anonymous124 As the film rolls past we catch the faces of many a Hollywood has-been. The last generations finest reduced to roles of utter humiliation. They do not give good performances. They look embarrassed and defeated and all too aware of their surroundings. Only Peter O'Toole has a spark of life in him - God knows what he was thinking when he took this role, he can't even save the scenes where he's the only one in the frame, and despite the fact he is one of the most respected actors in Hollywood, the makers of the film feel too above him to let this happen more than once or twice. Too bad. Instead, they fill the frame with Leslee Sobieski, who takes herself, the role, and this ridiculous, cliché ridden made for TV movie like she planned to upstage Maria Falconetti. Points for effort, but she doesn't attain much more of a performance than most porn stars do. She manages a grimace here and there, usually just before a battle. Then the camera cranes dramatically up and down and to the side while lots of people fight. 8 year old boys will be ready to praise because, whatever comes in between, there are battle scenes.Joan of Arc does not fall into the category of "so bad it's funny." It is not funny. It is simply bad. It is not filled with clichés - it IS a cliché. A cliché extended over several hours, and nearly unbearable to watch at that. Shirley MacLaine, a long way from "The Apartment," makes a brief, very dramatic cameo - the kind where we first see her feet step out and then the back of her head and finally her face. But she doesn't actually get to do anything besides some violent coughing. She exists to give the film some air of credibility, I suppose.The last section of the film, like many Joan of Arc movies past, does indeed use the actual dialouge Joan spoke during her trial. The 1928 film "The Passion of Joan of Arc" directed by Carl Theodore Dreyer was built entirely around this one section, and it was a devastating, brutally told real-time drama of unflinching power. The very same dialouge is used in this film, yet it is acted so terribly, and presented so blandly, that it's hard to believe they could focus on the same subject.Save the wonderful Mr. O'Toole, there is no redeeming quality in this film. It is indeed one of the worst films ever recorded onto celluloid.

Dice_Man 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

LittleSwallow The story of Joan D'Arc has always interested me, because this was a girl who stood by her beliefs till the end, no matter what she was threatened with or who tried to make her doubt them. She had great conviction, and especially in the Middle Ages, where women's roles were passive, the fact that she was able to rise up, lead an army, and defend herself with extreme wit and cleverness from the onslaught of treachery before and during the famous trial, shows just how remarkable this young girl was (19 when she died).This movie captures brilliantly the cleverness and strength of this brave heroine. Acting was in the most part very good, as one is gripped from the great opening sequence all the way to the end. While there are some unconvincing CGI effects (mainly of Joan's saints), the battle sequences are very believable to watch. One has to note, however, that the writers took quite a few liberties with the script. The viewer has to be careful to not take every event as fact. I won't go into detail, but please read about the history of Joan, as, even though this movie does a great job in showing Joan as a smart, God-loving person, some events in the movie did not happen historically, or else the writers changed them to suit their own goals.In the end, however, the main point about Joan, is that she was able use her faith, head, and heart to thoroughly aggravate and embarrass those who would have her dead. In the end, she is still the victor. And the movie reflects this.

matjag 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!