Cool News
THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF JOAN OF ARC review
Alrighty... onto the second review of the night. This
time I'm writing while sprawled out on the eleventh
row of an American West flight out of Phoenix
flapping it's wings to get me back to my lovely bed
and home.
While I'm up here all close to God and such... I
figured this would be a great location to begin
discussing THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF
JOAN OF ARC.
Now right up front I'm going to tell you... I love this
movie. But... Alot of critics seem to be ready to tear
it to pieces. Taking potshots at the 'spacy' look on
Milla Jovovich's face. That odd other gaze in her
eyes.
But frankly... This movie really does remind me quite
a bit of the feeling I had while watching THE THIN
RED LINE.
How so?
Well... This isn't a movie that is really made for
100% of the audience. Not to mean that one side or
another is superior... only it's a different aesthetic
taste. Sort of like... there are some people that really
like the way POP ROCKS feel in your mouth, while
others begin gagging and spitting them out.
This is that type of movie.
Like THE THIN RED LINE... it's about a normal
person in the midst of battle. But even to a higher
degree.
A girl, an uneducated girl.
Imagine... You are in high school. God comes to you
and says that you are to lead the American forces to
destroy the evil of Saddam Hussein.. but you must do
it. God doesn't take NO for an answer... He makes
really strong arguments.
So... You have to make your way to the President of
the United States and convince him to send you and
his men and women of the military on a holy crusade
to wipe out this 'scourge'.
Uh huh...
Well... pop quiz hot shot... What do you do?
How do you convince those that do not believe?
How do you make your point to them, if God didn't
grant you the power to levitated the Statue of Liberty
by motioning your pinky finger. I mean... What.. do
you have them attempt to shoot you... knowing that
God will somehow save you, or would he interpret
that as a suicide attempt and doom your soul to
purgatory forever?
Alright... Now let's say you've convinced the
President. But God doesn't want you in some tent
somewhere... he wants you on the front lines... Close
contact with the death. Others' blood coats your face
like an avocado face wrap.
You've been a simple person your whole life... and
now you care the responsibility of life and death...
you lead people to death and victory at the cost of
lives... thousands of lives. A field of barbarism...
How does this serve God's will?
'He moves in mysterious ways.'
Yeah... I know, I've seen END OF DAYS... God has
a great publicist.
Folks... Milla is this simple girl. She wanted to
gather flowers... become a nun... live a simple life.
She didn't even know how to read.
Then she finds herself in these battles...
Communicating with voices or visages inside her
mind. A faith in the bestower of her message.
That 'spacy' look? That's uncertainty... a girl lost in
the midst of blood and body parts.
Can you imagine having these visions? At 18? This
sort of responsibility?
Not me... I don't want it. It'd drive me crazy... And it
very nearly drives Joan crazy as well. Like Scorsese's
THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, this is a
human portrayal of one of God's messengers. These
are flawed beings... and all the more beautiful for it.
The battles are the type you flinch during. The
aftermath the sort your jaw drops to. But
predominantly... this movie is about getting to the last
act which quite honestly I found compelling as any bit
of film I've seen all year long.
Dustin Hoffman is no inquisitor... not in my eyes
anyways... Hoffman is her reason... her version of
God... The face he takes. Perhaps she misinterpreted
some of her visions... spoke a bit of blasphemy... and
perhaps God wanted a martyr. She needed
absolution, but she was unsure of what sins she
committed. Here Hoffman plays the Inner Doubts we
have after thinking we have made the right choices in
life. That demon upon your shoulder that questions
your intentions at every moment of silence.
After many more viewings and a couple of years I'll
talk about where in the scope of Besson's career I feel
this film falls... but right now... I love this film.
This isn't an easy movie... You'll have to think,
interpret what you are seeing. You may have doubts,
you might question Joan herself.
But my God this is a beautiful movie. The production
design, score, costumery, cinematography... all
magnificent.
The acting is, for me, every bit as strong as
BRAVEHEART if not even on par with Branagh's
HENRY V.
Stay open minded and I hope you enjoy it as much as
I did.
-
+ Expand All
-
If you liked BRAVEHEART...go see that movie!!!!
the battle of jeanne d'arc's "voices" is great!
Is she crazy?? is it God or Satan himself...talkin' to her...
-
No offence to Braveheart, a movie which I did enjoy, but why must the Messenger be constantly compared to it? The two movies are completely dissimilar. Braveheart was a happy little fantasy about clear cut good guys vs bad guys which suffered badly from inconsistent editing and poor research. Now I understand (from my friends at least) that most people do not care very much about many of the finer points as I do. But Braaveheart was so unrealistic in terms of dialogue, costuming, motivation and history that I almost didn't like it at times. I don't mean to put the movie down but why were all of Edward's soldiers wearing black bell bottoms with metal squares sewn on? Why did the crazy character (I forget his name in the movie) who saved William in the woods have his character so developed and then dropped off the face of the earth. He was clearly meant to be Edward the Bruce, Robert's brother who made a kingdom for himself in Ireland-thus all the references to his people. Also when he meets Robert on the battlefield after William is wounded they exchange glances beyond anything expected by casual acquaintance. And yet, possibly due to time constraints, this is never revealed to us. He should have been completely left out but Mel Gibson wanted to have him for cheap comic relief value. Braveheart is all about "Freedom" and other hokey stuff like that. Luc Besson, unlike the makers of Braveheart realizes that medieval people had no such thought patterns. His character's motivations are so more real and his world is so much more believable. Braveheart stands up well as a fairy tale placed in a semi-real time setting whereas The Messenger is a realistic true to life (at least life in the 15th century) historical drama. Of course Luc Besson does always go overboard with imagery and the struggles in Jehanne's mind do carry on a little too much but the movie, as a historical piece, holds its own well. It is almost as good as the ather Scottish film, the overlooked, and far superior to Braveheart, Rob Roy. Once again, don't get me wrong, I really like Braveheart, but it is not in the same category as The Messenger. Braveheart is historical fantasy while The Messenger is historical Drama (with a little over the top special fx and inner turmoil). Costuming is always one of my big letdowns in these types of movies and, while I realize that the stupid costumes and suits of armour don't seem quite so stupid to most other people, to me they were so ridiculous as to cause distraction. When I first saw the English knights I was horrified. To calm myself I reminded myself that the scene in which they were shown was merely the imaginings of William and his friend as boys. Yet later in the movie thay re-appeared. The stupid bell bottoms and the standard issue orange uniforms. Please Mel do a little research. Even children's school books portray knights more historically accurate than Braveheart. Enough ranting. Braveheart, while flawed, was an enjoyable film. The Messenger, a different type of movie, is better.
-
Harry, you are on crack. There was absolutely NO ROOM for anyone to THINK in this movie. Every step, every piece of action, is accompanied by very loud, obvious and cloying soundtrack music that is reminding you every step of the way how to feel. The point is DRILLED IN YOUR HEAD! If Joan had that 'look' on her face because of the horrific things she had seen, then why not SHOW those things, instead of showing her face. She had no charisma or displayed any kind of behaviour for me to believe that any of these soldiers would have any reason to listen to anything she had to say, forget follow her in battle. Harry, you are a chimp.
-
They left out a very important part to Joan of Arc's history. I will never forgive the makers of this film. The most important part of Joan of Arc's history, and they left it out. Did anybody notice? Can you believe they left Bill and Ted out of the movie? I mean, it's historical fact that Bill and Ted traveled back in time in their phone booth and took Joan back in time to be at their history report play. My God, I will never forgive these moviemakers.
-
This is a flick you have to see on the big screen. It has beautiful scenes (the glade and throne where she meets Jesus)- it has horrifying scenes (rape scene, big-ass boulders shooting out of wall). I saw this and End of Days this weekend and both have a spiritual slant but that is the end of the similarities. I am an Arnie fan but End of Days wouldn't even deserve to be a trailer at the beginning of The Messenger (and End of Days is an OK movie). It was an epic with excellent acting-especially Milla Jovovich. She was so innocent, naive, overwhelmed but also vicious, relentless and brutal- probably just like Joan of Arc really was. The final scene was stunning but so was the rest of the movie. I know I'm gushing, but like everybody else, I had seen this film get shredded by the critics and went in with lower expectations and was definitely surprised.
-
I would see this movie for one reason: Milla is a goddess!! She was the only good thing (what a body!!) in The Fifth Element!!
-
To quote Roger Ebert,"I can't believe this movie tricked you!" I mean, Joan's supposed to be the moral compass of the film, right? When she's covered in blood and decrying the violence, we're supposed to get the message that war, even holy, is a bad thing. That's why she's so grateful when the English retreat before battle after the fight in which she gets injured. War is bad, is what we're supposed to glean from Besson's film. But then there's that jolly fat guy kicking ass and taking names, and the audience is supposed to laugh when he wops some dude's arm off. Then there's that guy who comically launches mini-boulders on the English with his catapult; one of these little boulders even has the cute, comical "Hello" written on it. And the camera lingers when that French guy gets his head chopped off, and it only seems gratuitous. And yet the supposed message is that war is bad. Besson would've done worse only if he had put a laughtrack over the scenes.
And then in the end, he doesn't know who to indict. Uhm, Joan! No wait, the French! Hold on, uhm, let's see, uhm...the English! The Church! The Devil! God! Make up your fucking mind, you damn hack. I couldn't be more elated by the film's meager grosses; that essentially ensures no Oscar noms, which would have been the greatest travesty since the massive oversight of The Truman Show last year. -
I live in Japan, so this movie didn't come out until mid December. So I read Harry's review here, etc.,it seemed just my sort of thing. I went to the best theatre in Tokyo, lined up early for good seats. I was ready to like it.
I almost walked out. I never walk out of movies,no matter how crappy. But, after 45 min I was checking my watch.I asked my fiance if she wanted to leave. She pointed out it was about 2 degrees above zero outside and raining, so we stayed. Man was it the longest movie of my life.
There are a few good things about it - I liked the costumes and the general visual effect "the look", what ever - it had. The scenes with Dustin Hoffman were pretty good.
However, there were so many bad things. Lets focus on two, for want of time.
1.None of the issues were ever fully developed - "war is bad", "fanaticism/madness/true inspiration", etc. The movie tried to do too much and ended up doing nothing. It even failed as an action film - I've never seen battle scenes so herky-jerky, hard to follow, uninteresting and gratuitously (sp?)violent before.
2. The dialog, for want of a better term, sucked ass. The characters, most especially Joan's little archer sidekick, talked like Californians. I'm not talking about the accents here, (which weren't so hot - I've never heard Frenchmen sound less French) I'm talking about word choice. Ugh, it gives me shivers. The language the characters use should support the mood, should be true to the time in which they live. Characters who yell "asshole" or "fuck you" or talk about haircuts like a small-town American barber are frankly not convincing.
You want a good historucal drama? - go rent Elizabeth. -
...you're absolutely right! I didn't pay to see "Jeanne and the 8 musketeers", with the knights wise-cracking about "that crazy Jeanne". I thought that the subject matter would be treated respectfully. And what about the vision of death (or maybe afterlife)? Didn't that look like one of Peter Gabriel's videos?
-
Jeanne d'Arc is simply one of the best movies I have ever seen. Superb acting by Milla Jovovich, especially towards the end, an extremely touching story, and of course it's all beatifully shot. For example the scene where Jeanne falls down; that's just breathtaking. Towards the end, starting with when Jeanne realizes exactly what she has done, is undescribably great. In summary, I have never been moved by a movie this much before.
-
I really liked this film--yes, you have to work a little bit to watch it, but art ain't easy, and thank God the Corporations That Run Everything let some art out into the world ever' now and then...and then there's Milla--this gal needs an academy nomination for talent and beauty wrestling around in the same luminescent body--and those eyes! The camera eats this chick up. That she can act is a slap in the face to so many Buffy-types that we're forced to watch. This is a mystical, beautiful film that tells an amazing story. Be glad someone cared enough to give us a lesson in history. If we had more films like "Saving Private Ryan" and this one, and less like "Crying Game" and "Pulp Fiction" maybe we could regain some pride in our species. PS--you geeks out there commenting on spelling and grammar--this is the Web...the great toilet of the World soul--pee and enjoy--talk about movies, not your particular angst-buttons that we cretins push on you.
-
Wow...I read a lot of comments about this movie that said how wonderful it was because it was so historically accurate. Some people obviously need to brush up on their history. That movie was icredibly off, and is a perfect example of Hollywood ruining one of the most beautiful stories of all times. According to one of the Joan of Arc biographies (I believe by Diane Stanley, but not positive), there is a lot wrong with the movie. FIrst of all, there have been three major background checks into the life of Joan of Arc; one when she requested to lead the French army (most of which is lost), one during her trial, and one when she was being reviewed to be cannonized. Basically, there is a lot of information we know about her that is extremely reliable, and considered by many to be fact. First of all, her sister was never raped or killed...not to mention her village was never raided...there were only warnings which sent the inhabitants of the village into hiding for a short amount of time. The only reason that scene was even in the movie was to give her character motive...what it truly did in effect was turn her into an action hero reminiscent of Sly or Mr. Van Damme himself. And it was quite convenient how her sword appeared out of nowhere in the middle of a field...when as the story goes, this was actually one of the first miracles she performed; After being offered many swords for battle, she refused, and told of the sword which she was to use...she claimed that it lay buried beneath a small Church, and described exactly where it was. The people at the Church did not know anything about it, but indeed it was found, and was surprisingly in good shape. Also, Joan of Arc was described as being quite unattractive, unlike the super model who was casted to play her (not to mention she was the director's wife). Joan was supposedly short and stalky with short dark hair, not tall skinny and blonde. Another issue I would like to address is that of her "visions." According to many of her biographies she did not have actual visions of a cracked-out Jesus figure. Joan had three patron saints who she talked to. These were St. Catherine, St. Michael and St. Margaret. She very rarely saw images of them although sometimes her discussions with them were accompanied by bright light or haze. She didn't have these strange dream-like symbolic encounters either. She had actual conversations with her saints, particularly with St. Michael. I really disaprove of the style in which the movie was written. They did not focus on the beautiful aspects of her story, all the miracles she performed and the stength she gave to everyone who followed her. They mentioned only one of the many miracles she was supposed to have performed, when she picked out the disguised king. Also, according to the biographies the movie's description of how Joan acted in this sequence were also inaccurate. Also, although it's true that Joan was not an actual leader of the army, she was more than just a figure-head for the fighters. Joan actually fought, she was an incredibly strong soldier. I am still waiting to see an accurate depiction of her role in the army. I also was upset at the description of her capture in the movie, in the biography that was the most moving and increadible part of the story. In actuallity she and the few men caught on the outside of the gate faught off the entire enemy army for hours. In the end she was dragged bodily off her horse, still fighting. I also was so sad when I saw the end of the movie when she was burned. There are many eye-witness descriptions of this event. I don't feel as though they put nearly enough into the aspects of the scene they should have. I will not describe this scene more, it will take too long, but I urge you to read the book, it's empowering and beautiful. I feel as though I will only exhaust the reader by going farther. There are however many more inaccuracies and problems I had with the movie. All in all I would like to summarize by saying that this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was so offended by the end that I felt as though I was going to throw up. The most important problems with the movie were the completely unecessary and blatently inaccurate rape seen, (shown twice!!!!!!!!). I was also completely offended by Milla's casting as Joan. I can't imagine anyone farther from an accurate depiction of Joan. Joan was not tall, blonde, poutty or weak. I must stop now but I urge anyone who is interested in Joan of Arc to find her biography by Diane Stanley and allow yourself to actually appreciate the true beauty in the story of Joan of Arc.
-
Being british, and mor then a little bitter of it, i haven't seen the damn thing yet because it won't be out for a month. BUT I would like to address you all on a certain matter. Moaning and whining like little girls about historical accuracy. Do you REALLY think that someone plain and boring should play Joan of Ark. For Gods sake it's a FUCKING MOVIE! Cast Kathy Burke (Nil by mouth) as Joan and you get a box office intake of twenty two dollars. Whatever the biographie or history books say, the film has a job to do. To entertain and enlighten. Now whether it actually does this remains to be seen, (by me at least) but I would look at the obviously wonderful cinematography and Bessons charming and inspiring style of directing before you start threatening to "vommit" because it wasn't accurate. Who CARES? In the long run a historically accurate film of her life will eventually be made, but it will probably not be nearly as fantastic. I have faith in the ginger Jabba, that this flick is something special. Oh and finally, Private Ryan is a maintream load of twoddle. Normandy landings "The ride" followed by a two hour epic of Days of our lives. The crying Game, and Pulp fiction are superb, and whilst I agree that there should be less cloning of the popular themes, I believe that Hollywood needs to think smaller before it can get better.
-
I can't believe how bad this film was. Granted, the cinematography was pretty nice, and the art design was cool too. But Mila, Mila, Mila...I thought you were better than this. I loved her in THe Fifth Element, Daized and Confused, and even Return to the Blue Lagoon. But this performance sucked a big 'ol pair o sweaty donkey nuts. I hated the way she portrays the character as barely being human; needing little or no food, sleep, medical aid. Plus she always has that fucked up crazy look on her face. It didn't make me sympathize with, or care for the character. It just made me anxious. I can feel my ass pucker right now just thinking about it. At least in Braveheart, we see William Wallace as a normal man, who needs to eat, sleep, even get a little nookie. It's that human side that makes his other side seem more God-like. It was during those human moments that allowedthe viewer to not only get deeper into the psyche of the character, but also take a little breather. I swear to god, you never have a chance to catch your breath with this flick. It's all just a muttle of a psycho, yippie, bloodthirsty, little snippett...My only wish is that they made the burning at the stake scene a little longer...that was kinda cool.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 214 total posts 213 posts
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 160 total posts 160 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 154 total posts 154 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 148 total posts 147 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 269 total posts 80 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 76 total posts 76 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 187 total posts 63 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 49 total posts 49 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 84 total posts 49 posts