Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

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

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

First, when Joan talk to the king telling him with slow voice her visions the music is louder than her voice just like in those cheap you tube videos. She is conveying important message and you can hardly hear ti because the BS music levels and effects are overpowering her voice. God talks to her but is not telling her what BS she is doing during the siege and she get hit deep in the lung with arrow. She pulls the arrow starts to bleed to death. No one takes her armor so that she is naked and the physician try to heal her wound. Next morning she is just fine and screaming for an attack as if nothing is wrong with her lung. Utterly unreal. Disapointing as heck

When Luc Besson took on the legendary life of Joan of Arc, he did so with a big budget and a cast of thousands. The movie, unlike his previous movie, failed to light up American audiences while French audiences loved it. It didn't make a lot of money like Fifth Element did or even Lucy later on, yet it's an underrated movie about a famous woman who became a role model for generations of French women. The soundtrack is good, and the shots are amazing. Unlike his previous movie, this one is rated R, just like The Professional, yet it deals with religious themes.

I love epic historical movies, both old and new (although I must admit I lean towards the latter - the more realistic, more visceral ones, like Braveheart or Gladiator). The story of Joan of Arc has been put on the silver screen countless times, and most versions are good. With such a captivating story, you cannot really go wrong.In Luc Besson's take, however, it's not Joan's trial that takes centre stage, as in, for example, Carl Theodor Dreyer's classic (The Passion of Joan of Arc, 1928), but Joan, the self-proclaimed godsend, the driven, suffering, obsessed warrior, and the very human core of her actions. The film remains wonderfully ambiguous throughout and leaves it to the audience to decide which of the different interpretations they believe to be true.But it is Milla Jovovich's riveting performance that truly makes this movie. She's literally possessed in her role, playing with such fervour, such delirious passion that you cannot but believe and follow her. It is indeed one of the most visceral performances ever in the history of cinema.

"The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" gives no subtleties in its presentation of Joan of Arc. Its version of Joan comes from the theory that she had schizophrenia, to the exclusion of any other possibility. However, in "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc"The script was badly written, confusing, and pulled the audience out of the suspension of disbelief. The writers ignored certain facts, and skewed others. Most importantly, they invented scenes and dialogue that 1) would be out of character for Joan and 2) we know for certain that we do not know. For example, in the scene when Joan rushed to her parish church and sloppily drank of the Eucharist––she never would have done that. The historical Joan had too great a religious respect to commit a deadly sin such as that. Second example, the writers include the dialogue wherein she tells the Dauphin about her Revelations. No one knows what her Revelations were, so the writers of that scene had no basis of that whatsoever; the influence of their schizophrenic agenda is clear in the dialogue and Milla Jovovich's acting.The theory that Joan had schizophrenia is a legitimate argument. However, I found this film's presentation offensive and inadequate because of its lack of historical and realistic respect. "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" set its theory up as the final and only theory, and bashed all other theories and monarchies and histories before it, seemingly because they existed before this film was made.