Steineded How sad is this?

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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

kijii Graham Greene wrote this movie version of George Bernard Shaw's play for the screen. Nineteen-year-old Jean Seberg made her movie debut here in the title role. She is engaging as the young Maid of Orleans who dresses as a boy and wants to be taken seriously as a soldier who hears voices from the saints in heaven. While watching this movie, it's important to remember that the characterization of Joan of Arc varies widely from the crazy Joan Pucelle, as characterized in Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part I, to a total otherworldly religious victim as seen in Carl Theodor Dreyer's silent classic, La Passion et la Mort de Jeanne d'Arc. Shaw wanted to present his Joan differently and this movie is about Shaw's Joan. Preminger and Greene present a noble effort of Shaw's play. It is entertaining in that it tells a good story without over romanticizing Joan nor over vilifying her chief executioner, Cauchon (Anton Walbrook). Dunois, Bastard of Orleans (Richard Todd) supports Joan's efforts and serves as her fellow soldier-in-arms. Richard Widmark--as the Dauphin that Joan makes Charles VII--plays his role as a childish clown. Finally, (Sir) John Gielgud admirably presents the English side of this story as he portrays Warwick. This movie is quite worth while--especially for Shaw fans.

JasparLamarCrabb Otto Preminger's notorious version of GB Shaw's SAINT JOAN was pummeled by critics on its first release due in large part to the director's controversial casting of novice Jean Seberg in the title role. While it's clear that Seberg did not possess the chops to pull of a role as complex and challenging as Joan of Arc, it's also evident, by her performance, that she's not wholly terrible either. She's not what is chiefly wrong with this film, a condensed version of the Shaw play (the screenplay is by Graham Greene). Preminger, who reportedly held the piece in the highest regard since his youth, was perhaps too close to it to put together a fully satisfying movie. His directing style, which by 1957 included many sweeping camera shots and few cuts, was not what a play this intimate needed. Although the sets by Ray Simm (built at Pinewood Studios in England) are pitch perfect, the film has a very chilly feel to it. Preminger's bigger casting blunder was to surround Seberg with the likes of John Gielgud, Anton Walbrook & Richard Todd, acting giants who soundly dwarf her. Worst of all is Richard Widmark as the sniveling Dauphin. Meant to be a child like innocent, Widmark plays his role as a feral court jester. Still, there's a number of pluses: Georges Périnal's stunning B&W photography, a rousing score by Mischa Spoliansky and many familiar faces in the (mostly) British supporting cast: Felix Aylmer, Finlay Currie, Harry Andrews and David Oxley as the bitchy "Bluebeard."

pipfranks Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance.

didi-5 This version by Otto Preminger is based on the play by Bernard Shaw, in which the ghost of Joan of Arc appears to Charles VII years after her execution. We then see in flashback how the young maid led the soldiers to victory at Orleans and made the Dauphin king, and how she was later betrayed by nobles, church, and soldiers alike.Jean Seberg plays Joan as a very modern looking, very young girl who questions everything she sees and is at first tolerated and then shunned and feared. Richard Widmark is perhaps too comic as the Dauphin and comes across as miscast, while John Gielgud is reliable as Warwick, the English kingmaker. Other key roles are played by Anton Walbrook, Harry Andrews, Finlay Currie, and Richard Todd.This version of the Joan of Arc tale has a greater feel of realism that the 40s version with Ingrid Bergman, but I rate the silent versions 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' and 'Joan the Woman' higher. Although Seberg puts across a fine performance as Joan, she can't hold a candle to Falconetti in particular.