Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Nonureva Really Surprised!

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Kirpianuscus It is easy to remark than the story of Joan of Arc has many adaptations. few - memorable. and this is the first good point of this serie - to look for have its voice. to say the story in a honest, simple and convincing manner. using the right tools. the cast, the fight scenes, the trial. great names, from Peter O Toole to Maximilian Schell. and a Joan who is so ...different.because it is fair to say than Lelee Sobieski does more than a decent job but a convincing one, giving force and right nuances to portrait of Joan. in same measure, Neal Patrick Harris is a nice surprise as Charles VII. so, an interesting film. for a reason out of definitions. because its basic, fundamental and useful virtue is the honesty to say a story , so familiar, in your style. and this adaptation does it.

jc-osms I came to this two part, near four-hour telling of the story of France's great heroine after reading a biography of her short life and so was really looking forward to it. However, while it had some good points, in the end, I think it failed its noble subject for some fairly blatant reasons. For one thing, I'm not sure the story told here was historically accurate. Things like her testy relationship with her father, the sacrifice of her brother and her "relationship" with Jean Le Metz had the whiff of contrivance about them, inserted for dramatic purposes, plus while I could just about accept the mixture of accents, few of which were authentically French, all speaking in everyday English, more than a few times phrases from the present day jarring my ears, crept in to the dialogue. Though there was little stinting on locations, crowd scenes and battle sequences, with smoke and mud abounding, there was little actual blood on show (apart from when Joan herself takes an arrow in the shoulder) which again detracted from credibility. I thought Leelee Sobieski looked the part in the title role and acted reasonably well while as the hired heavyweight support, Peter O'Toole unsurprisingly dominates as the conflicted Bishop Couchin.The special effects used for Joan's visions of her saints I considered a little on the tacky side, all soft focus and wing-bearing and felt that the climax of her trial and execution by burning might have been extended and made more of. At other times I felt I was watching a period-set MTV music video of the 80's, with the slo-mo camera much in evidence, this impression aided by an over-obtrusive soundtrack too. Even the descriptions offered by scene-setting graphics were over fussy.Nevertheless, Joan's wonderful story just about breaks through but on the whole this made-for-TV movie betrayed its target audience ambitions and was guilty of over-dramatising a story which has more than enough real-life content to not need such artificial aid.

Audie-T Leelee Sobieski is well cast as Joan of Arc, or Jeanne d'Arc in French. She probably doesn't look much like the historical Joan, because the real Joan was probably a stocky farm girl tomboy who would not shy away from a fight. Sobieski looks more like an angel, but no complaints here. Her performance give a realistic portrayal of a young girl who is destined to lead the French into battle.Now there is something that struck me as an anachronism. All this talk about "France" and "nation," when true nation-states didn't come into existence until the advent of railways, telegraph and newspapers. Of course, many a historic tale/event has been misused for nationalists to push their agenda. In this case, the French nationalists pose no harm, so no harm done. I can imagine that the people in those days did want to have their own French king back and the English out of France.On the other hand, weren't the Burgundians French too?The combat scenes looked great, I wouldn't have minded to see a few more. I watched both the original and the cut-down version, and the cut-down version isn't any worse. Some minor scenes about her early youth are skipped over, which helps tighten the overall movie.

ma-cortes The movie is set in ¨Hundred years' war¨ developed between 1337 and 1453 (downfall date of Constantinopla by Turks). The historical deeds are the followings : Henry V vanquishes Charles VI in Agincourt (1415) that was a major English victory against a numerically superior French army in the Hundred Years' War . The battle occurred on Friday , 25 October 1415 and Henry V takes over Normandy . Charles VI of France signs ¨Troyes treatise¨ in which Henry V is wedded to Charles's daughter . Later on , Henry VI of England proclaims himself king of France but then Joan of Arc , being nineteen years old , proclaims in Bourges to Charles VII as king , after being crowned in Reims . Joan of Arc acting as a divine mission defeats the English army in Orleans . But she's captured by the Borgoneses and is handed over the English authorities and they fire her for heretic and witch in Rouen .Runtime movie is overlong , approx. three hours , but is neither boring , nor dull , but entertaining . The battle scenarios are very well designed , there are thousands of extras and the struggles are breathtaking . The ending trial in which she's condemned is very interesting and the sentence at the burning pole is overwhelming . Lelee Sobieski , who was only sixteen when shooting , gives a good interpretation , likeness to Neal Patrick Harris as Charles VII . Furthermore , Peter O'Toole as the cunning Bishop is excellent . The support cast is satisfying : Jacqueline Bisset (the mother) , Powers Boothe (the father) , Olimpia Dukakis (the nun) and Peter Strauss (the captain). The motion picture was well directed by Christian Duguay , an expert filmmaker of TV movies . The yarn will appeal to historic event buffs . Rating : 7/10 . Worth viewing the TV picture .