The problem with this portrayal was that Joan was made to be appear so demented that she lost credibility as a believable character. Her belief in her voices was depicted more as mad fanaticism than unshakeable faith. Personally, I have no problem with this interpretation, since I am more apt to believe her voices were the result of an unbalanced psyche than the voice of God. The problem I have is believing that anyone, even in the 15th century, would give an army to someone who is so obviously over the edge. Moreover, it is a stretch to believe that even the most desperate of simple minded men would follow such a character into battle.

If the portrayal were just a little more balanced, with moments of piety, sincerity and lucidity, the viewer and the other characters around her might be justified in saying, `Is she divinely inspired or simply mad?' Only when that question resonates has Joan been portrayed effectively. In this interpretation there was never any question. She was clearly a madwoman. It was almost a relief when they finally did away with her.

That being said, I must say that from a technical standpoint this was a brilliantly directed film. Luc Besson has produced a compelling visual work of art. The opening scenes of young Joan running through the fields were exquisite. The battle carnage was authentically grisly and the action realistic. The costumes were wonderful and the locations and sets well chosen and well crafted. His camera perspectives gave great impact to every scene. His imagary of supernatural events was electrifying. In every regard, other than Joan's character interpretation, this was an inspired work.

Milla Jovovich gave a superb performance as Joan The Mad. Though I don't agree with the interpretation, I can't imagine such insanity delivered any more effectively. She really seemed well suited for a jacket with wrap around sleeves. In every scene she exuded white hot intensity, especially in the battle scenes. Her performance was truly tour de force.

Faye Dunaway was fabulous as the cunning Yolande D'Aragon. She was so nefarious and in control, deliciously evil and conniving.

John Malkovich did an excellent job portraying Charles VII, however he was a bit old for the part. Charles was born in 1403 and met Joan in 1429 at the tender age of 26. Malkovich has trouble passing for 46 (his actual age) no less 26.

Dustin Hoffman's minor role as the conscience was also quite well done. Unfortunately, it lost some effectiveness because he was never really put in context. Was he another of Joan's creations or an actual being? A little defining dialogue would have helped develop his character better.

This is a fine film with a fatal flaw. If the story is to work, Joan must be a beloved heroine. In this portrayal, she does not endear herself to the viewer. Contrarily, she is a disturbing and off-putting character. For this reason I rated it a 7/10, though it easily qualified as a filmmaking 9 or 10.

This movie IS about reality, the betraying of Joan included. This is what I liked the most (the film being so real).

Further on, every split second of the movie is communicating something. If you watch closely, the faces, the looks of the actors, the music, are constantly telling you a part of the story, a message. Perfect timing features the cutting of this film. The conflicts are precisely designed. The actors are perfectly matching their roles. I admit, that the ending is a bit long, but basically it stresses the suppressive behaviour of the inqusition of that time.

Milla plays just perfectly. In this version of the Joan of Arc movies she is what she is and that is it. Luc Besson had an idea in mind and she realises it.

If you like Luc Besson, Milla Jovovich, Eric Serra, history, middle age, or if you are a rebel, this is a must for you.

The more you appreciate art the more you are going to like this movie.

Finally: this movie is fine art in itself, a classic piece. But you have to like the style Luc Besson paints...

Finally I got to see Luc Besson's version. I was fully prepared by prior reviews to give this movie a miss. Well, forget the reviews. This is a thinking person's Joan of Arc. Bresson is really exploring what may have motivated Joan. Much of this is conjecture, of course, but then again, this is a "movie" and not "lives of the Saints". Besson speculates that from childhood Joan may have had psychotic episodes where she extrapolated meanings from random events. Her psychosis may have deepened when Joan experienced a traumatic experience, like the death of her sister at the hands of English soldiers. Her voices then told her to drive the English from France. Seems logical. Milla Jovovich's depiction of the young, innocent Joan, the avenging angel Joan, and finally the doubting Joan was very fine throughout the film.

I particularly liked the character of Joan's conscience (the anima to the vengeful Joan's Id). The role is played by Dustin Hoffman. He punctures Joan's "balloon" of religiosity, questioning whether or not God really told her to attack the English. With this Bresson appears to be questioning not only Joan's source of divine inspiration but the justification of any religeous war. This may explain why the battle scenes are so horrific and graphic...so that the audience subequently gets the point that Joan wasn't fighting a battle with God on her side.

In summary, what we find from Luc Besson's movie is not the divine view of Joan but the human view. It is a valuable contribution to the various depictions of Joan of Arc's life. Why is there so much controversy over Besson's version? Is it because many of us like the certainty of the official version and find it difficult to "think" about an alternative, an all too human Joan of Arc?