And the insanity of the lead character is the focal point of ‘The Messenger’. It’s the internal conflict of faith and reason and the imperative that drives Joan that makes ‘The Messenger’ such a good movie.
Really, it’s a worthwhile movie. I don’t get what you’re bashing it about.
I also fucking loved it. It was not “just like The Matrix”.
I understand some people not getting it or liking it but it was surely deserving of the Oscar nomination. The characters were well developed and Michelle Yeoh was outstanding.
Perhaps the people who didn’t like it are just slow readers, the sub-titles went by pretty fast in some places.
I also thoroughly enjoyed Gladiator for different reasons. Was it deserving of Best Picture? Nope.
I enjoyed the plot for various reasons already mentioned in this thread. So why am I posting? Well, did anyone else get the feeling that they were watching the Emperor’s Special Effects? The jumping/ floating/ running up walls and trees just didn’t cut it for me. It had the same feel as the Ice Capade’s rendition of Peter Pan. OK, maybe it worked once or twice, but to me, it seemed as if the effort they were making to leap was all wrong, as were the angles they took off at. Anyone else feel the same way?
Let me start by saying I loved the movie. I thought it was wonderful. I even enjoyed the flashback sequence–I love stories within stories. This doesn’t keep me from thinking about what I didn’t like, however. I do think Chow Yun-Fat’s and Zhiang Ziwi’s characters were not used as well as they could’ve been and the girl’s character bugged me. There was no rational motivation behind her behavior anywhere, except that this chick is wacked in the head. The two older actors were good, I thought, but not great, and not enough to make me feel enough for them.
hijack re The Messenger:
Jonathan Chance: except the real Joan of Arc didn’t have this particular conflict going on. It was an anachronism to pile this one onto the head of a still-medieval minded girl. She was, IRL, a natural genius so brilliant she managed to stump the Church fathers in matters of faith over and over again. Her faith was as strongly rooted as it gets. She had some inevitable moments of doubt towards the end. There’s no evidence that those doubts took up 90% of her waking moments while imprisoned, which is the impression the movie left you with.
Also, there’s the small matter of the historical importance of Poitiers. In the movie, she makes a speech, and the English go running. In real life, half the English army fled when they merely heard she was coming at them. The rest she defeated in a battle on the open field, a feat not accomplished by, for instance, William Wallace, who’s Battle of Stirling Bridge was a feat of tactical maneuvering, not sheer open-field brilliance. Not taking anything away from the man, but we’re talking about a teenage girl who defeated the most powerful army of her time in a toe-to-toe fight, and that defeat marked the beginning of the end of English dominance of France.
Where, pray tell, did you see anything that told you about that in the movie?
I loved it. I believed the depth of Michelle Yeoh’s love every time I saw her face. The subtlety of her performance alone was worth it for me. I choked up several times.
And, yes, I also enjoyed The Matrix, but I didn’t get weepy over that one. 
I’ll be buying both on DVD eventually.
Esprix
I agree with Esprix.
A beautiful movie with an engaging plot and good actors.
There should be more movies like this.
And it is Emperor. DUH.