Movies about saints usually play it safe. They give us glowing halos and soft orchestral swells. But when the joan of arc movie 1999—officially titled The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc—hit theaters, it was basically the cinematic equivalent of a heavy metal concert in a cathedral. Luc Besson, the guy who gave us The Fifth Element, didn't want a quiet prayer. He wanted blood, mud, and a screaming Milla Jovovich.
It was a weird year for the Maid of Orléans. If you remember 1999, we actually got two big-budget versions of this story. There was a more traditional miniseries starring Leelee Sobieski, and then there was this loud, stylized, frantic Besson version. One was safe. One was... a lot.
People still argue about it. Was she a visionary? Was she a schizophrenic? Was she just a kid who got caught up in a political machine she didn't understand? Besson’s film leans into the ambiguity in a way that makes some historians cringe and some film nerds cheer. It’s a messy, violent, and deeply psychological take on a woman who changed history before she was old enough to buy a drink.
What Actually Happens in the Joan of Arc Movie 1999?
The plot follows the standard historical beats, but with a caffeinated energy. We see Joan as a child in Domrémy, witnessing the brutal murder of her sister by English soldiers. This is a massive departure from historical fact—there’s no record of Joan’s sister being killed like that—but it serves a narrative purpose. It gives Joan a "revenge" motive that the real-life Joan likely didn't have. The real Joan said she was moved by the "pity" of the kingdom of France. Besson’s Joan is moved by trauma.
After she makes her way to the Dauphin, Charles VII (played with a delightful, slippery cowardice by John Malkovich), the movie shifts into high gear. The siege of Orléans is a masterclass in 90s practical effects. It’s loud. It’s dirty. You can almost smell the sweat and the rust. Unlike the sanitized versions of the 1940s or 50s, this joan of arc movie 1999 makes the Middle Ages look like a nightmare.
Then comes the trial. This is where the movie gets truly interesting. Dustin Hoffman appears as "The Conscience," a hooded figure who basically gaslights Joan in her prison cell. He challenges her visions. He asks her if she really saw the wind or if she saw God. It’s a bold move for a historical epic to essentially deconstruct its own protagonist’s sanity in the final act.
The Cast: From Method Acting to Malkovich-ing
Milla Jovovich is the heartbeat of this thing. Honestly, her performance is polarizing. Some critics at the time thought she was too high-pitched, too manic. But if you were a teenager claimed to be hearing the voice of God while leading an army of grizzled men against the English, you’d probably be a bit high-strung too. She brings a raw, vibrating energy to the role that feels more "human" than "saintly."
👉 See also: Album Hopes and Fears: Why We Obsess Over Music That Doesn't Exist Yet
Then there's the supporting cast. It's a "who's who" of late-90s character actors:
- Faye Dunaway as Yolande of Aragon, looking like she’s playing a very high-stakes game of chess.
- Vincent Cassel as Gilles de Rais, before he became the notorious figure history remembers him as.
- Tchéky Karyo as Dunois, providing the grounded military foil to Joan’s spiritual frenzy.
Malkovich is the standout, though. He plays Charles VII as a man who is deeply uncomfortable with his own crown. He’s funny, he’s pathetic, and he’s eventually treacherous. It’s the perfect counterpoint to Jovovich’s earnestness.
Why the 1999 Version Feels So Different from History
If you're looking for a 1:1 historical recreation, you're gonna have a bad time. The joan of arc movie 1999 takes huge liberties. We already mentioned the sister’s death, which historians like Régine Pernoud would have scoffed at. The real Joan was actually a very shrewd military mind—she understood artillery and tactics better than most of the generals she worked with. In the movie, she’s more of a mascot who happens to be very lucky and very loud.
The film also simplifies the politics. The Hundred Years' War was a convoluted mess of feudal allegiances, not just "France vs. England." But movies need a protagonist and an antagonist. So, the English are the bad guys, and the French are the hesitant heroes.
The biggest "controversy" in the film is its treatment of Joan’s faith. By introducing Dustin Hoffman’s character, the movie suggests that Joan might have been projecting her own desires onto natural coincidences. Finding a sword in a field? Just a random occurrence, Hoffman argues. Seeing a cloud shape? Just the wind. For a figure who was canonized as a saint, this secularized "psychological" interpretation was a bold (and for some, offensive) choice.
The Visual Legacy of Luc Besson’s Vision
Whatever you think of the script, the movie looks incredible. This was the era before everything was washed out with gray CGI. The colors are saturated. The armor shines. The blood is very, very red.
✨ Don't miss: The Name of This Band Is Talking Heads: Why This Live Album Still Beats the Studio Records
Besson used wide-angle lenses to capture the chaos of the battlefield. It feels claustrophobic. You’re in the mud with the soldiers. You see the arrows hitting home. It’s a far cry from the sweeping, "clean" battles of Braveheart. It feels more like a horror movie at times.
The costume design is also top-notch. Joan’s short hair and suit of armor became an iconic look for a new generation. It moved away from the "pretty" Joan and leaned into the "soldier" Joan. It influenced how she was portrayed in pop culture for years afterward.
Why It Flopped (And Why We Still Care)
Financially, the movie didn't set the world on fire. It cost about $60 million and barely made that back in the US. Critics were harsh. Roger Ebert gave it two stars, complaining that it lacked the "soul" of previous versions like Carl Theodor Dreyer’s 1928 masterpiece.
But here’s the thing: it has a cult following.
People love it because it’s weird. It’s a big-budget Hollywood epic that isn't afraid to be experimental. It’s a movie that questions its own premise. How many biopics about religious figures actually ask, "But what if they were just crazy?" It’s an uncomfortable question, but it makes for a fascinating film.
Assessing the 1999 Cinematic Landscape
To understand why this movie exists, you have to look at what was happening in 1999. It was the year of The Matrix, Fight Club, and The Blair Witch Project. Audiences were hungry for something "edgy" and different. Even historical dramas were trying to be "gritty."
🔗 Read more: Wrong Address: Why This Nigerian Drama Is Still Sparking Conversations
The joan of arc movie 1999 fits perfectly into that "edge." It wasn't interested in being a boring school lesson. It wanted to be a visceral experience. It’s a "MTV-style" history lesson, for better or worse.
Critical Reception vs. Audience Reality
If you look at Rotten Tomatoes today, the scores are middling. Critics sit around 30%, while audiences are much higher, usually in the 60s. That gap tells you everything. Critics hated the "un-historical" tone and the loud performances. Audiences, however, appreciated the spectacle and the emotional intensity.
There's a specific kind of person who loves this movie: the one who likes their history with a side of existential dread and a lot of screaming. It's not for everyone. It's definitely not for people who want a reverent, holy experience.
How to Watch and Evaluate It Today
If you’re going to sit down and watch the joan of arc movie 1999 tonight, here is the best way to approach it. Don't go in expecting a documentary. Go in expecting a psychological thriller set in 1429.
- Watch the Orléans sequence for the tech. Notice how little CGI is used compared to modern movies. Those are real people in real mud.
- Pay attention to the color palette. Notice how the colors shift from the vibrant blues of the French court to the murky grays of the prison.
- Contrast it with the 1928 version. If you really want to be a film nerd, watch The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) right after. You’ll see how Besson pays homage to certain shots of Joan’s face.
- Ignore the "historical" inaccuracies. Just let them go. If you want the real story, read Helen Castor’s biography Joan of Arc: A History. If you want a movie about a girl who might be a saint or might be losing it, stay with Besson.
The movie ends with the inevitable fire. It’s a hard scene to watch. Besson doesn't shy away from the horror of the execution. But in those final moments, he keeps the camera tight on Milla’s face. Is she at peace? Is she terrified? The movie never truly answers. It leaves you in the same position as the people in the crowd: watching a girl burn and wondering if you just witnessed a miracle or a tragedy.
Ultimately, this film remains a loud, beautiful, and deeply flawed masterpiece of late-90s ambition. It’s a reminder of a time when directors took massive risks with historical figures. It’s not the "best" Joan of Arc movie, but it is certainly the most memorable one.
Next Steps for History Buffs and Cinephiles
- Compare and Contrast: Watch the 1999 Leelee Sobieski miniseries to see the "traditional" version of the same events that came out in the same year.
- Read the Trial Transcripts: Look up the actual translated transcripts of Joan’s trial. You’ll find that many of her real-life responses were actually more clever and biting than the dialogue in the film.
- Check Out the Soundtrack: Eric Serra’s score is genuinely fantastic and stands on its own as a great piece of late-90s cinematic music.
By looking at the film through the lens of its era rather than a history textbook, you can appreciate the craft that went into making a 15th-century story feel like a 20th-century fever dream.