Hey folks Harry here. Well, here just the other day Besson got his R from the MPAA and it looks as if from the sound of things the print wasn't butchered. Of course the day we see teenage girls hacking apart men in armor with swords and being burned at the stake... I guess then we'll see this film banned, but till then it's ok. Heh... Well this is one of the jewels I'm awaiting a look at. Is it a ruby or a garnet? I'm praying for the Ruby. But from my side of things the movie is fairly out of sight, so... I'll just have to wait and see... but for now, One-Time Pad... well he has seen it, and liked it quite a bit.
One-Time Pad here pal-o.
Here's what I thought of Besson's THE MESSENGER:
Luc Besson amazed me with "The Professional" a few years ago. It was a random find at the local video store. The story was fairly straightforward, the characters were interesting, the cinematography was beautiful, and the acting was wonderful. Flash forward a few years, and there I am eagerly anticipating "The Fifth Element". I work in a very technical field and am often disappointed with science fiction on the big screen. It's a hang-up I have. To my surprise, "The Fifth Element" never tried to be more than just a fun romp, never did it try to establish itself as a technical piece of science fiction. A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to have seen an early print of Luc Besson's newest movie "The Messenger". The movie was excellent, but where I really enjoyed "The Professional", and "The Fifth Element", this movie, by it's very nature, had to stand on historical fact, and could not solely be based upon style.
Did I care about the attention to detail, or accuracy of either of the movies I had seen by Besson. No, I took them at face value, and enjoyed those films as just films. Enter a story of Joan of Arc, a historical piece. I can't comment on how historically accurate the movie was, but the story is more complex than any of Besson's previous films by it's very nature. Besson pulls the complexity of the movie off well, but his strength seems to lie in the nuances of a simpler story. Parts of the story seem hastily done.
Besson explores the motivation of Joan of Arc early in the movie, and how she was nothing more than god's messenger. He also explores the issue of betrayal. I felt Joan's motivations, and later doubts, were a strong point of the film, while the betrayal issue seemed weaker. This focus on Joan seems to detract from the other characters. There were some interesting people in the film, some characters I would have liked to see more of, and see more interaction with Joan. The generals that Joan suddenly finds herself contending with, and wresting control from, were entertaining, and not used enough. John Malkovitch's character, the king of France, seemed horribly underused, and more than likely lead me to feel that the issue of betrayal seemed week. Dustin Hoffman's appearance late in the movie seemed distracting. His character is a crucial piece, but I think that his "star power" used late in the film drew attention away from the subject matter.
My biggest complaint was that the story seemed to climax in the middle. Everyone knows how the story ends. The English burn Joan of Arc as a heretic. The main crux of the story seems to be her first battle, and the coronation of the king. The battle scenes are done well, and one gets a feeling of the magnitude of what happens in war. When she tries to take Paris, the betrayal subplot final takes shape. Unfortunately, it seems rather hasty after the extensive battle scenes. In fact, cut the few minutes where the newly crowned king is speaking with his mother, and the betrayal theme becomes mute.
Ok, enough nitpicking. I really enjoyed this film. I will gladly shell out the cash for a full price ticket to see the finished version in the theater, even after already having seen it. The visuals are stunning, the action is intense, and there are some well-done performances. I'll also be interested in seeing the final cut.
