Its a long film, but seems to cover Joans story well (I assume - not fact checked it) and tells the story of her battles, and shows them, well. I was less aware of her trial and death, which were portrayed in a more thoughtful manner - was she a heretic, or true believer?

"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.

Historical records conflict with this presentation. All scenes concerning her family and childhood are completely fictional. Joan was depicted as weepy and fearful. She was not. Nor did she ever at any time show disrespect to Charles. I have the impression that the intention here was to portray Joan as a hysteric or as a schizophrenic. In real life she claimed to hear voices, but tried to keep that private as much as possible. She did not display any of the other symptoms of a person who was schizophrenic. Of course many movie producers think that fiction is more interesting than fact. The result here is that there are very few facts in this movie. However, the quotes from Joan's letters were accurate as was the historical time line. Leelee Sobieski's portrayal in Joan of Arc (also 1999) is more realistic.

It seems to me that there must be more to the life of Joan of Arc, a figure about which I have heard all my life, than is portrayed in this film. Perhaps it is a difficult subject to dramatize, although the summary sounds dramatic enough to me. What comes through here is rather a critique of religion and spirituality and mysticism. The result is Joan of Arc as misguided child, Joan of Arc as psychotic young woman. These criticisms for what they are worth do not help make the film entertaining. While I was initially taken by the historical detail, I ended up spending most of my time wondering how France could have fallen for this child. Hunger Games, for a modern example, presents a much more credible heroine who is used by the powers that be for their own ends. That to me is an interesting story that has emotional content. Joan of Arc the film raises interesting questions but it is not entertaining or moving and I suppose in the end when a girl gets burned at the stake I want to be moved. I think the film could have been improved by a more faithful treatment of the history which I must believe was more interesting than this film for the name Joan of Arc to come down to us so prominently through the ages.