Jeanne d'Arc

Some movies would probably try to make a more divine spirit out of Joan but at least Besson examines all possibilities as regards to what inspired her. I think it was as honest a film you could make about Joan. Her quest for revenge combined with tremendous belief in the forces above that ignited her fire. Through Dustin Hoffman the viewer can question her motives and get her response. And what a performance! Milla was simply breathtaking as Joan.

I found Luc Besson's take on the story of Joan of Arc thoroughly compelling. Like all of Besson's films, The Messenger is highly stylized, nicely cast, and visually powerful. The film is also forgivably anachronistic in terms of language while developing a strong period feel through sets and costume.

Joan was, of course, the deeply religious teenage girl who lead Prince Charles' army to improbable victory over the invading English at Orleans and helped re-consolidate French sovereignty. Joan considered herself God's appointed messenger, and France apparently saw her as an avenging angel. Today, she is commonly regarded as a schizophrenic. She was canonized in the 1950s, 500 years after her death. Regardless of whether God or insanity was the source of her strength, power, will and incredible courage - there is little ambiguity about her role in the salvation of France nor the fate that awaited her afterward.

In general, the acting is quite good. Jovovich's much-maligned performance is actually very good and exactly appropriate for what Besson was trying to do with the film. Comparing Joan of Arc to her other Messianic role as Leelu in the Fifth Element is, frankly, ridiculous. I believe that the problems people find in Jovovich's performance are problems those same people bring to the film. Malkovich and Dunaway are phenomenal. Tcheky Karyo and Vincent Cassell provide excellent support.

Besson strays from what we think we know about the details of Joan's story, but only to present the truth of the big-picture more accurately. His film steadfastly refuses to answer the questions many people will bring to it:

* Was Joan schizophrenic? * Was she a catholic messiah or divinely inspired prophet?

Why is Besson so careful about accurately presenting the ambiguity of the story? I think he wanted to make a moving film, but not a film which would unsubtly challenge its audience's beliefs. If you do not believe, you will tend to explain Dustin Hoffman's character as a manifestation of Joan's psychological problems. If you do believe, you may want to think of him as Satan, am angel, perhaps both. Thus, Besson, who is a deeply spiritual person, makes a powerful statement about faith through his metanarrative while maintaining an appropriately unevangelical position. He took similar paths in his more uplifting films The Fifth Element and Angel-A.

Highly recommended for Besson and Jovovich fans. Not a biography - avoid this if you must have the "plain" facts! Mildly recommended as a piece of historical fiction.

My first Milla Jovovich movie was Ultraviolet, which has spawned more "worst movie ever" threads on IMDb than any other. Well, I wouldn't call it that bad, but still... it hardly gave me any faith in Milla's career as a dramatic performer.

So I popped this flick in the DVD player not expecting much. Sacrée merde! What a surprise. It seems, stripped of her futuristic-mutant-motorcycle-riding-vampire persona, she's really quite good. This film--probably the least glamorous of her entire repertoire--really gives her a chance to show her full dynamics. I can't say much more without giving away the plot, so I'll drop it for now.

Now on to the director Luc Besson. For the first half hour or so, he seems to suffer from "I wanna be Kenneth Branagh" syndrome (which is almost as painful as the avian flu). We get a dozen scenes of someone running down a corridor with the camera chasing behind. We get a dozen overhead-camera-twirly shots of someone lying on the ground. We get so many crane shots, you start thinking you're on a construction site. What's wrong with all this? I'll tell you. When the camera swings & sways too much it detracts from the actors' performances. Sure it adds visual drama, but so can a good fireworks scene (with just as much subtlety).

But suddenly, right around the halfway mark, the camera man simmers down. The whole tone of the film changes, becomes darker and more intense, relying on the power of the actors instead of the gimmicky camera-work. This works brilliantly, especially when Dustin Hoffman finally steps in.

This is the break that takes the movie in an entirely different (and possibly offensive) direction. It looks like some IMDb reviewers weren't too happy. I'm sure plenty of others got bored (because the swordfights stop). But me, I thought this change of mood was what made the movie. Suddenly it becomes a spooky, psychological thriller with a lot of great dialogue and a ton of good acting. THIS is the payoff.

My biggest gripe with the movie is that after seeing the 2nd half, I kept saying to myself "why the hell did Besson waste so much time getting here?" There were a few too many insignificant fluff scenes in the beginning (like the virginity test lol) that should have been replaced with more of the powerful Milla-Dustin dialogue toward the end.

I won't comment on historical accuracy, religious sacrilege, lack-of-realism or the fact that there were a few too many American accents for 15th century France. These flaws fall by the wayside if you're instead paying attention to the complex conflict brewing in Milla's character. This is really her movie, and a damn good one at that. Like my title implies, it's good enough to make me want to give Ultraviolet another try.

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.