Joana D'Arc

Luc Besson directs and Milla Jovovich stars as the Maid Of Orleans who lifted France of its knees-and was tried and executed for being a heretic. The End.

Well that's what you would think all Besson's film amounts too, given the hate and general negativity that pours down on it from many of the worlds cinematic sources. Well, look, it's not brilliant, but is it really the devil that many have painted it as? Not so say I. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer all told, but Besson's study of the iconic/infamous waif who did indeed expel the British hoards has gusto by the shed load. He nicely crafts the 15th century lands from which to tell his story, and then, to quote someone from another period epic, unleashes hell. Literally. Yep the British armies are stereotypically vile {I bet Mel Gibson loves the Brit portrayals here}, and the blood that is shed is vicious and borderline sick. But it works well in the context of Jeanne's prominent rise and subsequent fall, with her religious confliction deftly blending in with the blood being shed in the pursuit of liberation. Visually the film is a treat, and for action construction it holds up to be one of the better modern day historical epics in that department. But where's the substance?

Ah, there's the big problem with the movie. Besson and his co-writer Andrew Birkin are so pre-occupied with the horrors of war and Jeanne's leadership qualities, they turn the rest of the film into a skeleton in need of flesh. And it's actually Jovovich who suffers the most. She's great when she's screaming and launching into the enemy, taking an arrow hit with grace and dedication . But there's been no character depth laid out, so Jovovich's Jeanne just comes across as a moody teenager out to cause trouble. We need to have some insight into her troubled predicament and what drives her on, not the scantily written filler moments that actually are just appetisers to blood letting battles. There 's also annoyances when the film slips into moments of modern day speak, it's a crass and lazy oversight by the makers to think that we wouldn't notice such speak in 15th Century France. Besson surrounds Jovovich with some fine acting talent tho, even if some are a tad underused. Rolling out are John Malkovich, Dustin Hoffman, Faye Dunaway, Vincent Cassel, Timothy West, Desmond Harrington and the always watchable, and scary, Tcheky Karyo.

So a bit hollow it be, but on the outside it's a ripper. Visceral, explosive and yes, fun too. 7/10

There are many deviations from the accepted facts of Jeanne d'Arc's life as set out in her trial documentation and the writings of the time. This said, the central question of whether she was a saint, an inspired lunatic, wholly mentally ill, or simply a headstrong girl determined to grab her chances while she could is well asked. Many of the comments here assert that Besson makes it clear that the Maid was simply mentally ill, yet I read the film as deeply ambivalent about what was going on. Were her visions the hallucinations of a schizophrenic? Were they given by God? What's the difference? More questions are asked: Why does an omnipotent, omniscient, all-compassionate deity allow terrible things to happen? What is the meaning of kingship - to own or to serve? What is the difference between taking the lives of individuals and killing en masse? What's the difference between Christianity and the earthly institutions of that religion? Where does conviction end and fanaticism begin?

Jovavich's Jeanne is plagued by the difference between her idea of utter submission to God and the consequences of doing so; by doubt over the veracity of her visions; and by the gap between her ideals of the divine rights of kings and realpolitik. She is constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown - is this a manifestation of her mental illness, or of her "burning for God"? And where's the difference between the two?

The film raises more questions than it answers, and that's as it should be. It is something of a shame that Besson's film takes liberties with the facts as we understand them (though history is more often about our interpretation of events than the events themselves), but in terms of raising important questions on the nature of faith, it succeeds beyond measure.

If you are wondering about Luc Besson's vaguely heretical "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc", try to imagine a cross between "Excalibur" and "Heaven's Gate". It looks great but the basic story gets lost in the histrionics and excess.

There really was a very religious young girl who was considered a savior to France during The Hundred Years War. Although things may have eventually sorted themselves out the same way without her. Three years after her birth, the new tactics of the English archers were responsible for arguably the most one-sided battle in military history at Agincourt. The result was credited to Henry V's piety and he got a great passage in Shakespeare. The French aristocracy was almost wiped out by the battle and the English became solidly entrenched in France. Fourteen years later a new generation of French nobility was beginning to assert itself and it was the English and their French allies who were having leadership problems.

Both countries were Catholic at the time and both claimed that God was on their side, a bit like the football player who thanks God for the victory over another team that apparently God did not favor.

Although there are records of both of Joan's trials (her Condemnation Trial and her Rehabilitation Trial) both proceedings had their own political agenda and should be taken with a grain of salt. Besson's film seems to follow the generally accepted version of the story but takes obvious liberties with Joan's mental condition and visions. There is no way to prove or disprove any of this so it is probably as plausible as any other speculation.

What hurts "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" is that Besson's best scenes are at the very beginning and set too high a standard for the remainder of the film. Jane Valentine is wonderful as the young Joan and Besson shows that his directing skills with young actors was not confined to Natalie Portman's performance in "Leon". This early stuff features some of the most interesting scene juxtaposition that you are likely to see in any film. IMHO it gets off to a better start than any film in cinema history. And the sequence where the young Joan is standing on a hill watching as the English burn her village is as visually stunning as anything ever filmed.

But once Milla Jovovich's grown-up Joan takes over most viewers will find it difficult to stay focused on the story. It's not miscasting, Jovovich is noted for aggressive and daring performances (see "The Dummy") rather than subtlety and nuance, making her a good fit for the take Besson wanted on Joan's personality. The problem is that while a viewer could identify with the young Joan, the older Joan is just repellent. Her story should be inspirational and tragic. Instead it is a bunch of comic book battle scenes and comical melodrama.

But it is worth watching for the production design and the beginning sequences.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I loved this movie. It's visually stunning and the casting and acting was superb. The story was already layed out (approximately), so Luc Besson concentrated on Jeanne herself, the person and what she was like and why she did what she did.

I have to admit to putting myself in Jeanne's place, feeling what she must have been feeling along the way. I think without that, it probably would have been a much duller movie, although probably entertaining.

The battles scenes, of which there were many, were graphic and brutal. Dismemberments, swords and maces swinging, lots of pain and death. The ensuing desolation at the end of a battle were weighty and gave a a horrible look at the conditions of the time.

My final impressions... Joan of Arc, if the portrayals were accurate was a driven young woman, deeply religious and deeply confused who was probably at least partially insane. If she were alive today, no doubt, she would be treated with common drugs and would lead a normal life. I felt very sorry for her and her situation and for the way that she was treated. I know people would argue that there is no need to feel this way, because she was clear and sure of her purpose. I don't feel that this was ever the case and she was sure only that she was going crazy if she didn't do something.

Movies don't usually move me this way and I'm really amazed.

The combination of Luc Besson and Mila Jojovich is a recipe for criticism. As in, "Oh sure the star is the directors wife". That would be true if Luc Besson was anything less than a great director or Mila Jojovich anything less than a great actress. This film accomplished a lot. Visually spectacular, historically challenging, and in many ways ingenious. Most of all, it didn't fall prey to the unconditional hero worship or unquestioning belief that most films about moving historical figures do. The film maintains it's historical modesty, questioning rather than preaching or glorifying. If you are looking for a moving, spiritual, emotional movie it's got all that. If you are looking for medieval warfare in all it's glory, it's got all that.

But sadly it is flawed. Much to my chagrin, as I do admire most of his work, Dustin Hoffman's performance is, to put it mildly, a big downer for the film. He is clearly at a loss as to what his character or purpose is in the film. His performance is uncomfortable and distracting. Despite his lower appearance in the credits, his role was critical in the film. It's a real detractor. But aside from this one glaring flaw, the film is of the highest quality on all accounts. I was riveted from beginning to end and wouldn't hesitate to watch it again. Because of it's one casting/directing flaw I have to rate it an 8 but on every other count it's a 10.