Best movie of this year hands down!

Wonderful character development!

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Ingrid Bergman does the role of Joan of Arc an excellent degree of justice. While most of the other actors (minus José Ferrer) are clearly just playing their parts, Bergman makes the film so genuine and so real. I enjoyed the dialogue, if nothing else, because it worked for the movie, it worked for her role, and it worked to keep the film on track.What I did not like were the battle scenes. I kept in mind that colored films were still in the "Analog" stage of development, and nothing was/is ever perfect, but the skirmishes were often choppy, random, skipping from soldier to dead soldier back to Joan (Bergman). In most cases, it appeared to be a(n) disorganized mess of guys just trying, and failing, to clear a wall.An interesting note I found while watching this was how they maintained the focus on Joan, by "illuminating" her armor to contrast her against the environment. To me, this was a very creative way of not only making her stand out, but adding to her Angelic-like character as "God's messenger".I'm very pleased to say the film was most enjoyable, all negativity aside. I thank Turner Classic Movies for providing the full-length feature, and I would most certainly be looking for it again.

I don't find this an especially stirring version of the story of Joan of Arc. Shaw's play, seen on stage, is much more vivid (though talky, as are most Shavian works). But it has a young Ingrid Bergman as Joan and if you need to be reminded of how beautiful she was and what screen presence she possessed, you owe it to yourself to see this 1948 film. Jose Ferrer also appears in the movie in one of his early roles and numerous other name actors of the period are distributed among the characters. Considering that the script is by Maxwell Anderson, the dialog is surprising flat and uninspiring. Victor Fleming is the director but it is not clear to me what exactly he brought to the party. There's a fair amount of spectacle but it is vintage spectacle and in no way comparable to what could be (and is) done today, even in movies for TV. Ingrid Bergman's persona is all that makes this film believable in any way. She almost carries it the distance. I once saw the Shaw play with a 19-year-old college kid as Saint Joan. That girl, like Bergman, made Saint Joan believable because she inhabited the role. Jean Seberg, a few years later, was Saint Joan in a film based on Shaw's play and she just didn't have what it takes. But Bergman did.

In Europa,I've often heard people complaining .Why has the movie been boiled down to a digest of barely 100 min? In France,Joan's native country,it's a scandal!It was broadcast on the history channel yesterday and again in the "short" editing.It seems that many scenes were replaced by a voice over which is infuriating ,cause Fleming's version of "Joan Of Arc" ,although inferior to Preminger's and Dreyer's works, is quite interesting.Although too old for the part,Ingrid Bergman had enough charisma to make you forget that Joan was 17 when her epic began.Fleming's style is far away from Dreyer's bare aestheticism or Luc Besson's video game battles.Holy picture best describes his way of filming Joan,which makes sense ,cause it begins with the heroine's canonization (only in 1920!).Good things:La Tremouille's bad influence on the king;Joan who did not realize in 1430 that fighting had been replaced by negotiations;the abjuration: in Rouen,you can see a commemorative plaque which reads "Here ,in 1431, Joan of Arc suffered the infamous ordeal of abjuration" .On the "Place du Vieux Marché" ,where she was burnt alive,another plaque reads "To you,Joan,who knew that a hero's grave was the heart of the living." (André Malraux)

I haven't seen the DVD version. This commentary is based on the horrible VHS print I viewed and promptly tossed out. I now know that 45 minutes of the original film was missing and replaced by commentary that in no way made the story coherent.But the shortened version contained dialog that sounded so theatrical and was delivered in non-credible fashion by a cast of professionals under Victor Fleming's uninspired direction.This is clearly not one of Bergman's best performances. She is radiant in many of the close-ups although a little too old to be believable as the young Joan. The film betrays its stage origins and is much too talky for extended sequences. The only time the film embraces some action is during a poorly staged battle sequence.Summing up: I suppose it's unfair to judge the film based on the print I saw--but even allowing for the bad editing, it is apparent that this was not a successful transition to the screen of what apparently was a marvelous stage role for Ingrid. Jose Ferrer gives the most interesting performance as the Dauphin but others are simply part of the scenery.Costumes are beautiful and some of the sets look impressive but overall it has no cinema magic and leaves the viewer with a flat viewing experience. I'll have to watch the DVD version if I'm to change my opinion since the cinematography surely must look better on DVD.P.S. - Have just read Michael Sragow's new book on Victor Fleming and even the great director himself said, "It's a disaster, that picture."P.P.S. - TCM has just shown the fully restored version of JOAN OF ARC and it's a much better film than it appears to be in the edited print which I first saw on VHS. Furthermore, the sets are magnificent, the color restoration is excellent, and all technical issues are much better represented. But the script is too talky and leaves the film stage bound at points. Bergman looks incredibly radiant in all of her close-ups but it seems like a surface performance and one that is not that deeply felt.