Watch Joan of Arc For Free

Touches You

Redundant and unnecessary.

Good concept, poorly executed.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

It is easy to remark than the story of Joan of Arc has many adaptations. few - memorable. and this is the first good point of this serie - to look for have its voice. to say the story in a honest, simple and convincing manner. using the right tools. the cast, the fight scenes, the trial. great names, from Peter O Toole to Maximilian Schell. and a Joan who is so ...different.because it is fair to say than Lelee Sobieski does more than a decent job but a convincing one, giving force and right nuances to portrait of Joan. in same measure, Neal Patrick Harris is a nice surprise as Charles VII. so, an interesting film. for a reason out of definitions. because its basic, fundamental and useful virtue is the honesty to say a story , so familiar, in your style. and this adaptation does it.

I watched this just the other day, about 10 years since i first saw it, and have to admit its still a good watch.Sobieski was really a stand out for me, and considering how young she was when this was shot, she really did the role justice. I couldn't have seen anyone else playing this role with such maturity.I also liked the way this movie portrayed Joan, as the other film starring Milla Jovovich had her conveyed in a more schizophrenic manner. In this movie, Joan was shown to be a compassionate, intelligent, strong-willed young woman who was guided completely by her solid faith. It was really inspiring and a great insight into the life & struggles of one of the great saints.A good movie for the family, with an even better message behind it - truly captivating and faithful to the history.

Considering that 'The Messenger' was deeply flawed, I took the vast majority of positive comments here to mean I would be in for a treat watching 'Joan of Arc' - particularly as I have a soft spot for Ms. Sobieski.Unfortunately, post-viewing, I feel I must redress the balance on the comments board here because it is plainly not as good as many here are making it out to be. I was hardly impressed by the title at the beginning suggesting we were in the Dark Ages......in 1412. Was Joan of Arc really prophesised by Merlin? Why, after telling us seven years had passed on screen, did JOA tell her priest it had been six? Was she really ennobled? Did her peasant brother really come to fight with her - suddenly acquiring the trappings of knighthood (especially a horse?) and die just as quickly as he had arrived? We know all about the 'voices' - but did they really forewarn her of Charles's treachery? Were there really drinking glasses in 1430? ...And the clincher of course, is how did a 'rescuing' French army get all the way through occupied territory to camp outside the walls of Rouen (to make a charge against stone walls on horseback....which is pretty pointless) without anybody knowing about it?The production was generally good, and some effort had been made on the sets, costumes and armour. The battle scenes were poor, however - never achieving anything approaching realism. When JOA is hit by an English arrow at Orleans, she recovers and rides back to the walls of the Tourelle (where, conveniently, the English foot soldiers have largely disappeared and helpfully left the French ladders against the walls of the Tourelle from the first attack. How kind!)As for the performances, there are far too many lapses into American accents for the characterisations of any except Peter O'Toole and Shirley MacLaine to be truly convincing (though those two stalwarts truly shine when on screen.) Leelee - though I admire her so, is stilted and too uncharismatic in the lead role - a pre-requisite one would think?The script, on the whole, is curiously un-engaging. It feels as if the writers were going through the motions. There is little in the way of memorable quotes.As a piece of television entertainment, it fits the 'passing time' bill only. It is in no way a standout piece of television production, nor should it be treated as such. After watching this, I found myself reappraising 'The Messenger' with slightly more favour.DICE MAN

The movie is set in ¨Hundred years' war¨ developed between 1337 and 1453 (downfall date of Constantinopla by Turks). The historical deeds are the followings : Henry V vanquishes Charles VI in Agincourt (1415) that was a major English victory against a numerically superior French army in the Hundred Years' War . The battle occurred on Friday , 25 October 1415 and Henry V takes over Normandy . Charles VI of France signs ¨Troyes treatise¨ in which Henry V is wedded to Charles's daughter . Later on , Henry VI of England proclaims himself king of France but then Joan of Arc , being nineteen years old , proclaims in Bourges to Charles VII as king , after being crowned in Reims . Joan of Arc acting as a divine mission defeats the English army in Orleans . But she's captured by the Borgoneses and is handed over the English authorities and they fire her for heretic and witch in Rouen .Runtime movie is overlong , approx. three hours , but is neither boring , nor dull , but entertaining . The battle scenarios are very well designed , there are thousands of extras and the struggles are breathtaking . The ending trial in which she's condemned is very interesting and the sentence at the burning pole is overwhelming . Lelee Sobieski , who was only sixteen when shooting , gives a good interpretation , likeness to Neal Patrick Harris as Charles VII . Furthermore , Peter O'Toole as the cunning Bishop is excellent . The support cast is satisfying : Jacqueline Bisset (the mother) , Powers Boothe (the father) , Olimpia Dukakis (the nun) and Peter Strauss (the captain). The motion picture was well directed by Christian Duguay , an expert filmmaker of TV movies . The yarn will appeal to historic event buffs . Rating : 7/10 . Worth viewing the TV picture .