Good movie but grossly overrated

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I just finished watching this movie with my history class and we all enjoyed it. The acting was pretty good, but there were scenes when I felt that the young actress playing Joan could be doing so much better. She was okay and did a phenomenal job in some scenes but in others, she fell completely flat. Neal Patrick Harris was amazing as the king, and to be perfectly honest, I never thought he had it in him. when I saw his name in the credits I was like, "Oh, boy," but he was really good.Peter O'Toole was...well, he was Peter O'Toole. He was the real gem of the picture. Playing the role of the conflicted bishop, his performance was by far the strongest. The movie is rather long but I think it is well worth the watch.

I watched Joan of Arc on VHS and I really enjoyed it. I saw it on TV when it came out in 1999. This was a very well made motion picture and it is much better made than the movie theater films. Leelee Sobieski is a very talented young actress and played the part of Joan of Arc very well. I don't know a lot about French history, but I learned a lot by watching this movie. It was nice to watch a film without any profanities and sex scenes. It was also nice that they portrayed Joan as a woman of strong faith in God. The scenery and costumes were done very nicely. All of the actors and actresses did a wonderful job. It would be nice if they made more movies like this, of this quality.

Do great times call forth grand souls or do grand souls change great events or both? Joan's World - Historical Background. It was a time when the English crown controlled huge territories in France - and not by way of some invasion or occupation, but as the direct result of the fact the English King, Henry IV, (also Duke of Lancaster) and his son Henry V (both of Shakespeare fame)were descendants of the original French Duke of Normandy, William, who had conquered England in 1066 and thus the King of England continued to remain the feudal "owner" of Normandy, Brittainy and Acquitaine. This English King, Henry V would stake the biggest claim and actually force the King of France to appoint this same English King, his "lawful" successor to the French throne. Combine this with the fact the the English had a willing French ally in the form of Charles, Duke of Burgundy who was a rival for the French crown. Its no surprise that the Burgundians were the bully boys of this era. They were allies of the English and thus their French-speaking local "enforcers." The English would control these areas for over 300 years. The "Hundred Years War" would be fought to maintain that English control. So at the time of this story, the Dauphine of France, the weak French prince Charles was not yet the crowned King of France and controlled only a fraction of the country. Even he saw his chances for the crown as limited. Another Charles, the Duke of Burgundy, France, was far more powerful than the Dauphine and to offset his limited powers, Burgandy had allied themselves with the English.It was into this was brutal world, that Joan of Arc was born. A savage time of "might makes right" and a nobility class-sanctioned brutalization of a citizen population caught in a titanic chess match as pawns between a class of nobles who, although they had taken ancient oaths sworn to guard the defenseless, nevertheless preyed on the very people they were sworn to defend.There are parallels to many parts of the world where so-called "war lords" have re-imposed a modern-day feudalism of protectors and protected.Joan was inspired, (and just by what/who, remains a hotly debated theological and psychological discussion to this day) to free France of English domination. Why? Catholics might argue that she was called to this by God in order to preserve France as a bastion of Catholicism against the invading "heresy" of the Protestant Revolution. Think how events might have turned out if England had conquered all of France and imposed Protestantism on France.Historical Sequel to Joan of Arc.Henry V would die in France of a fever and never assert this claim. With Joan's military successes as precedents, and the Duke of Burgandy eventually abandoning his English allies, Henry V's son, Henry VI, a weak-willed but pious monarch, would be VERY unsuccessful in asserting any of his father Henry V's claims even though another war, the "Thirty Years" war would be fought by Henry VI's dukes to try to take back lost regions. The English would eventually lose that war and surrender, city by city, castle by castle, the entire regions of Normandy and Aquitaine back to the French. Ultimately, the Ennglish would control only the port city of Calais before losing that last foothold on the Continent. A new war in England, a civil war between the houses and Dukes of York and Lancaster would be fought, in part, from the failures of the Lancastrian King, Henry VI to keep those hard-fought territories - "The War of the Roses." Now why is the movie great? Because it faithfully captures the life of a illiterate and simple peasant girl, called by unseen forces to change the world around her in direct conflict with the brutality, the conflict, the religious zeal/fanaticism and the lust for power of he times into which Jean D'Arc was born into.If you don't know much about either Joan or the times, you learn a great deal from this wonderful movie. Joan was on a "mission from God," at least to her way of thinking and the religious forces of her day in the form of the Church hierarchy were dumbfounded initially and enraged, eventually that some "mere girl" would dare to tell them anything about God's will for either herself, let alone her King and country.The Maid of Orleans' life is a testament to one person, even a unschooled young girl's in an age of female political impotence to change events on a grand scale.

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.