The first half is a bit ridiculous because the film obviously doesn't have a budget. The trial part is more interesting and makes me want to see other films on the subject.
15 Reviews
mini budget
sergelamarche29 April 2021
No passion
aapple20012 March 2021
Anyone who is knowledgeable about the history of Jeanne the maid of Lorraine will be puzzled by this torpid representation of her ordeal.
The casting is baffling. A 10 year old plays Jeanne, who was 19. The wonderful Fabrice Luchini, a man in his late 60's, plays King Charles, a man in his mid 20's. Apart from Luchini, most of the cast are dreadfully wooden. The camera work is perfunctory at best. The first 40 minutes is excruciatingly slow and shot mostly in sand dunes near the English Channel / La Manche. We are expected to suspend disbelief enough to imagine this variously represents the vicinity just outside Paris or in the garden of the Château de la Trémouille. A battle scene consists of about two dozen cast on horseback performing an equine dance routine. The dialogue appears to be straight from a play this film was based on. Exposition by announcing characters as we watch them trudge through the sand is amateurish beyond belief. The editor must have been high when this section of the film was cut. Incredibly long passages of nothing happening.
I gave up around the 35 minute mark, and a day later was about to write a review when I thought to be fair I should watch the movie in its entirety first and try to fathom how it achieved the awards it received. So I sat and watched the rest.
Around the 40 minute mark the locations shift to inside Amiens cathedral which provides some photographic interest and gradually the dialogue picks up. I assume the dialogue is from Jeanne's trial. Towards the end of the film, Jeanne's prison in Rouen is a WWII bunker in the middle of nowhere.
The budget for this film is supposedly EUR1,500,000. I can't see what it was spent on. The money would have been better spent shooting the stage play with no other pretensions.
'Cahiers du Cinéma' named Jeanne (Joan of Arc) the 5th best film of 2019. I assume they only saw 5 films. The French film industry is better than this.
This film has a certain look and feel which can be described as cheap and tedious. So don't bother with this one. You will only be exasperated that you wasted over 2 hours for nothing.
The casting is baffling. A 10 year old plays Jeanne, who was 19. The wonderful Fabrice Luchini, a man in his late 60's, plays King Charles, a man in his mid 20's. Apart from Luchini, most of the cast are dreadfully wooden. The camera work is perfunctory at best. The first 40 minutes is excruciatingly slow and shot mostly in sand dunes near the English Channel / La Manche. We are expected to suspend disbelief enough to imagine this variously represents the vicinity just outside Paris or in the garden of the Château de la Trémouille. A battle scene consists of about two dozen cast on horseback performing an equine dance routine. The dialogue appears to be straight from a play this film was based on. Exposition by announcing characters as we watch them trudge through the sand is amateurish beyond belief. The editor must have been high when this section of the film was cut. Incredibly long passages of nothing happening.
I gave up around the 35 minute mark, and a day later was about to write a review when I thought to be fair I should watch the movie in its entirety first and try to fathom how it achieved the awards it received. So I sat and watched the rest.
Around the 40 minute mark the locations shift to inside Amiens cathedral which provides some photographic interest and gradually the dialogue picks up. I assume the dialogue is from Jeanne's trial. Towards the end of the film, Jeanne's prison in Rouen is a WWII bunker in the middle of nowhere.
The budget for this film is supposedly EUR1,500,000. I can't see what it was spent on. The money would have been better spent shooting the stage play with no other pretensions.
'Cahiers du Cinéma' named Jeanne (Joan of Arc) the 5th best film of 2019. I assume they only saw 5 films. The French film industry is better than this.
This film has a certain look and feel which can be described as cheap and tedious. So don't bother with this one. You will only be exasperated that you wasted over 2 hours for nothing.
Great story turned into a boring saga.
adityasmile19 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This is a story of a young girl Joan of Arc, who believes herself as a messenger of God and leads the army of France. When she is captured by the English army, she is sent to the trail by the Church. There she refuses to accept the accusations made by the Church and she stays true to the mission of Victory over the English.
If we see the plot we expect many war sequences and many great historic moments as the story is set up in that period. It has also got a greater scope to the intense drama for the trail and when Jeanne is taking decisions for the country. But all we see are some boring dialogue scenes and uninteresting parade scenes.
The planning of the battle is done on some random deserted lands, where we see some old people wearing some dunes and some metallic armors to make themselves look like the advisors and warriors. This type of setting is seen almost everytime they plan for the war.
When Joan is left alone to take a decision on the war and she listens to the voices in her head claiming them as the God's voice. But it was her own decision which makes things move on. There is an immense scope for the development of the emotions in this scene and drama where her internal turmoil can be potrayed beautifully. But here we get is her solid rock face and some uninteresting song in the background. This song almost plays for 4 minutes and this definitely makes you get bored.
Even after they decide to attack on the English army, they start with a parade. This makes us to expect something epic. But the horses keep on moving in the direction of '8' finally this parade runs for almost 4 minutes. This tests our patience. All the wars which happened in the history are just explained in the text form and this killed the excitement. Even when the trail starts we expect some things to happen. But the comic way of it's narration ruined the drama.
The artists are another set back for the film especially the protagonist Prudhomme. Her face lacked the ferociousness which is needed by this character. No need to even think about the rest of the cast.
What is really good about the entire film is the costumes and the Church for the trail sequence. Cinematography is top notch. Except for these two aspects it is a dull film and sloppy attempt.
Bottom line: Joan of Arc is not quite funny enough to be funny, or serious enough to be serious, or passionate enough to be about the passion of Joan of Arc.
Diffrent approach gone wrong
rishikabhalwal31 January 2020
Starting with the acting part of the movie, the said were only said not delivered , the locations didn't seem to fit the narrative in the first shots of the movie ,the only tried to convey the emotion of the charechter but didn't take the story forward which to seemed like a waste of time , the idea and effort of using more metaphors was something i admire, but more thought needs to be put in making the metaphors work and hvae the impact they need to have
Joan the woman.
ulicknormanowen5 July 2020
First thing to bear in mind is that it's the second part of a diptych dealing with the French heroine; the first one,released the precedent year,called 'Jeannette ,l'enfance de Jeanne" , partly a musical, told the early years in Domremy ,the heavenly voices and the beginning of the legend .
The most famous story of our history,told,and told and told and TOLD.And filmed and filmed and filmed and FILMED :from Dreyer to Besson ,via De Mille , Preminger,Fleming,Bresson,and so many others it's impossible to count them all .
In "destinées" (1953),Jean Delannoy ,a director hated by the NV ,had sketched a new approach : it was only a sketch (about 40 min) but for the first time,it did not show Jeanne's epic but her moments of doubt and fear ,after the king was about to negociate and did not want to carry on with the fight.
"Jeanne" begins just before the siege of Paris ,the first of the heroine's failures .From the very beginning,one knows what to expect : not the usual scenes ,nothing spectacular ;if you're looking for this ,you'd better move on.
So much for the prelims : "this will be a defining moment" they all say ,before coming to the Parisians' rescue : her brothers in arms ,the duke of Alençon and Gilles De Rais (he's told :"you are not a sorcerer yet" ,an ominous line ");then heavenly voices which seem to sum up the epic for Joan is tired of the war and admits that she longs for the gentle way of life when she was spinning the wool .Then a very long scene which depicts movements in the horsemen which eventually produces a hypnotic effect .
Probably influenced by Bernard Shaw and Jean Anouilh,Dumont puts the stress on the supporting characters :hence the long discussion between the judges before the trial ,priding themselves on their degrees and on their high competence ; the trial takes place ,oddly ,in the cathedral of Rouen , which makes Joan all the more small and frail since the actress looks hardly like a teenager .This may be the only moment the viewer finds something to cling to ,for some of the lines are historically true (notably Jeanne's state of grace).Then again a threnody is heard ,sung by singer Christophe who wrote the music and appears here as preacher Guillaume Evrard -sadly Christophe was to pass away recently ,a victim of the covid 19.
The artistic choice is brought to the fore one more time in the final scenes : the torturers talk about their instruments ,and there's a pathetic quarrel about the prisoner's chain ;likewise , the guards of the dungeon show no compassion ,no desire (she's a witch and people were superstitious),and are more interested in the bottles of wine one of their mates bring:their derisory words are not unlike these of the warden in Jean Anouilh 's " Antigone" : it's not their business.
Defying historical realism , Jeanne 's jail looks like a WW2 bunker ; the audience is even refused the stake (Anouilh's "influence again :in "l'alouette" ,he had the stake destroyed) : only a small smoke ascends towards the absolute . It's not a very accessible film :but it possesses a mesmerizing fascinating power .
The most famous story of our history,told,and told and told and TOLD.And filmed and filmed and filmed and FILMED :from Dreyer to Besson ,via De Mille , Preminger,Fleming,Bresson,and so many others it's impossible to count them all .
In "destinées" (1953),Jean Delannoy ,a director hated by the NV ,had sketched a new approach : it was only a sketch (about 40 min) but for the first time,it did not show Jeanne's epic but her moments of doubt and fear ,after the king was about to negociate and did not want to carry on with the fight.
"Jeanne" begins just before the siege of Paris ,the first of the heroine's failures .From the very beginning,one knows what to expect : not the usual scenes ,nothing spectacular ;if you're looking for this ,you'd better move on.
So much for the prelims : "this will be a defining moment" they all say ,before coming to the Parisians' rescue : her brothers in arms ,the duke of Alençon and Gilles De Rais (he's told :"you are not a sorcerer yet" ,an ominous line ");then heavenly voices which seem to sum up the epic for Joan is tired of the war and admits that she longs for the gentle way of life when she was spinning the wool .Then a very long scene which depicts movements in the horsemen which eventually produces a hypnotic effect .
Probably influenced by Bernard Shaw and Jean Anouilh,Dumont puts the stress on the supporting characters :hence the long discussion between the judges before the trial ,priding themselves on their degrees and on their high competence ; the trial takes place ,oddly ,in the cathedral of Rouen , which makes Joan all the more small and frail since the actress looks hardly like a teenager .This may be the only moment the viewer finds something to cling to ,for some of the lines are historically true (notably Jeanne's state of grace).Then again a threnody is heard ,sung by singer Christophe who wrote the music and appears here as preacher Guillaume Evrard -sadly Christophe was to pass away recently ,a victim of the covid 19.
The artistic choice is brought to the fore one more time in the final scenes : the torturers talk about their instruments ,and there's a pathetic quarrel about the prisoner's chain ;likewise , the guards of the dungeon show no compassion ,no desire (she's a witch and people were superstitious),and are more interested in the bottles of wine one of their mates bring:their derisory words are not unlike these of the warden in Jean Anouilh 's " Antigone" : it's not their business.
Defying historical realism , Jeanne 's jail looks like a WW2 bunker ; the audience is even refused the stake (Anouilh's "influence again :in "l'alouette" ,he had the stake destroyed) : only a small smoke ascends towards the absolute . It's not a very accessible film :but it possesses a mesmerizing fascinating power .
Wanted to leave the cinema
renateinfrance13 September 2019
And so I did. Why? The first 30 minutes annoyed me heavily. Tedious, amateuristic acting and scenes. Everything went on too long. Not a moment I saw something interesting or glorious or intriguing. I kept on thinking: this is amateur stuff. Sorry. Could not be lured to continue watching.
A symbolic representation of the far past
theowest31 January 2020
This incredibly, well-paced french film with an ego-less perspective set during the middle ages perfectly captures the story of Joan of Arc. It felt holy, symbolic and absolutely beautiful.
If you're not a fan, at least you've experienced a contrasting perspective to your every day experience!
Wholesome and intelligent.
If you're not a fan, at least you've experienced a contrasting perspective to your every day experience!
Wholesome and intelligent.
Mediocre Joan of Arc lost in translation
sokolovitch18 January 2020
Mediocre is a word that sums up this film well. Finally to summarize, is there really something going on in this movie??? Battle scenes are some ride arena and boring shootings. After the amazement to see Jeanne of Arc played by a cute 10-year-old girl, you would think why not, she can be a real virgin! However, the result is very disappointing. If the director displays his will to shoot a film without "professional" actors, the acting of the protagonists is really bad. The Marshal of France is a pre-pubescent teenager with his first beard, with a castrated voice to make the best gay bars totally hysterical. The protagonists come and go as in a theatre play, the new characters being "announced" by those already present. Let's forget the locations Cathedral of Rouen is now the one of Amiens, the Parisian countryside is now dunes of sands of the north of France, and medieval castles are now WWII! German Bunker or stone on the ground... Let's forget the music, it has been written by the successful seventies French singer Christophe who also get lost in translation, the producers probably asked him to write something about the voices in the head of Joan, and it ended in some long 5 minutes scenes of the young actress almost getting paralyzed listening to the singer rhythms and songs. With so many nominations and a win, we can think the result would be amazing, this is just a disastrous movie because this is pure sick intellectual and they have found 1.5 M euros to finance it. Les Cahiers du Cinema wrote that this is one of the Top5 French films, it is probable, given the box office, one of the Top5 most boring and crappy film made about Joan of Arc!!!
Experimental, no, I don't know
icyonetayone30 January 2020
The film Joan of Arc starts with some ambition. And metaphorical shots which probably were meant to add to the movie, in a way or two, which failed drastically and I was almost flabbergasted with all that happened there after. The editing, the shots, the directtion, everything fell apart.
Critiques claim, this might be a breakthrough, in filmmaking, or a big fail! Let's see.
Earlier films by Bruno Dumont had some experiments, but to this level, well, okay, we'll have to wait and watch. There is a predecessor to this film, which has the same approach, and the lead actor, which are unprofessional, but that's completely fine, if other ends are fulfilled. But lacking in that part, the film totally falls apart for me.
I found this film ultimately exasperating: not quite funny enough to be funny, or serious enough to be serious, or passionate enough to be about the passion of Joan of Arc. Dumont has produced such brilliant work in the past, and Joan of Arc could well have value as a way station to something else - a work in progress, a career evolution towards a new, tonally complex film-making language. But this film is opaque and unrewarding.
Even though Joan of Arc screened at the Cannes film festival, I don't find a point of passing this through the jury and if so, i don't see a valid reason behind this.
The production seemed tight in budget, the set design and even the actors, let's exclude the child actors the whole cast's acting died for me as they proceeded.
Even the cinematography was okay, probably, there was nothing outstanding in the film, for me.
Earlier films by Bruno Dumont had some experiments, but to this level, well, okay, we'll have to wait and watch. There is a predecessor to this film, which has the same approach, and the lead actor, which are unprofessional, but that's completely fine, if other ends are fulfilled. But lacking in that part, the film totally falls apart for me.
I found this film ultimately exasperating: not quite funny enough to be funny, or serious enough to be serious, or passionate enough to be about the passion of Joan of Arc. Dumont has produced such brilliant work in the past, and Joan of Arc could well have value as a way station to something else - a work in progress, a career evolution towards a new, tonally complex film-making language. But this film is opaque and unrewarding.
Even though Joan of Arc screened at the Cannes film festival, I don't find a point of passing this through the jury and if so, i don't see a valid reason behind this.
The production seemed tight in budget, the set design and even the actors, let's exclude the child actors the whole cast's acting died for me as they proceeded.
Even the cinematography was okay, probably, there was nothing outstanding in the film, for me.
Mmmm
ibraheemalfar8 October 2019
eccentric
Kirpianuscus29 April 2022
I saw this film seduced being by its trailer and surprised by so young Jeanne. The first half of hour was real weigh because all seems so amateurish, from the sand location to dialogue. But the hope dies the last , and I hoped than the film can be saved in a form of other. And it is. By imagination of viewer knowing the story of Jeanne D Arc, by presence of Fabrice Luchini as unfair old Charles and by the dialogue from trial, by the song of prosecutor and, no doubts, by the last scenes, real inspired ones.
A good point - the effort of so young Lise Leplat Prudhomme to sustain her character.
Obvious, it is far to be a bad film. It is only an eccentric experiment, expression of rich imagination and not the most inspired tools for serve it.
It can be defined, in same measure, as provocative.
So, maybe only sin of it - it is so long ... . And you hope, scene by scene, be more ...profound, remaining, in final, only with the images from Amiens cathedral, strange prison and, sure, the beach of first scenes.
A good point - the effort of so young Lise Leplat Prudhomme to sustain her character.
Obvious, it is far to be a bad film. It is only an eccentric experiment, expression of rich imagination and not the most inspired tools for serve it.
It can be defined, in same measure, as provocative.
So, maybe only sin of it - it is so long ... . And you hope, scene by scene, be more ...profound, remaining, in final, only with the images from Amiens cathedral, strange prison and, sure, the beach of first scenes.
Filmed in dazed vision with extra alternate character
idonotexist5 July 2023
We all know the story, the history and all that. This movie is not really that story that we know. For some reason they decided to put a kid as the lead, and i am trying to figure out why. Now, the french are a little obsessed with their jean of arc. There are several movies that depict her story and some are better than others. This one is an oddball. It reminds me of a weird movie whose name i cannot recall but it was equally horrible. There is an artistic style or so id like to think, of using kids to depict stories. There are several movies like that i've come across.
Now does it work. No, usually it does not and neither does it work here. Joan was young yes but also not a child (in medieval society she was well an adult at 19 when she died) and she was quite savage on the battlefield and extremely religiously devout; way above cult level. This movie takes this away. There is no battlefield, no gore, no fighting no religion. The only scenes of something like that are her standing with a 5" prop sword in some sand dunes getting captured and we are done with all that. Fast forward to the trial.
The movie is about the trial, her trial and that is where it bogs down badly. The cast is not good. I am not a native speaker but i can still sense the forced speech and wooden delivery. The decor is not authentic.. it is too clean, too low budget, really reminds me of a school play. The real trial is quite well documented and it was quite a fiasco. They literally executed a national hero over a power struggle with the church on convenience charges. It is difficult to imagine how you could mess that up; the script literally writes itself off any history book! Instead, the made up their own story. Everything is so shallow so calm so mundane.
For a movie that wants to go into Joans convictions and beliefs and her commitment to those, it really does not deliver there. I do not care about her as presented. It does not capture the viewer, but rather bores it to an absolute state of coma. There is overuse of drawn out face zoom scenes, starring into the abyss scenes and random dudes in C grade medieval outfits standing or walking about with no impact to the story. It is not filler even, they tried to show something but did not achieve what they were hoping to do. If joan was not in the title, you cannot tell this was a movie about her. That's how bad they gutted her.
The ending is equally flat, the final conversation between her and her handler (he might have been a priest but it is hard to tell; a wooden doll could have acted better) and guards had me reaching for the coffee bottle just to stay awake until the credits. The final scene was a total relief. It is over. This footage is over. Saved by the credits.
Mundane, wooden and dazed. You take the best parts of Joan, remove them, bury the movie in some horrible flat trial with horrible dialogue and bad acting, have a totally flat and emotionless ending and you get this movie.
3/10.
Now does it work. No, usually it does not and neither does it work here. Joan was young yes but also not a child (in medieval society she was well an adult at 19 when she died) and she was quite savage on the battlefield and extremely religiously devout; way above cult level. This movie takes this away. There is no battlefield, no gore, no fighting no religion. The only scenes of something like that are her standing with a 5" prop sword in some sand dunes getting captured and we are done with all that. Fast forward to the trial.
The movie is about the trial, her trial and that is where it bogs down badly. The cast is not good. I am not a native speaker but i can still sense the forced speech and wooden delivery. The decor is not authentic.. it is too clean, too low budget, really reminds me of a school play. The real trial is quite well documented and it was quite a fiasco. They literally executed a national hero over a power struggle with the church on convenience charges. It is difficult to imagine how you could mess that up; the script literally writes itself off any history book! Instead, the made up their own story. Everything is so shallow so calm so mundane.
For a movie that wants to go into Joans convictions and beliefs and her commitment to those, it really does not deliver there. I do not care about her as presented. It does not capture the viewer, but rather bores it to an absolute state of coma. There is overuse of drawn out face zoom scenes, starring into the abyss scenes and random dudes in C grade medieval outfits standing or walking about with no impact to the story. It is not filler even, they tried to show something but did not achieve what they were hoping to do. If joan was not in the title, you cannot tell this was a movie about her. That's how bad they gutted her.
The ending is equally flat, the final conversation between her and her handler (he might have been a priest but it is hard to tell; a wooden doll could have acted better) and guards had me reaching for the coffee bottle just to stay awake until the credits. The final scene was a total relief. It is over. This footage is over. Saved by the credits.
Mundane, wooden and dazed. You take the best parts of Joan, remove them, bury the movie in some horrible flat trial with horrible dialogue and bad acting, have a totally flat and emotionless ending and you get this movie.
3/10.
No High Budget Buffoonery here
tauraq14 March 2024
I liked the fact that this adaptation wasn't your typical overblown rubbish with gratuitous sex scenes that are churned out of Hollywood. Other than the one overacting blusterous priest that wouldn't shut up. I found this play like structure rather enjoyable.
I see that there are reviewers who were expecting a George Lucas Star Wars type of production full of glamorous but wooden actors. I feel that this young actress did a fantastic portrayal of Joan of Arc and the absent of sex in this film tends to place more focus on the actual story being told.
There are plenty of ways in which a director and script writers can go when putting together a historical production such as this. I for one prefer art over sex appeal, and talent over exposed flesh.
I see that there are reviewers who were expecting a George Lucas Star Wars type of production full of glamorous but wooden actors. I feel that this young actress did a fantastic portrayal of Joan of Arc and the absent of sex in this film tends to place more focus on the actual story being told.
There are plenty of ways in which a director and script writers can go when putting together a historical production such as this. I for one prefer art over sex appeal, and talent over exposed flesh.
Awful
oldvicar7 June 2023
I have enjoyed a few cinematic versions of Jeanne d'arc, and although there a was a significant warning bell when I saw that this achieved some sort of Cannes acclaim (a normal correlation with a real turkey) I was looking forward to it. Then after an intro scene it suddenly cuts to a disjointed scene with bad dialogue in the middle of a sand pit. It got really bad and so I skipped forward a few times to confirm that this was a no budget film - bad everything. I thought maybe the ecclesiastical interrogation would offer some redemption but no, no..definitely no. Hilarious scene where I think all the money was spent on some horse dressage which in pretentious film word was probably an incitement interpretation of something they didn't have the money to depict. Avoid unless you're a diw hard French film fan but then, if you are, they had you at Cannes I imagine.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
