Amazon.co.uk Review
Over the years, many film directors have attempted to tell the story of legendary 15th-century heroine Joan of Arc, a simple country girl who claimed she was inspired by God to lead the French troops in a victorious assault on the mighty English army. Luc Besson's 1999 epic might not be the best version of her life, but it's certainly the biggest. The movie cost a reported $60 million. Even if you are terminally unimpressed by the scale of such recent blockbusters as Gladiator, your eyes will pop out at the sheer number of bodies (living and dead) that Besson has assembled for the dynamic battle scenes. The lavish sets and costumes are almost equally gobsmacking, though neither will show to maximum advantage on the small screen. That's a pity because size is the only thing Joan of Arc really has going for it--as a human drama, it falls completely flat.
The historical Joan was eventually made a saint by the Catholic Church, and earlier biopics tended to treat her celestial visions as literal fact. It was probably a mistake for Besson and his co-screenwriter Andrew Birkin to take a more psychological approach and present them as figments of her hysterical imagination. It makes it hard to work up the necessary empathy when the spectacle revolves around a confused and neurotic babe who couldn't organise a Tupperware party, let alone a vast military campaign. Milla Jovovich (the star of Besson's previous The Fifth Element and formerly his wife) doesn't help matters with her shrill and amateurish performance. But a couple of the supporting players are passably amusing--John Malkovich camps it up energetically as Charles, the dispossessed French king whom Joan reinstates, while Faye Dunaway wears outlandish headgear and carries on like a science-fiction creation in the role of his scheming mother-in-law. (The less said the better about Dustin Hoffman's pompous turn as Joan's personified conscience.) Besson keeps to the same glossy visual style even when the Maid is burning at the stake, but it isn't enough to prevent this empty shell of a movie from being a colossal yawn. --Peter Matthews
Customer Reviews:
Very poor direction.......2008-01-20
A very unconvincing film in which Joan one of the true heroes of France and indeed the world is projected as a neurotic fruit cake. Personally I would not have followed Milla Jovovich into battle on the basis of her screeching performance. Who can produce a film which really conveys the astonishing courage of a 19 year old girl leading the French army, ending the 100 years war and essentially creating France as nation? This whimpering Joan doesn't begin to get anywhere near it.
An interesting Joan, but not my Joan.......2007-10-28
Oh dear! Having come fresh from seeing Shaw's play about Joan of Arc at the National Theatre, and having been inspired then to read histories of her and her times, I was curious to see Luc Besson's take on the subject. Whilst my review might commence in an overly-critical manner, there are good points that I reserve until the end.
I had expected the worst "history according to Hollywood" tale. Whilst this is not strictly the case here, there are causes for some concern in both the historical veracity of what is portrayed and in the feel of the movie itself. To begin, the movie loses much of its edge by not employing French actors throughout, apart, obviously for the English and other nationalities. And records of the time show that Joan herself was not the most beautiful of women. (But who's going to invest so much money in a film without a beautiful heroine, without an English-language soundtrack, and without a strong Hollywood contingent - shame, but that's the way it is.) Secondly, the film is too clean and clinical, too staged, lacking realism in many scenes. Where's the mud, the dirt, the bad teeth, the ragged hair; where is the confusion of living? Why do we see conifer plantations with trees in nice rows? Why do the walls of Orleans suddenly halt and the grass begin with no suburbs, no roads, no boats in the river's port? Thirdly, the script is laughably lousy in places.
Every five minutes there would appear to be something on screen to incur my wrath, whether it is the king of France (John Malkovich) speaking in an American accent; the ridiculous stage-set that is supposed to be the city of Orleans (and the even worse stage-set at the walls of Paris); or the twisting of history to suit the narrative. In this last point, the trial scene at the end is to me the most blatant: where is the inquisitor, where is Joan's claims that it was saints Margaret and Catherine who spoke to her? The attack on Domremy featured at the beginning of the movie, where Joan as a young girl witnesses unspeakable horrors, is based on the slenderest of evidence. And why are all the English prtrayed as thugs and villains? (After all, Mel Gibson doesn't appear in this film!) And what are we to make of the credit at the end of the movie where "Mr Besson" would like to thank, amongst others, Madonna, Sting and Trudy?
So is there nothing good to say about this movie, which clearly has had a lot of time, money and energy expended on it? Well, yes, there is!
I was impressed with the fresh take on Joan and her visions. Being an agnostic, and being someone who has studied psychology at degree level, I have never for one minute accepted uncritically the view that her visions were true in any objective sense. Besson's film does at least question them, and this is no bad thing. He uses imaginative ways to try to encapsulate what Joan may have been thinking at the time of her visitations, and Dustin Hoffman's portrayal as her conscience is very intriguing - and, I might add, well-acted on his part. Secondly, the effects in the film are good where Joan's visions are concerned, but could have been better with the depiction of medieval France, its towns, people and battles. Thirdly, the acting is good, and very good in parts. The scene at Chinon where joan first meets the king is excellent, and I found Faye Dunnaway especially convincing as Charles VII's mother-in-law.
So, a film to love and to loath. This is a fresh and invigorating take on who Joan of Arc really was or might have been: but it is not my Joan.
Fairly watchable version but overlong.......2007-10-08
This is as watchable as the other versions I have seen, but its length may be offputting to some. Not perfect then, but what about the treatment of the heroine here, does it add anything new to the rather unimaginative versions already made? The answer I'm glad to say is yes it does. It's another question entirely to ask if this is any good, but at least it is a new approach. Can any version of her really claim to get it right though? Although I liked Bergman's portrayal of her, it was undoubtedly over stylised and over dramatic. Will we ever know the truth of what she was like? I doubt it, but at least this version reminded us she was just a teenager, with the full set of teenage troubles (not that this would have meant anything to the bigots and hypocrites in sackcloth and vestments back then, other than she was easier to bully into submission, then cruelly execute).
We needed more military action than the other films had given, to give a better perspective of her story, and this film delivers it. But the court scenes do go on a bit, and it's a shame there wasn't better dialogue written in the script, as this is a bit awful at times. Malkovich adds something to the film, a little twist of character that kept me watching when the script was starting to repeat itself. Infact, I found him strangely more compelling than Joan herself, but then that's Malkovich for you. I'm sure filmmakers will keep on trying to make the perfect movie of the story of Joan of Arc, but I'm not so sure it can ever really be done. The best I think we can hope for is entertainment, and this film manages that, just.
Milla Jovovich shines.......2007-09-06
I wished to watch a 5 star movie that was both entertaining and original...so i bought this at a bargin price, and all i can say is WOW! Fantastic film that wasn't in any way predictable apart from the burning at the end. Milla Jovovich gives a very human and believable performance - fear, hope, anger, and love can be seen in her eyes. The biggest mystery to me was not her dreams/flashbacks/hallucinations, but just who was Dustin Hoffman's character? I thought he was The Devil, but then he prays for Joan of Arch at the end!?! Watched it twice, great film.
Much maligned but I liked it.......2007-05-18
Luc Besson has a reputation for spectacular movies such as Taxi, Leon, The Fifth Element, etc. Joan of Arc is no exception. It details the life of Jeanne, the maiden of Lorraine, who in and around the year 1431, helped France defeat England, and win a war that has lasted for almost an entire century. The plot is great, and paced well. The performances that impressed me the most, however, were those of Milla Jovovich and Dustin Hoffman, as Jeanne and her conscience, respectively. They never cease to amaze me. The characters were well-written and credible. I liked the way the film seems to question Jeanne's sanity; whereas most believe that she *was* in fact, sent by God, this film sits down and asks the question, if she really was, or if the signs and miracles weren't all in her head, and caused by everyone wanting to believe it. The very last scenes especially puts doubt in the viewer. It was quite a gutsy move by Besson, to question his own country's hero. I will admit, the film does really make it seem more like she is crazy rather than sent by God, but it doesn't feel like Besson is pushing his view onto us, telling us that that's the way it was; it feels more like he tries to make us question it. The action and the war scenes were very well done, very chaotic and disturbing, very intense and bloody.
All in all, a very enjoyable war-drama, with an authentic story and some well-done battle sequences. I recommend it to fans of the actors, of Luc Besson's other work and of war movies/dramas in general. Just don't expect a full-out war movie; it's two hours and thirty minutes long, and I don't think more than forty-five minutes in total are spent fighting.
Amazon.co.uk Review
Over the years, many film directors have attempted to tell the story of legendary 15th-century heroine Joan of Arc, a simple country girl who claimed she was inspired by God to lead the French troops in a victorious assault on the mighty English army. Luc Besson's 1999 epic might not be the best version of her life, but it's certainly the biggest. The movie cost a reported $60 million. Even if you are terminally unimpressed by the scale of such recent blockbusters as Gladiator, your eyes will pop out at the sheer number of bodies (living and dead) that Besson has assembled for the dynamic battle scenes. The lavish sets and costumes are almost equally gobsmacking, though neither will show to maximum advantage on the small screen. That's a pity because size is the only thing Joan of Arc really has going for it--as a human drama, it falls completely flat.
The historical Joan was eventually made a saint by the Catholic Church, and earlier biopics tended to treat her celestial visions as literal fact. It was probably a mistake for Besson and his co-screenwriter Andrew Birkin to take a more psychological approach and present them as figments of her hysterical imagination. It makes it hard to work up the necessary empathy when the spectacle revolves around a confused and neurotic babe who couldn't organise a Tupperware party, let alone a vast military campaign. Milla Jovovich (the star of Besson's previous The Fifth Element and formerly his wife) doesn't help matters with her shrill and amateurish performance. But a couple of the supporting players are passably amusing--John Malkovich camps it up energetically as Charles, the dispossessed French king whom Joan reinstates, while Faye Dunaway wears outlandish headgear and carries on like a science-fiction creation in the role of his scheming mother-in-law. (The less said the better about Dustin Hoffman's pompous turn as Joan's personified conscience.) Besson keeps to the same glossy visual style even when the Maid is burning at the stake, but it isn't enough to prevent this empty shell of a movie from being a colossal yawn. --Peter Matthews
Customer Reviews:
Very poor direction.......2008-01-20
A very unconvincing film in which Joan one of the true heroes of France and indeed the world is projected as a neurotic fruit cake. Personally I would not have followed Milla Jovovich into battle on the basis of her screeching performance. Who can produce a film which really conveys the astonishing courage of a 19 year old girl leading the French army, ending the 100 years war and essentially creating France as nation? This whimpering Joan doesn't begin to get anywhere near it.
An interesting Joan, but not my Joan.......2007-10-28
Oh dear! Having come fresh from seeing Shaw's play about Joan of Arc at the National Theatre, and having been inspired then to read histories of her and her times, I was curious to see Luc Besson's take on the subject. Whilst my review might commence in an overly-critical manner, there are good points that I reserve until the end.
I had expected the worst "history according to Hollywood" tale. Whilst this is not strictly the case here, there are causes for some concern in both the historical veracity of what is portrayed and in the feel of the movie itself. To begin, the movie loses much of its edge by not employing French actors throughout, apart, obviously for the English and other nationalities. And records of the time show that Joan herself was not the most beautiful of women. (But who's going to invest so much money in a film without a beautiful heroine, without an English-language soundtrack, and without a strong Hollywood contingent - shame, but that's the way it is.) Secondly, the film is too clean and clinical, too staged, lacking realism in many scenes. Where's the mud, the dirt, the bad teeth, the ragged hair; where is the confusion of living? Why do we see conifer plantations with trees in nice rows? Why do the walls of Orleans suddenly halt and the grass begin with no suburbs, no roads, no boats in the river's port? Thirdly, the script is laughably lousy in places.
Every five minutes there would appear to be something on screen to incur my wrath, whether it is the king of France (John Malkovich) speaking in an American accent; the ridiculous stage-set that is supposed to be the city of Orleans (and the even worse stage-set at the walls of Paris); or the twisting of history to suit the narrative. In this last point, the trial scene at the end is to me the most blatant: where is the inquisitor, where is Joan's claims that it was saints Margaret and Catherine who spoke to her? The attack on Domremy featured at the beginning of the movie, where Joan as a young girl witnesses unspeakable horrors, is based on the slenderest of evidence. And why are all the English prtrayed as thugs and villains? (After all, Mel Gibson doesn't appear in this film!) And what are we to make of the credit at the end of the movie where "Mr Besson" would like to thank, amongst others, Madonna, Sting and Trudy?
So is there nothing good to say about this movie, which clearly has had a lot of time, money and energy expended on it? Well, yes, there is!
I was impressed with the fresh take on Joan and her visions. Being an agnostic, and being someone who has studied psychology at degree level, I have never for one minute accepted uncritically the view that her visions were true in any objective sense. Besson's film does at least question them, and this is no bad thing. He uses imaginative ways to try to encapsulate what Joan may have been thinking at the time of her visitations, and Dustin Hoffman's portrayal as her conscience is very intriguing - and, I might add, well-acted on his part. Secondly, the effects in the film are good where Joan's visions are concerned, but could have been better with the depiction of medieval France, its towns, people and battles. Thirdly, the acting is good, and very good in parts. The scene at Chinon where joan first meets the king is excellent, and I found Faye Dunnaway especially convincing as Charles VII's mother-in-law.
So, a film to love and to loath. This is a fresh and invigorating take on who Joan of Arc really was or might have been: but it is not my Joan.
Fairly watchable version but overlong.......2007-10-08
This is as watchable as the other versions I have seen, but its length may be offputting to some. Not perfect then, but what about the treatment of the heroine here, does it add anything new to the rather unimaginative versions already made? The answer I'm glad to say is yes it does. It's another question entirely to ask if this is any good, but at least it is a new approach. Can any version of her really claim to get it right though? Although I liked Bergman's portrayal of her, it was undoubtedly over stylised and over dramatic. Will we ever know the truth of what she was like? I doubt it, but at least this version reminded us she was just a teenager, with the full set of teenage troubles (not that this would have meant anything to the bigots and hypocrites in sackcloth and vestments back then, other than she was easier to bully into submission, then cruelly execute).
We needed more military action than the other films had given, to give a better perspective of her story, and this film delivers it. But the court scenes do go on a bit, and it's a shame there wasn't better dialogue written in the script, as this is a bit awful at times. Malkovich adds something to the film, a little twist of character that kept me watching when the script was starting to repeat itself. Infact, I found him strangely more compelling than Joan herself, but then that's Malkovich for you. I'm sure filmmakers will keep on trying to make the perfect movie of the story of Joan of Arc, but I'm not so sure it can ever really be done. The best I think we can hope for is entertainment, and this film manages that, just.
Milla Jovovich shines.......2007-09-06
I wished to watch a 5 star movie that was both entertaining and original...so i bought this at a bargin price, and all i can say is WOW! Fantastic film that wasn't in any way predictable apart from the burning at the end. Milla Jovovich gives a very human and believable performance - fear, hope, anger, and love can be seen in her eyes. The biggest mystery to me was not her dreams/flashbacks/hallucinations, but just who was Dustin Hoffman's character? I thought he was The Devil, but then he prays for Joan of Arch at the end!?! Watched it twice, great film.
Much maligned but I liked it.......2007-05-18
Luc Besson has a reputation for spectacular movies such as Taxi, Leon, The Fifth Element, etc. Joan of Arc is no exception. It details the life of Jeanne, the maiden of Lorraine, who in and around the year 1431, helped France defeat England, and win a war that has lasted for almost an entire century. The plot is great, and paced well. The performances that impressed me the most, however, were those of Milla Jovovich and Dustin Hoffman, as Jeanne and her conscience, respectively. They never cease to amaze me. The characters were well-written and credible. I liked the way the film seems to question Jeanne's sanity; whereas most believe that she *was* in fact, sent by God, this film sits down and asks the question, if she really was, or if the signs and miracles weren't all in her head, and caused by everyone wanting to believe it. The very last scenes especially puts doubt in the viewer. It was quite a gutsy move by Besson, to question his own country's hero. I will admit, the film does really make it seem more like she is crazy rather than sent by God, but it doesn't feel like Besson is pushing his view onto us, telling us that that's the way it was; it feels more like he tries to make us question it. The action and the war scenes were very well done, very chaotic and disturbing, very intense and bloody.
All in all, a very enjoyable war-drama, with an authentic story and some well-done battle sequences. I recommend it to fans of the actors, of Luc Besson's other work and of war movies/dramas in general. Just don't expect a full-out war movie; it's two hours and thirty minutes long, and I don't think more than forty-five minutes in total are spent fighting.
Amazon.co.uk Review
Over the years, many film directors have attempted to tell the story of legendary 15th-century heroine Joan of Arc, a simple country girl who claimed she was inspired by God to lead the French troops in a victorious assault on the mighty English army. Luc Besson's 1999 epic might not be the best version of her life, but it's certainly the biggest. The movie cost a reported $60 million. Even if you are terminally unimpressed by the scale of such recent blockbusters as Gladiator, your eyes will pop out at the sheer number of bodies (living and dead) that Besson has assembled for the dynamic battle scenes. The lavish sets and costumes are almost equally gobsmacking, though neither will show to maximum advantage on the small screen. That's a pity because size is the only thing Joan of Arc really has going for it--as a human drama, it falls completely flat.
The historical Joan was eventually made a saint by the Catholic Church, and earlier biopics tended to treat her celestial visions as literal fact. It was probably a mistake for Besson and his co-screenwriter Andrew Birkin to take a more psychological approach and present them as figments of her hysterical imagination. It makes it hard to work up the necessary empathy when the spectacle revolves around a confused and neurotic babe who couldn't organise a Tupperware party, let alone a vast military campaign. Milla Jovovich (the star of Besson's previous The Fifth Element and formerly his wife) doesn't help matters with her shrill and amateurish performance. But a couple of the supporting players are passably amusing--John Malkovich camps it up energetically as Charles, the dispossessed French king whom Joan reinstates, while Faye Dunaway wears outlandish headgear and carries on like a science-fiction creation in the role of his scheming mother-in-law. (The less said the better about Dustin Hoffman's pompous turn as Joan's personified conscience.) Besson keeps to the same glossy visual style even when the Maid is burning at the stake, but it isn't enough to prevent this empty shell of a movie from being a colossal yawn. --Peter Matthews
Customer Reviews:
Very poor direction.......2008-01-20
A very unconvincing film in which Joan one of the true heroes of France and indeed the world is projected as a neurotic fruit cake. Personally I would not have followed Milla Jovovich into battle on the basis of her screeching performance. Who can produce a film which really conveys the astonishing courage of a 19 year old girl leading the French army, ending the 100 years war and essentially creating France as nation? This whimpering Joan doesn't begin to get anywhere near it.
An interesting Joan, but not my Joan.......2007-10-28
Oh dear! Having come fresh from seeing Shaw's play about Joan of Arc at the National Theatre, and having been inspired then to read histories of her and her times, I was curious to see Luc Besson's take on the subject. Whilst my review might commence in an overly-critical manner, there are good points that I reserve until the end.
I had expected the worst "history according to Hollywood" tale. Whilst this is not strictly the case here, there are causes for some concern in both the historical veracity of what is portrayed and in the feel of the movie itself. To begin, the movie loses much of its edge by not employing French actors throughout, apart, obviously for the English and other nationalities. And records of the time show that Joan herself was not the most beautiful of women. (But who's going to invest so much money in a film without a beautiful heroine, without an English-language soundtrack, and without a strong Hollywood contingent - shame, but that's the way it is.) Secondly, the film is too clean and clinical, too staged, lacking realism in many scenes. Where's the mud, the dirt, the bad teeth, the ragged hair; where is the confusion of living? Why do we see conifer plantations with trees in nice rows? Why do the walls of Orleans suddenly halt and the grass begin with no suburbs, no roads, no boats in the river's port? Thirdly, the script is laughably lousy in places.
Every five minutes there would appear to be something on screen to incur my wrath, whether it is the king of France (John Malkovich) speaking in an American accent; the ridiculous stage-set that is supposed to be the city of Orleans (and the even worse stage-set at the walls of Paris); or the twisting of history to suit the narrative. In this last point, the trial scene at the end is to me the most blatant: where is the inquisitor, where is Joan's claims that it was saints Margaret and Catherine who spoke to her? The attack on Domremy featured at the beginning of the movie, where Joan as a young girl witnesses unspeakable horrors, is based on the slenderest of evidence. And why are all the English prtrayed as thugs and villains? (After all, Mel Gibson doesn't appear in this film!) And what are we to make of the credit at the end of the movie where "Mr Besson" would like to thank, amongst others, Madonna, Sting and Trudy?
So is there nothing good to say about this movie, which clearly has had a lot of time, money and energy expended on it? Well, yes, there is!
I was impressed with the fresh take on Joan and her visions. Being an agnostic, and being someone who has studied psychology at degree level, I have never for one minute accepted uncritically the view that her visions were true in any objective sense. Besson's film does at least question them, and this is no bad thing. He uses imaginative ways to try to encapsulate what Joan may have been thinking at the time of her visitations, and Dustin Hoffman's portrayal as her conscience is very intriguing - and, I might add, well-acted on his part. Secondly, the effects in the film are good where Joan's visions are concerned, but could have been better with the depiction of medieval France, its towns, people and battles. Thirdly, the acting is good, and very good in parts. The scene at Chinon where joan first meets the king is excellent, and I found Faye Dunnaway especially convincing as Charles VII's mother-in-law.
So, a film to love and to loath. This is a fresh and invigorating take on who Joan of Arc really was or might have been: but it is not my Joan.
Fairly watchable version but overlong.......2007-10-08
This is as watchable as the other versions I have seen, but its length may be offputting to some. Not perfect then, but what about the treatment of the heroine here, does it add anything new to the rather unimaginative versions already made? The answer I'm glad to say is yes it does. It's another question entirely to ask if this is any good, but at least it is a new approach. Can any version of her really claim to get it right though? Although I liked Bergman's portrayal of her, it was undoubtedly over stylised and over dramatic. Will we ever know the truth of what she was like? I doubt it, but at least this version reminded us she was just a teenager, with the full set of teenage troubles (not that this would have meant anything to the bigots and hypocrites in sackcloth and vestments back then, other than she was easier to bully into submission, then cruelly execute).
We needed more military action than the other films had given, to give a better perspective of her story, and this film delivers it. But the court scenes do go on a bit, and it's a shame there wasn't better dialogue written in the script, as this is a bit awful at times. Malkovich adds something to the film, a little twist of character that kept me watching when the script was starting to repeat itself. Infact, I found him strangely more compelling than Joan herself, but then that's Malkovich for you. I'm sure filmmakers will keep on trying to make the perfect movie of the story of Joan of Arc, but I'm not so sure it can ever really be done. The best I think we can hope for is entertainment, and this film manages that, just.
Milla Jovovich shines.......2007-09-06
I wished to watch a 5 star movie that was both entertaining and original...so i bought this at a bargin price, and all i can say is WOW! Fantastic film that wasn't in any way predictable apart from the burning at the end. Milla Jovovich gives a very human and believable performance - fear, hope, anger, and love can be seen in her eyes. The biggest mystery to me was not her dreams/flashbacks/hallucinations, but just who was Dustin Hoffman's character? I thought he was The Devil, but then he prays for Joan of Arch at the end!?! Watched it twice, great film.
Much maligned but I liked it.......2007-05-18
Luc Besson has a reputation for spectacular movies such as Taxi, Leon, The Fifth Element, etc. Joan of Arc is no exception. It details the life of Jeanne, the maiden of Lorraine, who in and around the year 1431, helped France defeat England, and win a war that has lasted for almost an entire century. The plot is great, and paced well. The performances that impressed me the most, however, were those of Milla Jovovich and Dustin Hoffman, as Jeanne and her conscience, respectively. They never cease to amaze me. The characters were well-written and credible. I liked the way the film seems to question Jeanne's sanity; whereas most believe that she *was* in fact, sent by God, this film sits down and asks the question, if she really was, or if the signs and miracles weren't all in her head, and caused by everyone wanting to believe it. The very last scenes especially puts doubt in the viewer. It was quite a gutsy move by Besson, to question his own country's hero. I will admit, the film does really make it seem more like she is crazy rather than sent by God, but it doesn't feel like Besson is pushing his view onto us, telling us that that's the way it was; it feels more like he tries to make us question it. The action and the war scenes were very well done, very chaotic and disturbing, very intense and bloody.
All in all, a very enjoyable war-drama, with an authentic story and some well-done battle sequences. I recommend it to fans of the actors, of Luc Besson's other work and of war movies/dramas in general. Just don't expect a full-out war movie; it's two hours and thirty minutes long, and I don't think more than forty-five minutes in total are spent fighting.
Amazon.co.uk Review
Over the years, many film directors have attempted to tell the story of legendary 15th-century heroine Joan of Arc, a simple country girl who claimed she was inspired by God to lead the French troops in a victorious assault on the mighty English army. Luc Besson's 1999 epic might not be the best version of her life, but it's certainly the biggest. The movie cost a reported $60 million. Even if you are terminally unimpressed by the scale of such recent blockbusters as Gladiator, your eyes will pop out at the sheer number of bodies (living and dead) that Besson has assembled for the dynamic battle scenes. The lavish sets and costumes are almost equally gobsmacking, though neither will show to maximum advantage on the small screen. That's a pity because size is the only thing Joan of Arc really has going for it--as a human drama, it falls completely flat.
The historical Joan was eventually made a saint by the Catholic Church, and earlier biopics tended to treat her celestial visions as literal fact. It was probably a mistake for Besson and his co-screenwriter Andrew Birkin to take a more psychological approach and present them as figments of her hysterical imagination. It makes it hard to work up the necessary empathy when the spectacle revolves around a confused and neurotic babe who couldn't organise a Tupperware party, let alone a vast military campaign. Milla Jovovich (the star of Besson's previous The Fifth Element and formerly his wife) doesn't help matters with her shrill and amateurish performance. But a couple of the supporting players are passably amusing--John Malkovich camps it up energetically as Charles, the dispossessed French king whom Joan reinstates, while Faye Dunaway wears outlandish headgear and carries on like a science-fiction creation in the role of his scheming mother-in-law. (The less said the better about Dustin Hoffman's pompous turn as Joan's personified conscience.) Besson keeps to the same glossy visual style even when the Maid is burning at the stake, but it isn't enough to prevent this empty shell of a movie from being a colossal yawn. --Peter Matthews
Customer Reviews:
Very poor direction.......2008-01-20
A very unconvincing film in which Joan one of the true heroes of France and indeed the world is projected as a neurotic fruit cake. Personally I would not have followed Milla Jovovich into battle on the basis of her screeching performance. Who can produce a film which really conveys the astonishing courage of a 19 year old girl leading the French army, ending the 100 years war and essentially creating France as nation? This whimpering Joan doesn't begin to get anywhere near it.
An interesting Joan, but not my Joan.......2007-10-28
Oh dear! Having come fresh from seeing Shaw's play about Joan of Arc at the National Theatre, and having been inspired then to read histories of her and her times, I was curious to see Luc Besson's take on the subject. Whilst my review might commence in an overly-critical manner, there are good points that I reserve until the end.
I had expected the worst "history according to Hollywood" tale. Whilst this is not strictly the case here, there are causes for some concern in both the historical veracity of what is portrayed and in the feel of the movie itself. To begin, the movie loses much of its edge by not employing French actors throughout, apart, obviously for the English and other nationalities. And records of the time show that Joan herself was not the most beautiful of women. (But who's going to invest so much money in a film without a beautiful heroine, without an English-language soundtrack, and without a strong Hollywood contingent - shame, but that's the way it is.) Secondly, the film is too clean and clinical, too staged, lacking realism in many scenes. Where's the mud, the dirt, the bad teeth, the ragged hair; where is the confusion of living? Why do we see conifer plantations with trees in nice rows? Why do the walls of Orleans suddenly halt and the grass begin with no suburbs, no roads, no boats in the river's port? Thirdly, the script is laughably lousy in places.
Every five minutes there would appear to be something on screen to incur my wrath, whether it is the king of France (John Malkovich) speaking in an American accent; the ridiculous stage-set that is supposed to be the city of Orleans (and the even worse stage-set at the walls of Paris); or the twisting of history to suit the narrative. In this last point, the trial scene at the end is to me the most blatant: where is the inquisitor, where is Joan's claims that it was saints Margaret and Catherine who spoke to her? The attack on Domremy featured at the beginning of the movie, where Joan as a young girl witnesses unspeakable horrors, is based on the slenderest of evidence. And why are all the English prtrayed as thugs and villains? (After all, Mel Gibson doesn't appear in this film!) And what are we to make of the credit at the end of the movie where "Mr Besson" would like to thank, amongst others, Madonna, Sting and Trudy?
So is there nothing good to say about this movie, which clearly has had a lot of time, money and energy expended on it? Well, yes, there is!
I was impressed with the fresh take on Joan and her visions. Being an agnostic, and being someone who has studied psychology at degree level, I have never for one minute accepted uncritically the view that her visions were true in any objective sense. Besson's film does at least question them, and this is no bad thing. He uses imaginative ways to try to encapsulate what Joan may have been thinking at the time of her visitations, and Dustin Hoffman's portrayal as her conscience is very intriguing - and, I might add, well-acted on his part. Secondly, the effects in the film are good where Joan's visions are concerned, but could have been better with the depiction of medieval France, its towns, people and battles. Thirdly, the acting is good, and very good in parts. The scene at Chinon where joan first meets the king is excellent, and I found Faye Dunnaway especially convincing as Charles VII's mother-in-law.
So, a film to love and to loath. This is a fresh and invigorating take on who Joan of Arc really was or might have been: but it is not my Joan.
Fairly watchable version but overlong.......2007-10-08
This is as watchable as the other versions I have seen, but its length may be offputting to some. Not perfect then, but what about the treatment of the heroine here, does it add anything new to the rather unimaginative versions already made? The answer I'm glad to say is yes it does. It's another question entirely to ask if this is any good, but at least it is a new approach. Can any version of her really claim to get it right though? Although I liked Bergman's portrayal of her, it was undoubtedly over stylised and over dramatic. Will we ever know the truth of what she was like? I doubt it, but at least this version reminded us she was just a teenager, with the full set of teenage troubles (not that this would have meant anything to the bigots and hypocrites in sackcloth and vestments back then, other than she was easier to bully into submission, then cruelly execute).
We needed more military action than the other films had given, to give a better perspective of her story, and this film delivers it. But the court scenes do go on a bit, and it's a shame there wasn't better dialogue written in the script, as this is a bit awful at times. Malkovich adds something to the film, a little twist of character that kept me watching when the script was starting to repeat itself. Infact, I found him strangely more compelling than Joan herself, but then that's Malkovich for you. I'm sure filmmakers will keep on trying to make the perfect movie of the story of Joan of Arc, but I'm not so sure it can ever really be done. The best I think we can hope for is entertainment, and this film manages that, just.
Milla Jovovich shines.......2007-09-06
I wished to watch a 5 star movie that was both entertaining and original...so i bought this at a bargin price, and all i can say is WOW! Fantastic film that wasn't in any way predictable apart from the burning at the end. Milla Jovovich gives a very human and believable performance - fear, hope, anger, and love can be seen in her eyes. The biggest mystery to me was not her dreams/flashbacks/hallucinations, but just who was Dustin Hoffman's character? I thought he was The Devil, but then he prays for Joan of Arch at the end!?! Watched it twice, great film.
Much maligned but I liked it.......2007-05-18
Luc Besson has a reputation for spectacular movies such as Taxi, Leon, The Fifth Element, etc. Joan of Arc is no exception. It details the life of Jeanne, the maiden of Lorraine, who in and around the year 1431, helped France defeat England, and win a war that has lasted for almost an entire century. The plot is great, and paced well. The performances that impressed me the most, however, were those of Milla Jovovich and Dustin Hoffman, as Jeanne and her conscience, respectively. They never cease to amaze me. The characters were well-written and credible. I liked the way the film seems to question Jeanne's sanity; whereas most believe that she *was* in fact, sent by God, this film sits down and asks the question, if she really was, or if the signs and miracles weren't all in her head, and caused by everyone wanting to believe it. The very last scenes especially puts doubt in the viewer. It was quite a gutsy move by Besson, to question his own country's hero. I will admit, the film does really make it seem more like she is crazy rather than sent by God, but it doesn't feel like Besson is pushing his view onto us, telling us that that's the way it was; it feels more like he tries to make us question it. The action and the war scenes were very well done, very chaotic and disturbing, very intense and bloody.
All in all, a very enjoyable war-drama, with an authentic story and some well-done battle sequences. I recommend it to fans of the actors, of Luc Besson's other work and of war movies/dramas in general. Just don't expect a full-out war movie; it's two hours and thirty minutes long, and I don't think more than forty-five minutes in total are spent fighting.
UK DVD:
- Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham [2001] (NTSC)
- Kramer vs Kramer [1979]
- Laguna Beach - Series 1 [2004]
- Last Orders [2002]
- Legends of the Fall [1995]
- Let Him Have It [1991]
- Lords Of Dogtown [2004]
- Lost And Delirious [2003]
- LOVEJOY - THE COMPLETE LOVEJOY COLLECTION [2004]
- Magnolia - Two Disc Set (1999)
UK DVD List
UK DVD
![Joan Of Arc: The Messenger [2000]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/2188TNMJYKL.jpg)
All Drama
|
Drama
|
Categories
|
DVD
|
Video
![Joan Of Arc [1999]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00004TBTT.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Joan Of Arc [1999]
![No Good Deed [2002]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000216WEA.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
No Good Deed [2002]
Joan of Arc: In Her Own Words
![You Stupid Man [2002] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000CQQIDA.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
You Stupid Man [2002] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
![Joan of Arc: Child of War, Soldier of God [2005] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000EU1OXI.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Joan of Arc: Child of War, Soldier of God [2005] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
![Joan Of Arc: The Messenger [2000]](http://www.bill88.com/buy.gif)
![The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc [2000]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21GCTEWTB9L.jpg)
![The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc [2000] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21REPX7D9FL.jpg)
![The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc [2000]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21GJTS2W2TL.jpg)
![Joan Of Arc: The Messenger / Glory / The Patriot [2000]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21ZBJ1QSF8L.jpg)
