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

The Worst Film Ever

i must have seen a different film!!

As Good As It Gets

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

Historical records conflict with this presentation. All scenes concerning her family and childhood are completely fictional. Joan was depicted as weepy and fearful. She was not. Nor did she ever at any time show disrespect to Charles. I have the impression that the intention here was to portray Joan as a hysteric or as a schizophrenic. In real life she claimed to hear voices, but tried to keep that private as much as possible. She did not display any of the other symptoms of a person who was schizophrenic. Of course many movie producers think that fiction is more interesting than fact. The result here is that there are very few facts in this movie. However, the quotes from Joan's letters were accurate as was the historical time line. Leelee Sobieski's portrayal in Joan of Arc (also 1999) is more realistic.

I have been waiting years to see the film, a devoted fan of Joan of Arc, and I finally saw it tonight. It went from bad-to great- to terrible.The good: 1. The other significant characters that actually sound French or are French. 2. The visual effects. 3. Depiction of medieval times. 4. Much of the acting of the Dauphin, Dunois, La Hire, Aulon, and Joan at times, as well as the English. 5. Much of the dress/uniforms. 6. And lastly, the battle scenes WERE GREAT! I always fully appreciate long- lasting, realistic medieval battle scenes and warfare. This was the best aspect of the movie in my opinion. The Bad and The Ugly: 1. Terrible choice making Milla the young French maiden, inferior to the prior Joan of Arc film's choice. 2. John Malk. as Charles 7th, he's way too English not French at all. 3. The Hollywood sacrilegious depiction of "Joan's visions". Hollywood sacrilegious depiction of Joan's so-called "Conscience" who unmistakably is the Devil. 4. Canchon is depicted as barely involved in the trial or hearings, and is depicted far too sympathetic and kind towards Joan, which goes against any written accounts of the trial. 5. La Hire cursed once more after his oath to God, which is blatantly inaccurate. (He honored his oath for the rest of his life) 6. Nothing from the Duke of Burgandy's mother, who loved Joan and wanted her to become a Burgandian princess. 7. Where was Jean Metz??!!! Her right-hand man??!!?!?? 8.THE ENDING!!!!! TERRIBLE! JOAN IS LED BY Satan TO DOUBT HERSELF, BELIEVE HIS LIES, CONFESS HER SO-CALLED SINS TO Satan, THEN ALLOW Satan TO PRAY OVER HER TO HEAVEN?????!!!! WHAT???! AND THEN, SHE SIGNS THE RECANT LETTER FROM CANCHON, WHICH SHE NEVER DID! AND SO THE VIEWER, WHO MAY HAVE NEVER READ ANYTHING ON JOAN OF ARC BEFORE, IS LEFT TO CONCLUDE THAT EITHER JOAN WAS A HERETIC AND SHE CONFESSED/SOLD HER SOUL TO Satan OR SHE WAS A CRAZY LUNATIC THE ENTIRE TIME!!!!!!!!! IS THAT THE LASTING IMAGE LUC BESSON WANTS TO GIVE A HEROINE WHO ACCOMPLISHED MORE IN HER LIFETIME THAN HE EVER WILL IN A 1,000 YEARS???!!!! HE CERTAINLY DISHONORED AND DISRESPECTED THE MAIDEN OF ORLEANS, AND I PRAY ONLY A DIRECTOR WITH INTEGRITY AND HONOR REDOES THE NEXT JOAN FILM. LUC HAS SPIT ON HER GRAVE. (OH, and nowhere to be seen daring assault LA Hire and generals led onto Rouen to try to save Joan and remove the English from France. Or the confirmation of prophecies Joan had given in the following years.)

The combination of Luc Besson and Mila Jojovich is a recipe for criticism. As in, "Oh sure the star is the directors wife". That would be true if Luc Besson was anything less than a great director or Mila Jojovich anything less than a great actress. This film accomplished a lot. Visually spectacular, historically challenging, and in many ways ingenious. Most of all, it didn't fall prey to the unconditional hero worship or unquestioning belief that most films about moving historical figures do. The film maintains it's historical modesty, questioning rather than preaching or glorifying. If you are looking for a moving, spiritual, emotional movie it's got all that. If you are looking for medieval warfare in all it's glory, it's got all that.But sadly it is flawed. Much to my chagrin, as I do admire most of his work, Dustin Hoffman's performance is, to put it mildly, a big downer for the film. He is clearly at a loss as to what his character or purpose is in the film. His performance is uncomfortable and distracting. Despite his lower appearance in the credits, his role was critical in the film. It's a real detractor. But aside from this one glaring flaw, the film is of the highest quality on all accounts. I was riveted from beginning to end and wouldn't hesitate to watch it again. Because of it's one casting/directing flaw I have to rate it an 8 but on every other count it's a 10.