Jeanne

I saw this film seduced being by its trailer and surprised by so young Jeanne. The first half of hour was real weigh because all seems so amateurish, from the sand location to dialogue. But the hope dies the last , and I hoped than the film can be saved in a form of other. And it is. By imagination of viewer knowing the story of Jeanne D Arc, by presence of Fabrice Luchini as unfair old Charles and by the dialogue from trial, by the song of prosecutor and, no doubts, by the last scenes, real inspired ones.

A good point - the effort of so young Lise Leplat Prudhomme to sustain her character.

Obvious, it is far to be a bad film. It is only an eccentric experiment, expression of rich imagination and not the most inspired tools for serve it.

It can be defined, in same measure, as provocative.

So, maybe only sin of it - it is so long ... . And you hope, scene by scene, be more ...profound, remaining, in final, only with the images from Amiens cathedral, strange prison and, sure, the beach of first scenes.

I liked the fact that this adaptation wasn't your typical overblown rubbish with gratuitous sex scenes that are churned out of Hollywood. Other than the one overacting blusterous priest that wouldn't shut up. I found this play like structure rather enjoyable.

I see that there are reviewers who were expecting a George Lucas Star Wars type of production full of glamorous but wooden actors. I feel that this young actress did a fantastic portrayal of Joan of Arc and the absent of sex in this film tends to place more focus on the actual story being told.

There are plenty of ways in which a director and script writers can go when putting together a historical production such as this. I for one prefer art over sex appeal, and talent over exposed flesh.

Starting with the acting part of the movie, the said were only said not delivered , the locations didn't seem to fit the narrative in the first shots of the movie ,the only tried to convey the emotion of the charechter but didn't take the story forward which to seemed like a waste of time , the idea and effort of using more metaphors was something i admire, but more thought needs to be put in making the metaphors work and hvae the impact they need to have

Anyone who is knowledgeable about the history of Jeanne the maid of Lorraine will be puzzled by this torpid representation of her ordeal.

The casting is baffling. A 10 year old plays Jeanne, who was 19. The wonderful Fabrice Luchini, a man in his late 60's, plays King Charles, a man in his mid 20's. Apart from Luchini, most of the cast are dreadfully wooden. The camera work is perfunctory at best. The first 40 minutes is excruciatingly slow and shot mostly in sand dunes near the English Channel / La Manche. We are expected to suspend disbelief enough to imagine this variously represents the vicinity just outside Paris or in the garden of the Château de la Trémouille. A battle scene consists of about two dozen cast on horseback performing an equine dance routine. The dialogue appears to be straight from a play this film was based on. Exposition by announcing characters as we watch them trudge through the sand is amateurish beyond belief. The editor must have been high when this section of the film was cut. Incredibly long passages of nothing happening.

I gave up around the 35 minute mark, and a day later was about to write a review when I thought to be fair I should watch the movie in its entirety first and try to fathom how it achieved the awards it received. So I sat and watched the rest.

Around the 40 minute mark the locations shift to inside Amiens cathedral which provides some photographic interest and gradually the dialogue picks up. I assume the dialogue is from Jeanne's trial. Towards the end of the film, Jeanne's prison in Rouen is a WWII bunker in the middle of nowhere.

The budget for this film is supposedly EUR1,500,000. I can't see what it was spent on. The money would have been better spent shooting the stage play with no other pretensions.

'Cahiers du Cinéma' named Jeanne (Joan of Arc) the 5th best film of 2019. I assume they only saw 5 films. The French film industry is better than this.

This film has a certain look and feel which can be described as cheap and tedious. So don't bother with this one. You will only be exasperated that you wasted over 2 hours for nothing.

The film Joan of Arc starts with some ambition. And metaphorical shots which probably were meant to add to the movie, in a way or two, which failed drastically and I was almost flabbergasted with all that happened there after. The editing, the shots, the directtion, everything fell apart. Critiques claim, this might be a breakthrough, in filmmaking, or a big fail! Let's see.

Earlier films by Bruno Dumont had some experiments, but to this level, well, okay, we'll have to wait and watch. There is a predecessor to this film, which has the same approach, and the lead actor, which are unprofessional, but that's completely fine, if other ends are fulfilled. But lacking in that part, the film totally falls apart for me.

I found this film ultimately exasperating: not quite funny enough to be funny, or serious enough to be serious, or passionate enough to be about the passion of Joan of Arc. Dumont has produced such brilliant work in the past, and Joan of Arc could well have value as a way station to something else - a work in progress, a career evolution towards a new, tonally complex film-making language. But this film is opaque and unrewarding.

Even though Joan of Arc screened at the Cannes film festival, I don't find a point of passing this through the jury and if so, i don't see a valid reason behind this.

The production seemed tight in budget, the set design and even the actors, let's exclude the child actors the whole cast's acting died for me as they proceeded.

Even the cinematography was okay, probably, there was nothing outstanding in the film, for me.