to deserve her fate. NO, if you want to learn the Joan of Arc story then read a book. If you want to see a dramatic version of the story...rent the blackand white, or even better rent the Gloria Swanson silent film

Rating:
Summary: Not too bad or too good
Review: While reviewing this video, I have wondered about whether Joan of Arc was portrayed accurately from a historical standpoint.

The writer depicts Joan as somewhat of an mentally off balanced or insane eccentric who has weird visions. Realizing that Joan was declared a saint some 500 years later, the writer attempts to protray her as material for sainthood with Joan obsessed with confession to a priest for her sins and belief in transubstantiation as the means of empowering her for her tasks.

The Roman Church with its Inquisition that tried Joan is pictured in a much favorite light. The English get most of the blame in the end, as the church Inquisitors try to exonerate her but in the end declaring her to be a martyr for the English.

In comparison, the video Joan of Arc played by Leelee Sobieski has a much better and believable plot than this one. Milla Jovovich has a much harder role in this script. She does a good job as does her suppporting actors.

Rating:
Summary: Besson is playing with a dulled sword
Review: The story of Joan of Arc holds a mythical quality for the French so it is interesting to see how a French director handles such a tale. Indecisively I say: Besson does not seem to be able to make his mind up whether Joan is a superheroine or some crazy mixed up little girl. Although I loved the flashiness and imagination of the 5th Element, something is definitely missing in this film.

It takes Dustin Hoffman's late (and all to brief) arrival into the film to start giving it the darkness it deserves. After all, the story seems to be about rebelleion against tyranny, betrayal and faith.

The period is captured well and the battle scenes capture the gore and dirt well enough (crows and dogs nibbling at the dead adds another dimension).

The big question is of course Milla Jovovich herself. She spends most of the movie bewildered. She tries to capture the essence of a woman possessed but ends up making a brave although lacking attempt. This kind of role requires a masterful performance to bring out all the nuances. The same indecision seemed to be behind Malkovitch's acting - I was expecting a Valmont (although Faye Dunaway did a good job as the wicked step mother).

I did like the overblown English accents and the battle hardened French generals but after the film I was no more wise as to whether Joan was the messenger of God or a lunatic possessed.