Joan of Arc (1999)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Absolutely the worst movie.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The acting in this movie is really good.

I rented this movie expecting something powerful, well researched, intelligently directed and with memorable acting. In the event, even the great Peter Otooles role is lacklustre. This movie has none of these qualities and in fact resembles the kind of thing that I would have expected from a Doris Day and Rock Hudson movie. There must be a director and a screen writer out there that can produce something really stirring from raw material that begs to be exploited and using proper actors rather than a vapid collection of Hollywood wannabes. If anyone has ever seen 'A man For All Seasons ( 1966 ) directed by Fred Zinneman then use this as a gauge for what constitutes a really good film. Any takers? Francis Kynaston Kemble

Considering that 'The Messenger' was deeply flawed, I took the vast majority of positive comments here to mean I would be in for a treat watching 'Joan of Arc' - particularly as I have a soft spot for Ms. Sobieski.Unfortunately, post-viewing, I feel I must redress the balance on the comments board here because it is plainly not as good as many here are making it out to be. I was hardly impressed by the title at the beginning suggesting we were in the Dark Ages......in 1412. Was Joan of Arc really prophesised by Merlin? Why, after telling us seven years had passed on screen, did JOA tell her priest it had been six? Was she really ennobled? Did her peasant brother really come to fight with her - suddenly acquiring the trappings of knighthood (especially a horse?) and die just as quickly as he had arrived? We know all about the 'voices' - but did they really forewarn her of Charles's treachery? Were there really drinking glasses in 1430? ...And the clincher of course, is how did a 'rescuing' French army get all the way through occupied territory to camp outside the walls of Rouen (to make a charge against stone walls on horseback....which is pretty pointless) without anybody knowing about it?The production was generally good, and some effort had been made on the sets, costumes and armour. The battle scenes were poor, however - never achieving anything approaching realism. When JOA is hit by an English arrow at Orleans, she recovers and rides back to the walls of the Tourelle (where, conveniently, the English foot soldiers have largely disappeared and helpfully left the French ladders against the walls of the Tourelle from the first attack. How kind!)As for the performances, there are far too many lapses into American accents for the characterisations of any except Peter O'Toole and Shirley MacLaine to be truly convincing (though those two stalwarts truly shine when on screen.) Leelee - though I admire her so, is stilted and too uncharismatic in the lead role - a pre-requisite one would think?The script, on the whole, is curiously un-engaging. It feels as if the writers were going through the motions. There is little in the way of memorable quotes.As a piece of television entertainment, it fits the 'passing time' bill only. It is in no way a standout piece of television production, nor should it be treated as such. After watching this, I found myself reappraising 'The Messenger' with slightly more favour.DICE MAN

I had to write a comment after reading the previous one. I found this to be a very refreshingly straightforward rendition of the Joan of Arc story that taught me, as one who only knows the story from movies, a great deal about the political and social realities at the time, including the hunger for real leadership and real spiritual authority. Not too different from our own times now. Apparently a great deal of research was done, including a thorough reading of the transcripts of Joan's actual trial in the original French, to get both the setting and Joan's personality right. And I think it shows. It certainly held my interest, and nothing about its budget distracted me. Plus they did not make her a complete victim - she knew enough to go willingly to the stake. And that's a courageous move on the part of the film's creators which adds that final necessary element of spiritual integrity. Enough so I willingly cried many times through it without feeling manipulated... these matters of soul and spirit felt real to me, and for a skeptical Scorpio like me that's high praise for work well done.

This is a riveting presentation of the life of St. Joan of Arc that will bring tears to the eye and a deep appreciation of the faith of this farm girl from Lorraine, France. From a lowly child that almost didn't get to live past her day of birth to the single-most significant solidifying force of a woefully divided France under a weak King Charles, this emotionally charged, suspenseful film will pull the viewer deeply into the difficult, driven life of this 19 year old heroine who was both executed for heresy and canonized as a saint by the Church. The film is blessed with an excellent cast, fantastic scenery, great directing, and very believable script. The characterization is very round, with Joan herself portrayed as a holy and tortured soul in love with her faith and her Church. This dichotomy of simple faith and torturous self-doubt makes this film so palpable as to render the viewer more as a cast member than as a movie watcher. Beautiful!