Hey folks, Harry here. Well here's the review that Moriarty said would be coming. You see... when I asked Moriarty about what the average BRAVEHEART fan would think of this film... after already hearing his praise for THE MESSENGER, he told me that he felt that a large portion of the audience would hate the film. That this wasn't the film that 70% of the audience want to see. That it isn't the easy epic with tons of battles. That the film deals far more with spiritual issues.... along the lines of a KUNDUN or THE THIN RED LINE. Two films that I personally love, but... for whatever reason just didn't reach a wide audience. Personally... everything I've seen from the film thus far has been to my likening. But will the film follow through for me. I'm hoping so... I love Besson's past work, and from the trailers it feels like an epic by way of Terrence Malick. And that... I'm dying to see. I don't know if a single kind word is uttered towards the film below.... But it is this person's honest opinion. Here it is...
Dear Harry,
Last evening on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, I had (what I hoped to be) the privelege of seeing Luc Besson's new film, "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," which will be released, unfortunatley, nationwide on November 12th.
This film is hardly even worth a review. There was not ONE single redeeming or inventive aspect of this two-hour-twenty-five minute debacle.
Before the film began, a nervous Mr. Besson appeared and told the audience that because this film takes place in the 15th Century, the pacing of the film would not be the fast MTV-style of editing that we may have come to expect ( and immensly enjoy) from his films.
Besson's prologue for the film was my first indication of the depths to which this film would suck. And to my dismay, it was hardly the last. There is so much wrong with this film that it is hard to know where to begin, but it's somewhere around the 23rd frame.
Rather than going into the story of the film, the remainder of this review will deal with the film itself. (If you want to know more about the subject, a remedial high school European History textbook would be quicker to read and immensly more enjoyable.)
Acting:
Milla Jovovich, star of "The Fifth Element" and Besson's former girlfriend, plays Joan in such an over-the-top way that even her natural beauty begins to annoy. Never for a moment could I believe the idea that a spokeswoman for Loreal Hair Color was leading an army of buffonish Frenchmen into war. However, I could not help but feel sad for this young woman whose waifish body constantly looked as if it was being crushed by the weight and pretentiousness of this project.
Beyond its star, the film boasts a list of top American acting talent. I stress "American" because this is a film concerning the people of France and England during the 15th Century and the casting of these minor, but important, roles does nothing to sell the audience on the idea that we have been transported back to the time of the Hundred Years war. John Malkovich plays King Charles VII of France like a diva in waiting. This would have been forgiven if there was a scene where he was shown trying on various ladies undergarments of the period, but unfortunatley that never came. Faye Dunaway, in a costume retrieved from David Lynch's "Dune," is wasted in each of her three scenes. Last, and certainly least, Dustin Hoffman embarrases himself as Joan's mental image of the big guy himself. Mr. Hoffman may be able to pull off playing Tootsie, but it's a little harder to accept him as the voice of God. I only hope his children get some extr toys this Hannukah for his efforts.
Directing:
There really is no one more to blame for this insipid spectacle than Besson himself. What happened to the cool Frenchman who blew me away with "La Femme Nikita" and "The Professional"? This film offers so little that it hardly resembles any of the traits that I associate with Mr. Besson. For example, the scope or aspect ratio of this film appears to be 1:85 to 1, not 2:35 to 1 that normal widescreen film is shot it. What all this technical jargon means is that large scale battle sequences look as if they could have been filmed in my backyard. The depth in both the imagery and the characters is so underwhelming that no obvious attempt to schock the audience (decapitations, the rape of a freshly killed nun, etc.) had any effect except the urge to exit.
Script:
A mess. The original script is credited to Andrew Birkin, however Besson couldn't keep his grubby hands of this either. I really believe that most of the problems with this film are due to the lack of both originality and quality in the script. My biggest complaint is that half of the actors, mostly the French ones, speak in a way that is reminiscent of the picture's time, while the American actors speak like they've just handed their double mochachino latte to thier respective assistants. This lack of consistency in the writing is not only unforgivable, it's embarrasing.
Ultimatley, that's how I felt for Mr. Besson as he plodded to the front of the theater for a brief Q&A, embarrassed. As the film cut to black, 90% of the audience jetted for the nearest exits. Not a good sign for the director who admitted beforehand that this would be the first time he screened the film with an audience.
I'd like to think that this was a bump on the road of Mr. Besson's career as a filmmaker, but "The Messenger" feels like more of an atomic bomb from which no recovers and anyone who experienced it first hand doesn't like to discuss.
Save your money and, more importantly, your integrity,
Janestreeter
