GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Benedito Dias Rodrigues This picture l watched between 1976-1977 for first time on television in 2004 l purchase the DVD with a complete restoration but keep in box until now where l watch this super production with great sets along the movie the history settled in early 15th century with little Joan hearing some voices to led the french army against England in 100 years's war,she have to set free Orleans that hold by English army,after the victory she was betrayed by the king who accept money to stop the war,so Joan in captured by John Count of Luxembourg and sold to English for 10.000 pounds to be on trial and burned of fire!!!The casting is powerful apart Ingrid Bergman as Joan José Ferrer as the Dauphin,Cecil Kellaway as inquisitor on fantastic acting and thousand of famous actors including Hurd Hatfield!!!

Steffi_P In our era there are women warriors in film and TV, from Xena to Beatrix Kiddo, but back in Hollywood's classic era they were an extreme rarity. Joan of Arc was an exception that was acceptable partly because she came from history not fiction and, more crucially, she was a saint and a miracle worker. The tale was told in the only way it could be then, as one of the religious epics that would become a major presence in the cinema of the following decade.Appearing a few years before the epic genre really took off, and while studios were still recovering from the lowered budgets of WW2, Joan of Arc is not quite as grandiose as the biblical movies that would come later on. Based on a play (Maxwell Anderson's Joan of Lorraine), upon its release it was accused of being too talky and lacking in action. But this is made up for in a number of ways, not least of which is its lavish period detail. It is epic in scope and scale, but only so far as the history requires. There is no spectacle for spectacle's sake. The movie is exactly as big and spectacular as it needs to be.The movie is also buoyed by a leading performance from Ingrid Bergman. Bergman brings a necessary presence to the role, not in her delivery of lines but in the power of her emoting, which transcends any stolidness in the screenplay. An especially notable moment is her look of genuine disappointment when she realises that the dauphin has been replaced by one of his lackeys. The other standout performance is that of José Ferrer as the real dauphin. Fresh from the stage, Ferrer is theatrical, Shakespearean even, but that is just the sort of exuberant touch the movie needs to stop it becoming staid.This was the final project of ace director Victor Fleming, who had earlier helmed (most of) Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. Joan of Arc sees him taking a more relaxed pace (his trademark was speed and punchiness), but with no less of an eye for intelligent staging and shot composition. There's an excellent scene where a young Joan wanders distractedly away from the chattering of her family to sit alone by the fire, framed in profile with the flames forming a corona about her head. This isn't just some obscure bit of symbolism or foreshadowing, it's a way of showing her in clear isolation while still keeping her image dynamic and vibrant.The presentation and performance of this edition of the Joan of Arc story compensates for its dramatic, dialogue-based format. And, while it remains very much a movie based on Joan's sainthood and Christian devotion, Bergman makes her touchingly human, and this allows the character to reach us from the past.

bkoganbing The only version I've seen of Joan of Arc is the VHS edited version. But what I saw convinced me that it was indeed a triumph for Ingrid Bergman. Unfortunately it had lousy timing in when it was released and poor editing that cut it to 100 minutes.Ingrid got her greatest stage reviews in this part and she does a grand job in playing the charismatic Maid of Orleans who rallied a nation with her simple faith and piety.This should really be seen in conjunction with Henry V either the Olivier or the Branagh version. Henry V is the 100 Years War from the English point of view, Joan of Arc is from the French. Henry V is also the prologue of the events leading up to Joan of Arc. Henry V has decimated the French army and has asserted his claim to the French throne as well as the English. He forced a treaty with the French, married the French princess and had the French king disinherit his son, the dauphin from the line of succession.Then Henry V died quite suddenly and his infant son Henry VI became the claimant to the French crown. All the politics surrounding that is dealt with in Shakespeare's Henry VI Part I. In the meantime the Dauphin is keeping up a rear guard action in exile. In this film he's played by Jose Ferrer in his screen debut. Ferrer captures the dauphin perfectly. Not exactly one of France's noblest kings, he's weak and unsure of himself. Still when Joan the Maid of Lorraine comes to him and convinces him of her sincereity, he believes in her.He's successful with Joan as a symbol at the head of his army and he starts taking back his kingdom, bit by bit. But Ferrer loses interest and signs a truce with the English. Joan keeps on fighting with some loyal followers and is captured by the nobles allied with the English.The high point of the film and her life is the trial where she is condemned as a witch and burned at the stake. Francis L. Sullivan plays Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais who does the dirty work for the English and he plays the part with relish.Did Joan really hear voices from on high and was actually divinely inspired? If you believe in results then yes she was. After she died she inspired a nation to revolt. By the end of the Dauphin's reign when he became King Charles VII the English were only controlling Calais and its suburbs.Poor Ingrid Bergman. The tabloids of the day did some job on her. As this film was in general release the scandal broke about her affair and the pregnancy resulting with Roberto Rosellini and the film tanked at the box office. Getting cast as a saint here and as a nun in The Bells of St. Mary's was just too much for the American public who back then really believed the images film stars conveyed.I'm glad this film is fully restored now. Hopefully we'll see it on DVD one day.

crow-blush Good editing always improves the rough vision of the accumulated daily takes. Chopping the heart out of a completed film, however, should simply be a hanging offense.The original 1948 Joan of Arc at 145 minutes is magnificent. The 100-minute version that's been foisted off on the USA buying public is below mediocre. Key scenes were deleted wholesale with no regard to continuity or development.The only enjoyment from the severely and amateurishly edited version is to see Ingrid Bergman do what she does best. But only if you have seen the original version can this chopped and cropped semi-copy have any marginal value.Check the specifications on any version you are tempted to buy. If the running time is 100 minutes, don't bother. Some European versions are longer at 125 and 133 minutes. Hopefully, someone will offer this masterpiece in a full 145 minute DVD version