# Talk:The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

Seriously or is this just trolling?
-G

It SERIOUSLY is in that order. Watch this clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y-eQfs_oFk
However, since the phrase is used in this New York Times review and is probably where it comes from, perhaps quotations would be in order? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE3D91F3AF931A25752C1A96F958260 Jaimeastorga2000 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to cite - just change the way it's written to make it a little more formal and encyclopedic.  I made the adjustment.  Justi521 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the percieved negative light on Joan from this film, portray an English perspective against the French traditional representation?  Hasbro 11:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The film seemed confused at the end, leaving me, as a viewer, confused as to what statement was being made about Joan of Arc. 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC) John D.
the movie was pure garbage, hollywood will never get it right in making historical movies, especially joan of arc.
I think so too, but that is not Hollywood's responsibility, but Luc Besson's one. An English perspective ? no I do not think so. That is exactly the opposite : a very traditional nationalist French perspective (by a Frenchman Luc Besson), that considers there were two sides : 1 the French 2 the English. For example, first scene : how could Jeanne d'Arc's sister have been raped by English soldiers in Lorraine where they never set foot ? If she was raped, that is by French soldiers, supporters of the duke of Burgundy. The historical perspective of this movie is clearly printed by 19th century French nationalism. That is exactly the French traditional representation taught by the schools of the French Republic. Concerning the portraying of Joan of Arc, I can tell you it did not disturb much French people, a large part of the French considering her as a perfect idiotic girl, typical for superstition. Nortmannus (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually film articles have a "Reception" section after the plot summary.  However, the "Reception" is currently in the article summary at the top, making the entire article a little top-heavy (everything's in the article summary, nothing in the article!).  I will probably come back to this and work on it when I have some time, but if someone else would like to start cleaning up the article and making it a little more user-friendly, plesae do!  Thanks.  Justi521 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the physical appearence of Faye Dunaway's character, Yolande of Aragon, is astonishingly similar to that of Malthazard, the villain in another of Luc Besson's films, Arthur and the Invisibles. Both are tall and thin with a pallid visage, long, dark robes and a tall black headdress. I was wondering if this was a style often employed by Besson to portray sinister characters. If so, should it be noted? It at least deserves a mention in the style section of Besson's article, assuming such a section exists. --Dominus Noster (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comprehending Rome, Italy, or France, at the times of Joan of Arc, difficult enough, concerning liabilities to media proposals, theatres, and hollywood, in relating things to audiences; per say? Opinion? Mysticism could have played a valuable part in laws and what would be considered just. I am Joan of Arc Angel. What is a crack pipe? I will find you if I need you. Good luck. 75.201.13.119 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Put the crack pipe down.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doucheblade....lol..wtf is that at the bottom..but whatever it is, it says the word doucheblade, so ipso facto it is now notable and should stay because thats pretty awesome. 69.244.117.28 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)