The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999) User Reviews

So good it made me want to give Ultraviolet another try

[rooprect · 7/10 · 4 May 2007]

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.

A fresh feeling take on the classic tale, one that focuses on visual style rather than historical information. *** out of ****

[Movie-12 · 7/10 · 12 December 1999]

THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF JOAN OF ARC (1999) ***

Starring: Milla Jovovich, John Malkovich, Faye Dunaway, Dustin Hoffman, and Pascal Greggory Directed & co-writer: Luc Besson Running Time: 141 minutes Rated R (for graphic violence, rape, and for language)

By Blake French:

Some classic stories just can't be updated. Example: "William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet" re-released in 1996. However, one of the greatest tragedies ever told, the story of Joan of Arc, has just been proven possible to be relateable even with time as its enemy. Luc Besson has created a fresh-feeling new version of Joan called "The Messenger," a historical epic that, for better or worse, concentrates mostly on visual style and realistic war scenes rather than answering questions we don't already know about the characters in focus here.

The historical Joan of Arc was a poor young French woman, who believed that there were spiritual signs that ordered her to be a messenger to aid the King of France to victory on the battle field. According to "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," Charles VII, married to the bitter Yolande D'Aragon, was very grateful of her assistance at the time, especially when Joan explained that God has sent her to lead French troops to war with the English and be victorious.

The visions seen (or imagined) by Joan are clearly brought to life here, with more effective qualities than ever before in a Joan of Arc picture. They are filmed with many unusual special effects, bizarre camera tricks, and a beautifully crafted atmosphere of imagery. In use with these elements to the credit of the depicted scenes, they do a good job of expressing the spiritual dream-like moments through Joan with an imaginative feeling of majesty and revealing emotion. The style, camera, and direction all contribute to making these sequences of the best material in the production.

The film was shot in the Czech Republic, as well as the country of France. Cinematographer Thierry Arbogast captures the courageous historical time period flawlessly in these locations. The battle scenes may get little off track at times; some sequences are meant more for brutality purposes rather than a strong, focused narrative story.

The actors interpret their characters with a precise energetic edge. Milla Jovovich has the ability to be a believable Joan of Arc, but does push the limit on convincing us. Some of the film's efforts are straining toward the idea that Joan was somewhat mentally retarded-and Jovovich does a great job presenting that. Other familiar faces found in "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" include John Malkovich as King Charles VII, and Faye Dunaway as his spouse, Yolande D'Aragon. Also the legendary Dustin Hoffman inhabits a brief but appropriate role as the Grand Inquisitor, and Pascal Greggory is The Duke of Alençon.

There are scenes in this movie that make the audience stare at the screen in awe, but also scenes that make us ask ourselves questions. Although much of the production is spent on developing Joan's character and motives, the film still doesn't manage to answer some questions being asked by viewers pondering minds. We never learn if the visions Joan experienced were a calling from God, or just a figment of her intellectual imagination. Was Joan really crazy, or only near eccentric? Were the physical objects that Joan felt were signs from a higher spirit actually what she thought they were? An ulterior source could have been Lucifer deceiving the trusting Joan. Or did the French actually triumph in battles because of the spiritual strength accorded by Joan, or was luck the element present? And I personally would have like a little more explanation of the Grand Inquisitor character.

"The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" is a serious dramatic tragedy, and it takes itself as that all of the time. Luc Besson has constructed a movie that is ambitious and inspiring, with no room for the compromising or modest. I recommend the picture weather you're a new comer or a veteran to the Joan of Arc mythology. Even if you already know the story of Joan of Arc like the back of your hand, this telling might just surprise you.

Brought to you by Columbia Pictures.

I don't think. I leave that to God. I'm nothing in all this, I'm just the Messenger.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 30 January 2010]

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

Inspired by...?

[Mercian · 24 October 2004]

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.

Starts Off Extremely Well

[aimless-46 · 6/10 · 2 October 2006]

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.

Great looking but awkward drama

[SKG-2 · 7/10 · 1 December 1999]

I know next to nothing about the Joan of Arc story, but I've liked Luc Besson's work, and the trailer was terrific, so I was looking forward to this movie, even after the bad reviews. As might be expected from a Besson film, it looked incredible. The battle scenes were all well-handled, and as the warrior Joan, Jovovich was quite convincing. The rest of the movie was something else again.

It seems to me Besson and his co-writer, Andrew Birkin, were trying to do what Kenneth Branagh did in his version of HAMLET; look at the lead character not as an icon, but as a normal human being, and try to explain their actions and behavior in that context. Admittedly, since I am unfamiliar with this story, I am more receptive to this approach than those who hold Joan as an icon, but I would have been more than willing to watch a movie which handled this material well. Unfortunately, once Besson established which way he wanted to go, he seemed unsure of how to get there. Most of the drama is handled on a third-grade level(especially her trial), and we never really get into what made Joan tick. Though the scenes with Dustin Hoffman were involving, especially since he was so good, they too fell short in explaining Joan. And Jovovich can't quite access those depths yet.

The rest of the cast is okay. Malkovich and Faye Dunaway are playing types, but they play them well enough. Tchecky Kayro(I know I'm not spelling that right) and Vincent Cassel lend a sense of gravity to their roles as soldiers. But all in all, this is a movie whose reach was beyond its grasp.

Not the greatest war movie, but a good movie, and a somewhat true-to-facts portrayal of Jeanne d'Arc

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 14 August 2004]

Luc Besson usually makes spectacular movies; 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 it has a very good pace. I am almost never bored when watching this film, despite the fact that it's fairly long(about two and a half hours long), and I've seen it at least half a dozen times. What I've found to be great about the film is the re-watchable quality it has; I've seen it many times, yet I haven't grown tired of it. Up to the very end, it always has a scene or two that you can look forward to, either because it's exceptionally well done, has very good cinematography, has great acting and/or dialog, or every one of those qualities. The acting is great. Every single actor gives a great performance, even the child actors were convincing. 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 particularly liked the way Jeanne was written as having a very notable temper and being very decisive. I also very much enjoyed the various supporting characters, the best being La Hire and The Conscience. 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. This isn't the best war movie ever made, nor is it the most factually accurate; it might not even be the best retelling of the legend of Jeanne d'Arc. But I have found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable, well-acted, well-choreographed, well-done film that makes you think. And that's good enough for me. Several scenes are quite memorable, as are some of the lines. 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. 7/10

Intentions of God

[different_Son_of_God · 7/10 · 25 May 2005]

Great style given by Besson. Rather than depicting Joan as just one dimensional historical figure this film tried to show the person behind this heroine, sometimes looking deranged, fanatical and even crazy.

While some of the events of the movie were made up to look more like Hollywood propaganda this film DOES SUCCEED in peeling away the mythology and mystique to show the human face behind this legendary icon.

Although the events occurred in the onset of the movie are simply not factual, from the moment she was captured and the cross referencing that took place during the trial are closely based on the actual trial of Joan.

Her convictions and faith were questioned through torturing but she had held them all the way through. The subtle portrayal of God himself was conspicuous. Joan was manipulated and ultimately burned at the stake, that is God let these things happened to her after she fulfilled his mission. One would think that God should have rewarded her for defeating the English, but rather he let her die at the hands of them.

But still Joan of Arc carries the message of God with her even after centuries has passed. One does not know his true intentions even those that have been chosen by God.

A lot of reviewers loathed this film

[dave13-1 · 8/10 · 5 April 2013]

...but it still made interesting viewing. More biographies of Jeanne d'Arc exist than of any other person, and any attempt to portray her rather incredible life as France's greatest heroine and martyr on film can expect to encounter a similarly large number of second-guessers. This is precisely what happened when this picture came out. Reviewers went on at length about what the picture should have been about, and how Joan should have been portrayed (and by whom), leaving readers to wonder what they thought of the picture that HAD been made. This tendency to review the picture they wish had been made is a classic failing in many critics and this picture seemed to bring it out especially often.

The picture that Luc Besson made here deserves to be appreciated on its own merits. It is visually stunning, rousingly action-packed, and full of interesting period details. Yes, casting his supermodel wife Milla Jovovich in the lead was a risky choice, as her looks were hardly those of a typical medieval peasant. Yes, her performance did not resonate with the period the way one by a more classically trained actress might, although she was clearly never trying to be Ingrid Bergman. Still, Milla's hyperactive personality made her interesting and watchable as a historical person about whom so much has been written, who nonetheless existed so far back in the past that she lacks a strongly identifiable humanity. When somebody makes a better statue than a person, as Joan does from a contemporary viewpoint, odd casting choices can be forgiven if they work. Milla's twisty mannerisms, rolling eyes and whispery speech give the viewer constant occasions to ponder just how much of Joan's fanaticism came from genuine devotion to God and the church and how much was just an under-medicated personality disorder. This is actually one of the key scholarly issues surrounding Joan's life, and the picture brings it to the fore in its latter part as Joan herself tries to come to terms with her own claims of divine communication by means of a debate with Dustin Hoffman as her confessor-priest/conscience. That Besson takes no particular viewpoint here is an interesting choice, and one which actually helps the viewer to understand why Joan's story has compelled so many generations of historians.

The political aspects of Joan's life and legend were also dealt with in a nicely balanced fashion. Like many figures in times when political and national alliances changed with the seasons, Joan herself blew back and forth between being tremendously useful to the French throne at times and dangerously inconvenient at others. Fame is a powerful commodity at any time, and the picture carefully tracked the rise and fall of Joan's fortunes as she watched hers be manipulated, leveraged and ultimately put on trial.

I thought a lot of The Messenger and recommend it. Religious and historical scholars are advised to approach with caution.

Mila delivers in spite of film

[Elwood-38 · 6/10 · 15 November 1999]

There a a few strengths to this film that are overshadowed by many weaknesses. For one, Mila Jovovich gives an excellent performance. She portrays a manic, self possessed and self righteous woman acting out the will of a higher power she nonetheless makes Joan an interesting character to watch and empathize with. Luc Besson delivers with his excellent cinematics and camera work. Between his direction and Mila's performance this is a truly beautiful film.

However, the dialogue for nearly everyone except for Mila and Dustin Hoffman is very flat. At times the dialogue is full of modern anachronisms that are very distracting and cheapen the whole ambiance of the film. It seemed as if the film was trying to be hip while portraying an important historic drama. There are too many examples of this to quote here, but suffice it to say that poor dialogue ruined an otherwise good film.

See the Messenger for Mila, see it for good direction in film, but be prepared to groan when the talking starts.

6 out of 10.

Terrible. Makes Joan D'Arc seem like a looney dumb blonde.

[Graeme-1-2 · 1/10 · 26 November 1999]

The movie is truly atrocious. Instead of being portrayed as the powerful and inspirational figure that she was, Joan D'Arc comes across as an insipid dumb blonde, and a looney. For most of the movie she alternates between seeming like a frightened rabbit (as somebody else commented) and a plain air-head. Not really the type of character you would expect to inspire the might of France, and strike fear into the English.

The Messenger gets off to a very poor start. Despite being based on real historic events it seemed completely contrived and unbelievable to the point of being stupid. A lot of this comes down to the choice of actresses to play Joan. Despite not seeing 5th Element, I'm told her non-talking part was fine. But in choosing his wife to play a role that required serious acting Luc Besson has doomed this movie to a very quick demise. Beyond the acting, much of the problem may have been the script and direction. Even John Malchovic, in my opinion one of the best actors in the world, ********* Many people seeing this movie may be more interested in the battle scenes than the acting or historical accuracy. About a third of the way through they won't be disappointed. The war scene in the middle is admittedly good. Unfortunately for the next 2 hours even the action buffs will have to put up with the intense boredom of the remainder of the film. All of the people I was with, half of who enjoyed the first part of the movie, were squirming in their seats by the end hoping for Joan to get burned so they could get out of the cinema.

That all said, 157 people in IMDB still did rate the movie a 10. So unless they are all friends in the industry somebody may have liked this movie.

France's Tragic Teenage Warrior Messiah

[mstomaso · 8/10 · 19 August 2008]

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.

Luc Besson's take on the legendary 15th century French teen martyr Joan of Arc

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 26 December 2022]

This Joan of Arc (1999) by Luc Besson boasts a good cast with Milla Jovovich , Tchéky Karyo as Dunois , John Malkovich as Charles VII , Vincent Cassell as Gilles de Rais , Faye Dunaway , Dustin Hoffman , Pascal Greggory and Toby Jones . The movie is set in ¨Hundred years' war¨ developed from1337 to 1453 (downfall date of Constantinople invaded by Turks). The historical deeds are the following ones : Henry V vanquishes Charles VI in Agincourt (1415) that was a major English victory against a numerically superior French army in the Hundred Years' War . The battle occurred on Friday , 25 October 1415 and Henry V takes over Normandy . Charles VI of France signs ¨Troyes treatise¨ in which Henry V is wedded Charles's daughter . In 1412, a young girl called Jeanne is born in Domrémy, France. Jeanne develops into a very religious young woman, she confesses several times a day. At the age of 13, she has her first vision and finds a sword. Years after that, in 1428, she knows her mission is to be ridding France of the English and so sets out to meet Charles, the Dauphin. Later on , Henry VI of England proclaims himself king of France but then Joan of Arc , a peasant girl hears saints' voices telling her to help Dauphin Charles claim the French throne and drive out the English . Being nineteen years old , proclaims in Bourges to Charles VII as king , after being crowned in Reims . Charles persuades Joan to proclaim herself the legendary Maid of Lorraine and raise an army to battle the Brits . Joan of Arc acting as a divine mission defeats the English army in Orleans . But she's captured by the Borgoneses and put on trial for sorcery and heresy ; being subsequently sold and handed over the English authorities and they fire her for heretic and witch in Rouen. A legend !. A saint !. She died at 19. 500 years later her legend lives on!

Earnest and overlong runtime biopic , approx three hours , but is neither boring , nor dull , but entertaining . The film leans heavily on gory battles and the spectacular scenarios are very well designed , there are thousands of extras and the struggles are breathtaking . The ending trial in which she's condemned is very interesting and the sentence at the burning pole is overwhelming and exciting . Milla Jovovich , who was 23 when shooting , gives a stilted dialogue , providing pop-eyed , excessive and semi-intelligible interpretation , overacting at times , along with John Malkovich as Charles VII , the king who betrayed her . Furthermore , Timothy West as the cunning Bishop is excellent as well as the mysterious role finely played by Dustin Hoffman as her Conscience with whom Joan has thought-provoking conversations , bringing-up questions in her mind whether she was actually divinely inspired or merely a set-up . The support cast is satisfying , such as : Desmond Harrington , Vincent Regan , Pascal Greggory , Jacques Herlin , Tchéky Karyo , Gina McKee , Richard Ridings, among others . The motion picture was well directed by successful producer/writer/filmmaker Luc Besson . The yarn will appeal to historic event buffs . Rating : 6.5/10 . Worth viewing this breathtaking historical picture .

Other films about this historic character are the following ones : ; Saint Joan (1957) by Otto Preminger with Jean Seberg , Richard Widmark , Richard Todd and John Gielgud ; The trial of Joan of Arc (1962) by Robert Bresson with Florence Delay ; Joan of Arc (1954) by Roberto Rosselini with Ingrid Bergman ; Joan of Arc by Victor Fleming (1948) with Ingrid Berman , J Carrol Naish , War Bond and Jose Ferrer as Charles VII . And a mini-series Joan of Arc (1999) by Christian Dugay with Leelee Sobieski, Jacqueline Bisset , Powers Boothe , Olimpia Dukakis and Peter Strauss. Furthermore , silent adaptation such as the classical La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928) by Carl Theodor Dreyer with Maria Falconetti and Joan The woman (1916) by Cecil B DeMille.

eeeeh

[Kusanagi · 1/10 · 27 November 1999]

I cannot fathom some of the glowing reviews this film is receiving. I really, really, REALLY didn't like this movie at all. Don't get me wrong, I've always found Joan of Arc to be a fascinating historical figure. But why on earth did she have to be portrayed like someone on *****? More than anything, I'm just disappointed at this film for the way it was made. I feel that there was so much more that could have been done, but the lousy dialogue and poor directing just made seeing this film a bad experience.

imperfect but interesting film

[Buddy-51 · 5 August 2000]

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.

Impressive

[EuroMaverick · 7/10 · 7 December 2002]

Clearly a Besson movie (compare it to Le Grand Bleu and Léon).

The camerawork is beautiful and adds very well to the drama. Dialogs are well balanced and strong. A great peace of cinema that grabs you and you don't realize it takes 2.5 hours. The only drawback I could find is that the French actually should have spoken French.

I regret I haven't seen it at home and not in a cinema theater, which would have been even better. Not a masterpiece, but pretty close to it...

Milla Jovovich good as crazed zealot

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 13 September 2013]

It's 15th century France. Joan of Arc (Milla Jovovich) is the teenage warrior leading the fight against the English.

This is Luc Besson's grand take on the heroine Joan of Arc with lots of gusto. Milla Jovovich certainly has the crazed intensity of a zealot. Sometimes, it drifts towards camp. Considering she got the job because she was married to Luc Besson at the time, it could have gone a lot worst.

The basic storyline is well known. The best parts of the story happens midway in the movie. That's where the big battle scenes occur. Certainly the battles are big especially for using real action in modern movies. After the battles, the story drags as she gets captured and tried. It may be better to climax the film with the big win in Orléans. Keep the slower parts as a postscript.

Joan Of Cray Is More Like It!

[droog-56936 · 6/10 · 7 November 2019]

If Jacques Rivette's Joan The Maid movies are steeped in reality then Luc Besson's The Messenger is the fever filled fantasy of Joan of Arc's delusion. A beautiful movie to look at with it's sweeping wide shots and it adoring camera gaze at Milla Jovovich. The problem lies squarely on the shoulders of Jovovich however as she chooses to play Joan as a disturbed hysteric rather than a visionary in control of her self belief real or not. She screams, yells, shakes and throws tantrums that make it hard to believe that any seasoned soldiers of the 15th century would have followed such an obviously disturbed woman into battle. This derails our belief in what is going on. Jovovich is much better in the quieter moments especially in the last half hour. A visual feast and even an entertaining watch. Wish Milla would have toned down her performance though.

This Devil does not wear Pravda

[rbrb · 6/10 · 1 January 2009]

What a terrific performance from the lead female, bursting with faith and power; worth a look for that alone. And magnificent battle scenes and costumes is another highlight of this movie. The story is about the real life Joan of Arc who whilst still a teen and hearing voices from God went about saving medieval France from the clutches of the invading English,but then again politic are politics....

However:

On the negative side many of the actors are very English and are meant to be French so that causes a bit of a problem as the whole film is in English;plus give certain actors costumes and frills and they "camp" it up no end, and at times this picture is almost Pantomine stuff.

And the worst of it is that Dustin Hoffmann plays some spook meant to be the conscience or Devil in Joan and he nearly ruins the film with his conceited "hey-look-at-me-what a star-I am". Well Dustin I got a message for you and it don't come from above: You very nearly destroy this film and you ought to stick to the likes of being Mrs Robinsons' Toy Boy as you are out of your depth in this one despite you believing otherwise.

Hence I have taken two votes off for the appalling Dustin and my vote is:

6/10

A mesmerising character study

[roystephen-81252 · 10/10 · 10 February 2016]

I love epic historical movies, both old and new (although I must admit I lean towards the latter - the more realistic, more visceral ones, like Braveheart or Gladiator). The story of Joan of Arc has been put on the silver screen countless times, and most versions are good. With such a captivating story, you cannot really go wrong.

In Luc Besson's take, however, it's not Joan's trial that takes centre stage, as in, for example, Carl Theodor Dreyer's classic (The Passion of Joan of Arc, 1928), but Joan, the self-proclaimed godsend, the driven, suffering, obsessed warrior, and the very human core of her actions. The film remains wonderfully ambiguous throughout and leaves it to the audience to decide which of the different interpretations they believe to be true.

But it is Milla Jovovich's riveting performance that truly makes this movie. She's literally possessed in her role, playing with such fervour, such delirious passion that you cannot but believe and follow her. It is indeed one of the most visceral performances ever in the history of cinema.

Interesting story, not told very interesting

[rbverhoef · 6/10 · 27 December 2003]

The story of Joan of Arc is a very interesting story and this movie doesn't do much justice to this story. It does create a creepy atmosphere with a nice visual style and therefore the movie was good enough for me. I was hoping for a little more of Joan of Arc and her life but I guess you can't have it all.

We begin with Joan when she is still young, played by Jane Valentine in a very good way. We see how her sister is killed and raped, in that order, and how she finds a sword. She thinks this is one of the signs from God; we get to see some more. Whether they really are signs the movie kind of leaves in the middle with the appearance of something like her conscience (Dustin Hoffman). We see how she gets her own army, has success, but is captured after Charles VII (John Malkovich) is crowned as the king of France and doesn't really support her anymore. As most people know Joan of Arc was burned alive when she was only 19 years old.

Milla Jovovich plays the older Joan. Director Luc Besson also used her for his 'The Fifth Element' and although she is not really bad here she was better in her element in that first movie. Luc Besson was actually the reason I went to see this movie, after his great 'Léon' and the goofy 'The Fifth Element'. He didn't disappoint me with his direction, but he did with the movie. After a pretty good start the movie gets a little boring and it seems that the most simple way is chosen to tell the story. Even the visual style is much better in the first half of the movie.

In poor taste and a complete work of fiction

[Babel-4 · 1/10 · 29 November 1999]

Besson's version of the story of Joan of Arc offended me on many levels. The opening sequences of the movie feature the gruesome murder and rape (in that order) of Joan's sister. This was completely unnecessary and untrue. While it is fact that Joan's town was raided several times and on one occasion burned by the English; Joan of Arc had 2 brothers, but no sisters. This alone was enough to ruin the movie for me, since Besson proceeds to build a case that all of Joan's actions and her descent into insanity were caused by the horrific death of her sister.

Besson also inexplicably created a sinister tormentor for Joan, played by Dustine Hoffman. Hoffman's character who continually played the devil's advocate to a clearly insane Joan, was just plain annoying, confusing, and yet another fabrication. Besson's Joan was never seen having the visions of St. Margaret, St. Catherine, and St. Michael which the real Joan of Arc was reported to have. Instead she saw a twisted and almost demonic Christ figure and the strange Dustin Hoffman character. For Besson to portray a saint and a French national hero in such a manner was purely offensive and in poor taste. Had Besson actually bothered to base his story on historical fact I may have felt differently. If you see this movie, regard it only as a work of fiction, for it bears little in common with the real Joan of Arc other than her name and that she freed Orleans.

A different take on an old story, really enjoyed it.

[Randomizer2600 · 10/10 · 18 July 2017]

This is not a movie I would have chosen, but Director Luc Besson has "Valerian" coming out soon, and this movie was mentioned in a review. There are reviews written by people with far greater knowledge. I have a casual understanding of the story of Joan of Arc, and know less about the events of the time. As a movie, I enjoyed this immensely. This movie gets the people right.

Milla Javovich hits it perfectly. She is vulnerable while unstoppable. She is full of doubt, but completely certain. And during the trial, she can do "caged animal" with just her eyes. I can't imagine anyone else pulling this off. Milla does unapologetically devote better than anyone since Audrey Hepburn in "The Nun's Story".

The supporting cast did a stellar job. There are a lot of medieval movies and TV shows, and most of them aren't believable because people aren't stern or earnest all the time. "Game of Thrones" is fun to watch because sometimes people laugh, and sometimes they fight. If you ever saw a medieval movie, and wondered what the guard standing next to the door does when the camera and the king aren't there, this movie has it. Some reviews called that filler, but it was fun and humanized the soldiers.

I gave it a 10 because it showed people in a way different than other medieval movies. Again, I don't know if the historical facts are correct, but I would not be surprised if the people acted just like they are portrayed.

Excellent direction, but weak Joan character

[CrHunter · 6/10 · 14 November 1999]

I think that the messenger had beautiful scenery, powerful imagery, and very interesting secondary character. Also, the inquisition part of the movie was very good. But I think that Joan's character was rather weak. She never seemed really sure of herself, and did not irradiate charisma. her character was very much like that of Leeloo in the 5th Element. And I think that a medieval woman, and a peasant as well, being received in the King's court and given an army, leading two hundred thousand soldiers in war must have had something special. The depiction of Joan as it is in the movie is unrealistic. She would have needed an aura, and a very strong will.

But still I think that its very good movie and worth seeing.

A one time watch !!!

[modistreet-93306 · 5/10 · 19 March 2024]

Joan of Arc as portrayed in the film seems to be a self-proclaimed messenger of God, over zealous in her beliefs. She came across as an obsessive, compulsive individual or one plagued with schizophrenia. The onscreen Joan of Arc didn't possess any kind of battle skills besides shrieking and egging people on to fight. The battle scenes are very small in scale and felt more like a skirmish between two warring towns rather than two countries. Milla Jovovich did a commendable job playing an unbalanced Joan of Arc. However, due to such extreme eccentricities, as an audience you never fall in love with the character or empathize with her, inspite of her tragic death. There lies the reason why the movie didn't do too well at the box office. But it's a movie worth watching once.