Luc Besson’s 1999 epic The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is a loud, messy, sweaty, and deeply polarizing film that people still can't stop arguing about twenty-five years later. Most of that noise centers on one person. Joan of Arc Milla Jovovich wasn't exactly what audiences expected in the late nineties, especially following the hyper-stylized success of The Fifth Element.
It was a total pivot.
Instead of a serene, glowing saint from a stained-glass window, Jovovich gave us a Joan who was frantic. She was loud. Honestly, she seemed a little bit unhinged. This wasn't the "Maid of Orléans" your history teacher told you about. Besson and Jovovich decided to lean into the psychological ambiguity of the character, asking a question that pissed off a lot of traditionalists: Was she actually talking to God, or was she just a traumatized teenager having a massive mental breakdown?
The movie basically functions as a fever dream. If you watch it today, the pacing feels erratic, shifting from sweeping, bloody battle sequences to quiet, claustrophobic interrogations where Dustin Hoffman—playing Joan’s Conscience—basically gaslights her into doubting her own divinity. It’s heavy stuff.
The Problem with Being "Too Human"
Historians generally have a bone to pick with this movie. If you look at the trial records from 1431, the real Joan was incredibly sharp. She was witty. She trapped her interrogators in logical loops that made them look like idiots. In the film, however, the Joan of Arc Milla Jovovich portrayal is much more primal. She screams her lines. She cries. She looks terrified.
Some critics, like Roger Ebert back in the day, felt this took away from her agency. They wanted a leader. Instead, they got a girl who seemed swept up in a tide she couldn't control. But there is a counter-argument here that feels more relevant in our current era of "gritty" reboots. By stripping away the polish, Jovovich made Joan feel like a real person who was suffering.
War is gross. The movie doesn't shy away from that. We see the mud, the rusted armor, and the sheer physical exhaustion of trying to lead an army when you’re barely out of childhood.
📖 Related: Wrong Address: Why This Nigerian Drama Is Still Sparking Conversations
Why the Casting Caused Such a Stir
You have to remember where Milla Jovovich was in her career in 1999. She was the "It Girl." She was a supermodel. Casting a high-fashion icon as a medieval peasant was seen by some as a pure vanity project, especially since she was married to the director at the time.
The gossip columns were relentless.
Despite the tabloid noise, Jovovich threw herself into the role with a physical intensity that’s hard to deny. She cut her hair into that iconic, jagged bowl cut. She wore heavy, functional armor that looked like it actually weighed fifty pounds. She didn't try to look pretty. In fact, she spent most of the movie covered in dirt and dried blood.
A Psychological Deconstruction of a Saint
The second half of the film is where things get really weird. Once Joan is captured, the movie stops being an action epic and turns into a psychological thriller. This is where the Joan of Arc Milla Jovovich performance either wins you over or loses you completely.
Enter Dustin Hoffman.
He’s credited as "The Grand Inquisitor" or "The Conscience," and he shows up in Joan’s cell to dismantle her visions. He suggests that the sword she found in the field wasn't a sign from God, but a "one in a million" coincidence. He points out that her "signs" could all be explained by natural phenomena. It’s a cynical, modern take on faith.
👉 See also: Who was the voice of Yoda? The real story behind the Jedi Master
For many viewers, this felt like a betrayal of the source material. Why make a movie about a saint if you're going to spend the last forty minutes saying she might have been delusional? But for others, this is the most fascinating part of the film. It explores the thin line between religious ecstasy and clinical psychosis.
The Visual Language of Luc Besson
Besson is a maximalist. He doesn't do "subtle."
- The colors are over-saturated.
- The camera zooms in uncomfortably close to Jovovich’s face.
- The editing in the battle scenes is frantic, almost disorienting.
This style was a massive departure from previous versions of the story, like Carl Theodor Dreyer’s 1928 masterpiece The Passion of Joan of Arc. While Dreyer used close-ups to show spiritual transcendence, Besson uses them to show panic. It’s a visceral experience. It’s meant to make you feel as overwhelmed as Joan feels.
The Legacy of the 1999 Film
Is it a "good" movie? That’s still up for debate. It currently sits with a middling score on Rotten Tomatoes, but its cult following has only grown. People revisit it because it’s so much more ambitious than the standard historical biopic. It takes big swings.
Sometimes it misses.
But when it hits—like in the sheer terrifying momentum of the siege of Orléans—it’s unforgettable. The Joan of Arc Milla Jovovich version remains the most "rock star" interpretation of the character. She’s a rebel. She’s a tragic figure. She’s a girl who was used by the monarchy and then discarded when she became a political liability.
✨ Don't miss: Not the Nine O'Clock News: Why the Satirical Giant Still Matters
The film accurately captures the political maneuvering of the Dauphin, played with a sort of slimy brilliance by John Malkovich. He’s the perfect foil to Joan’s earnestness. He uses her as a mascot to get his crown, then lets her burn because it's the more convenient option. That part? That’s 100% historically accurate.
What Modern Viewers Can Take Away
If you’re going to watch The Messenger today, you have to go into it expecting a 90s action movie sensibility mixed with a French philosophical art film. It’s a strange hybrid.
Don't look for a Sunday school lesson.
Look for a study on how the world treats powerful, uncompromising women. Whether you believe Joan was led by God or by her own conviction, the result was the same: she changed the course of history and was killed for it. Jovovich captures that sense of inevitable doom better than almost anyone else who has played the role.
Actionable Insights for History and Film Buffs
If this film piqued your interest in the real-life Maid of Orléans or the career of Milla Jovovich, here are a few ways to dig deeper without getting bogged down in Hollywood fiction:
- Read the Trial Transcripts: The actual records of Joan’s trial are available online. They are genuinely fascinating and show a much more calculated and intellectually formidable Joan than the film portrays.
- Compare the "Passion": Watch the 1928 silent film The Passion of Joan of Arc. It’s often cited as one of the greatest movies ever made. Seeing it alongside the 1999 version highlights how much the cinematic language of "sainthood" has changed.
- Explore Besson’s Cinematography: Watch The Professional (Leon) or The Fifth Element to see how Besson’s visual style evolved leading up to his Joan of Arc project. You’ll see the same obsession with "the outsider" protagonist.
- Study the Hundred Years' War: To understand why the Dauphin was so desperate, look into the geopolitical state of France in the 1420s. The movie brushes over a lot of the complex alliances that made Joan's rise possible.
The Joan of Arc Milla Jovovich performance serves as a reminder that history is rarely as neat as we want it to be. It’s dirty, it’s loud, and it’s often driven by people who are considered "difficult" by the standards of their time. Whether she was a saint or a girl with a sword, she remains one of the most compelling figures to ever walk onto a battlefield—or a movie screen.