IMDb user comments for
The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

363 comments in total

---

34 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Inspired by...?, 24 October 2004
Author: Mercian from NJ, USA

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.

---

31 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Milla was simply breathtaking as Joan, 31 December 1999

Author: Jack-91

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

---

25 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
A fresh feeling take on the classic tale, one that focuses on visual style rather than historical information. *** out of ****, 12 December 1999

Author: Blake French (dlfspartan@aol.com) from USA

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.

---

14 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
very impressive and intelligent leap in time, 28 April 2005

Author: step2ice from germany

Joan of Arc the legend which was described as saint, warrior, frantic, heretic etc. is brilliantly played by Milla Jovovich. This movie isn't the typical hero stuff you would expect. It has many sides to think of and gives you space to make your own thoughts about the character Joan of Arc. And that is exactly what I liked the most about the movie. You can almost feel what this very young woman must have felt to be on the battlefield at this age, fighting for her vision, faith or whatever it was. Intoxicated by the battles and her mission to fight the war for god, for France.

Besides from that you will see a lot of battles. Great visuals and good to memorable acting.

Most people seem to get the movie wrong. They probably wanted a clean hero saga or some documentary movie, I don't know. This movie is something different. Sometimes you have to read between the lines, make your own thoughts. But as I said, that's what I like and that's what I want from a good movie.

10/10

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
imperfect but interesting film, 5 August 2000
Author: Roland E. Zwick (magneteach@aol.com) from United States

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.

---

18 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
An amazing movie, 17 November 1999
Author: Travis Cottreau (cottreau@seimac.com) from Halifax, Canada

I loved this movie. It's visually stunning and the casting and acting was superb. The story was already layed out (approximately), so Luc Besson concentrated on Jeanne herself, the person and what she was like and why she did what she did.

I have to admit to putting myself in Jeanne's place, feeling what she must have been feeling along the way. I think without that, it probably would have been a much duller movie, although probably entertaining.

The battles scenes, of which there were many, were graphic and brutal. Dismemberments, swords and maces swinging, lots of pain and death. The ensuing desolation at the end of a battle were weighty and gave a a horrible look at the conditions of the time.

My final impressions... Joan of Arc, if the portrayals were accurate was a driven young woman, deeply religious and deeply confused who was probably at least partially insane. If she were alive today, no doubt, she would be treated with common drugs and would lead a normal life. I felt very sorry for her and her situation and for the way that she was treated. I know people would argue that there is no need to feel this way, because she was clear and sure of her purpose. I don't feel that this was ever the case and she was sure only that she was going crazy if she didn't do something.

Movies don't usually move me this way and I'm really amazed.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Delicious ambiguity - possible spoilers, 21 July 2006

Author: spnmike from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The scenes of combat are visceral and exciting but I'd have to say that this movie is genius if for no other reason than the fact that the incredible degree of ambiguity in the film remains completely and utterly unresolved up until the very end. It would qualify as an example of Tzvetan Todorov's FANTASTIC, where the reader (here the viewer) hesitates upon deciding if the events and phenomena witnessed in the work may be explained realistically or if they are due to the influence of magic and the supernatural, except that in this film there is a tripartite locus for the fantastic hesitation: either Jean is mad, a complete schizo who hallucinates all of her "holy" encounters, or she has indeed been chosen by Christ as a hero and a martyr for France (in which case Christ comes off looking not so nice to Jean a la book of Job), or a third possibility, the supernatural is indeed present, but in the form of the devil, who has beguiled Jean working exploiting her megalomania to make her his agent of unholy carnage upon the earth (the sheer goriness of some of the battle seem to support this satanic hypothesis). The balance and ambiguity between these three possibilities is never sacrificed and the viewer is allowed to decide for themselves: an excellent and unique film!

---

12 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Intentions of God, 25 May 2005

Author: jjhyoon from South Korea

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Starts Off Nicely, 2 October 2006

Author: aimless-46 from Kentucky

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" the most 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.

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.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
What happens when Braveheart meets Snow White? (spoilers!), 9 October 2000

Author: Patti N from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The product is the Hollywood version of the Joan of Arc story. Judging from his previous works, Luc Besson had such potential with The Messenger. The bad things (casting the lead role, minor discrepancies and spaces in history, and explicit gore) outweigh the good things (supporting cast and beautiful scenery) by far.

Milla Jovovich is a very talented actress, but Joan of Arc she is not. As the wife of Luc Besson, she seemed to be the best choice for the part. She was very entertaining as the bandage-clad, red-haired alien Leeloo in The Fifth Element. Her wide-eyed portrayal of Joan in The Messenger made her seem more like a crazy wench suffering from premenstrual syndrome than a visionary with a mission from God. A better choice for the Joan of Arc role would have been Claire Danes. At least she would have been sure to keep her hair color consistent throughout the movie.

There is nothing in the history books that indicate that Joan's sister Catherine was raped and killed by English soldiers in the attack on the village. Although it was the most realistic scene in the movie, it most likely never happened. It was presented that Joan used the brutal death of her sister as an act of self-serving vengeance, not simply being chosen by God through her visions to lead the French to victory over the English. Other research reveals that Joan was raped while in prison, just so she would not die the virgin martyr.

The movie makes a big leap from Joan's childhood to stalking the Dauphin. The last scene of Joan as a child is her escape from the back of her uncle's wagon to return to the church. The very next scene is her meeting with the Dauphin Charles VII. What happened to her during those eight or nine years between scenes? How did she develop a bond with the people who were so willing to accept her as a messenger of God? Joan's army had great respect for her from the beginning, but no explanation was given as to why.

What about the brutality of war? The blood and gore depicted in this movie had no purpose other than pure shock effect. Wolves devour the entrails of a dead peasant. Young Joan witnesses the bloody impaling and rape of her sister's dead body while trapped in a closet. Soldiers heads are lopped off in blood-spurting glamor, twice, in the midst of the yawn-inspiring battle scenes. The fighting scenes lacked the camaraderie, fluidity and intestinal fortitude portrayed so well in Braveheart.

The supporting cast did an excellent job trying to salvage what was left of the movie. Jane Valentine, who portrayed Joan as a child, gave a radiant performance, much more so than her older counterpart. John Malkovich did a superb job, as always, convincing the audience he belonged there. Faye Dunaway precisely performed the role of Charles VII's manipulative mother-in-law. Even though the Dustin Hoffman scenes required spectators to look up his nose the whole time, he played the part of Joan's conscience with his Oscar-winning ability.

The country scenes were absolutely breathtaking. Who would not love the opportunity to run freely through tall grass, fields of flowers and unadulterated forests? This was the best part of the movie. It is good to know that places like this still exist in the world, unscathed by modern technology.

Overall this movie lacked transition, a strong lead character and a sensible plot. It was the longest two hours and twenty-one minutes I have had to sit through in a quite a while. I give it a D+.

---

---

Page 1 of 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history