Wordiezett So much average

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Micransix Crappy film

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

strategicommand First, when Joan talk to the king telling him with slow voice her visions the music is louder than her voice just like in those cheap you tube videos. She is conveying important message and you can hardly hear ti because the BS music levels and effects are overpowering her voice. God talks to her but is not telling her what BS she is doing during the siege and she get hit deep in the lung with arrow. She pulls the arrow starts to bleed to death. No one takes her armor so that she is naked and the physician try to heal her wound. Next morning she is just fine and screaming for an attack as if nothing is wrong with her lung. Utterly unreal. Disapointing as heck

grantss 1429. While the war between France and England (the Hundred Years War) appeared settled in 1420, in England's favour, the death of King Henry V of England reignites it. England occupies large areas of France and appears set to take the whole of it. Into this moment of crisis rides legendary Joan of Arc, a teenage girl who claims to be lead by divine visions.A pretty bad telling of the Joan of Arc story, for so many reasons. Most noticeably, the performances are almost universally hammy. Milla Jovovic only got the part of Joan because she was married to director Luc Besson at the time, and looked the part. Her acting is all over the place.John Malkovich is okay in his role. Dustin Hoffman can't act badly, but here he gets a character that makes for some of the weirder, more pretentious moments of the movie.Supporting cast largely overact: French soldiers are generally gung ho, laugh-in-the-face-of-danger heroes, English are brutal, one- dimensional villains. With such bad acting on such a wide scale one can only think that this is how Luc Besson wanted them to act.On that note, a very irritating aspect of the movie is how the French are portrayed as wonderful heroes and the English as mindless thugs. The whole movie amounted to nothing more than pro-French, anti- English propaganda. I know the director is French, but I didn't know the English and French were currently at war...Quite a lot of padding too, drawing out the movie. So many scenes that seemed unnecessary.About the only positive parts are the battle scenes. These are well staged and are quite gritty and realistic.

SnoopyStyle It's 15th century France. Joan of Arc (Milla Jovovich) is the teenage warrior leading the fight against the English.This is Luc Besson's grand take on the heroine Joan of Arc with lots of gusto. Milla Jovovich certainly has the crazed intensity of a zealot. Sometimes, it drifts towards camp. Considering she got the job because she was married to Luc Besson at the time, it could have gone a lot worst.The basic storyline is well known. The best parts of the story happens midway in the movie. That's where the big battle scenes occur. Certainly the battles are big especially for using real action in modern movies. After the battles, the story drags as she gets captured and tried. It may be better to climax the film with the big win in Orléans. Keep the slower parts as a postscript.

momo-112 The combination of Luc Besson and Mila Jojovich is a recipe for criticism. As in, "Oh sure the star is the directors wife". That would be true if Luc Besson was anything less than a great director or Mila Jojovich anything less than a great actress. This film accomplished a lot. Visually spectacular, historically challenging, and in many ways ingenious. Most of all, it didn't fall prey to the unconditional hero worship or unquestioning belief that most films about moving historical figures do. The film maintains it's historical modesty, questioning rather than preaching or glorifying. If you are looking for a moving, spiritual, emotional movie it's got all that. If you are looking for medieval warfare in all it's glory, it's got all that.But sadly it is flawed. Much to my chagrin, as I do admire most of his work, Dustin Hoffman's performance is, to put it mildly, a big downer for the film. He is clearly at a loss as to what his character or purpose is in the film. His performance is uncomfortable and distracting. Despite his lower appearance in the credits, his role was critical in the film. It's a real detractor. But aside from this one glaring flaw, the film is of the highest quality on all accounts. I was riveted from beginning to end and wouldn't hesitate to watch it again. Because of it's one casting/directing flaw I have to rate it an 8 but on every other count it's a 10.