'The Messenger' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Josh's review of 'The Messenger' has been posted. He says it's interesting, but flawed. This Blu-ray has great audio, lousy video, and a lack of extras. Rent this one.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1810/messenger.html

[Super-VHS]

Is this really a BD-50? If so the complete lack of extras is a little puzzling.... if the disc is a BD-25, while its still disappointing, it would be a little more understandable.

[Maxx_75]

Well I dont have my copy yet so I cant make any judgements about the VQ or AQ but the movie is in my view better than 3 stars. I think he was a bit harsh. He sings its praises and points out its faults but seems to weigh the faults more heavely. I am a pretty big fan so I would score it a 4 but to the average person I would say 3.5 stars.

I think that Milla did a great job and cleary isnt just some model who cant act. John Malkovich also did great. I dont think that he "hamed it up". Faye Dunaway played the scary mother-in-law to perfection.

The other military commanders respectful treatment to her was a combination of her great popularity with the people, the belief that she was a messenger from God and that their Dauphin had ordered them to listen to her. Also soldiers of their status were nobles and members of the gentry and are expected to be honorable men who would want to treat a women with some respect.

I do think that he was right on the mark about the films portrayal of whether or not she was really being contacted by god. Pure genuis in my view, difficult to pull off correctly, and should have been a factor in the movie score. For the record Dustin Hoffman's character was her conscience not the god or the devil.

In closing I think that this movie is a 3.5 to 4 star movie that should have got a "Rent First" or "For Fan's Only" not a "Rent, Don't Buy".

[Space_Butler]

Yet another puzzling film to review when there's so many more high-profile releases that just came out. At the very least, it's sad this site doesn't do mini-reviews, so those lost without reading a review can be assured that Band of Brothers is a good buy.

[urbeenjammin]

sometimes i wonder what components are being used for their reviews.it seems that they're quite a bit off on some of these blurays.these are just some of the other reviews which completely contradicts theirs.this isn't the first time i've notice this.
http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2924.shtml
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=8071
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35547...an-of-arc-the/

[cheez avenger]

Hmmmmm, this review reminds me of the "Gangs of New York" fiasco. I will withhold judgment until I get my copy.


I still have my SD copy of the special edition, I remember it being a near reference disc at the time.


We'll see.

[Nismo]

Wow. Does this review even attempt to show any objectivity? (I know, I know, it won't be long before Josh jumps in to carry on about how a professional review is supposed to subjective as well as objective... bla, bla, bla). But at least give it a try? It's clear from the onset he dismissed the film, offering up such cavalier words of wisdom; "Luc Besson took a stab at it"... really, is that how Besson approaches film making? Taking a stab at it?

I hate when a reviewer chooses to review "the film he wanted to see" versus the film the director actually chose to make. (ex.; This film didn't focus on the trial, as a previous unrelated film did, but rather "attempts" to tell an epic story). Really? Who cares about what movie you wanted to make? According to Josh, Luc Besson is in over his head for even attempting to make a film on this subject. Personally, I like it when a film dares to take chances, takes me somewhere I haven't been, offers diversity of thoughts, artistic vision and fresh points of view. But I guess a carbon copy remake of a 1928 silent film would have been a better choice, no need to bring a fresh modern interpretation to the legendary tale of Joan of Arc. What was Besson supposed to make, a documentary? We are constantly inundated with inane, throwaway Hollywood movies. Bland, lifeless marketing tripe week after week, it's nice to once and a while get something fresh & unique as only Besson can do.

I guess in addition to consulting with Josh on script writing & directing, Luc Besson should also add casting to the list, because again that is something Josh can apparently do better. Malkovich, embarrassing? I thought he perfectly captured The Dauphin who was immature, paranoid and yet ultimately deceptive. Dunaway is somehow "out of place", but you're not sure why? I enjoyed her performance; the strong, manipulative matriarch who didn't look beautiful at all. In fact I thought they went out of the way to make her look old, homely, stressed, weary and as if she hadn't bathed in weeks.

As far as (the small) Dustin Hoffman's performance, I thought his portrayal was an intriguing, sometimes haunting, offering an unexpected insight into Joan's tormented psyche. His enigmatic performance was, surreal, memorable, enjoyable to both watch and listen to. I particularly enjoyed the sound staging of his "voice over", which was very cool. But, according to Josh, "he just pops in to cash a paycheck?" Once again, I agree to disagree.

I enjoyed this film countless times over the years. The art direction & cinematography are beautiful (it's nice to see real landscapes vs. a cgi crapfest). Milla gives a a powerful, complex, and commanding performance throughout the film. The range of emotional states she had to instill were remarkable. Her torment, conflict and passion filled the screen & was enjoyable to watch. She fully committed & immersed herself, I think it's her best role to date. The large battle scenes were intense, violent & skillfully portrayed. The supporting cast of devoted merry men demonstrate their allegiance to Joan and add a few moments of folly when needed. Whether directing, producing, or writing, Luc Besson always has an unique, original point of view. The movie itself: 4-1/2 stars. For what it's worth, I needed to offer my subjective "yin" to Josh's "yang." IMO, it a far better film than "rent, don't buy". For me it is a must buy. My pre-ordered copy should be arriving soon. I can't wait! (did I just say Josh's yang?... lol).

[ben1080p]

Hmm. Ive never seen it so Ill def rent forshoforsho

[Eternal Now]

I'll definitely give this a rent. I passed it up on DVD so many times, but now that its appearing again I'll take it as a sign.

[HectorB]

pretty shocked that Sony would put out this kind of material...I will wait until I can see this on my 100" screen to pass judgment.

[krylonman]

Originally Posted by Nismo

Wow. Does this review even attempt to show any objectivity? (I know, I know, it won't be long before Josh jumps in to carry on about how a professional review is supposed to subjective as well as objective... bla, bla, bla).

Well, actually, generating an opinion about a movie and writing it down is 100% subjective and 0% objective; it isn't even a mix. That's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, what could you be objective about?

[Nismo]

Originally Posted by krylonman

That's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, what could you be objective about?

Hmm, reminds me of when Bill Clinton, who once argued it depends on what the definition of 'is' is. If a review is purely subjective, it could be completely absent of fact & distorted by personal prejudices. What if Josh didn't like the color blue? Subjective? Yes. Valuable to a review? No.

[krylonman]

Originally Posted by Nismo

Hmm, reminds me of when Bill Clinton, who once argued it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

It's not that obscure a question. What is there to be objective about in a movie review? (Besides the obvious, indisputable stuff--this movie is in color, it's X minutes long, etc.) If you're complaining that this guy wasn't objective enough it should be easy enough to answer.

[Nismo]

Originally Posted by krylonman

If you're complaining that this guy wasn't objective enough it should be easy enough to answer.

Interesting that when I offer an opinion to counter the reviewer's opinion, I'm complaining. Would you feel better if I agreed 100% with the review? I don't care if Josh liked the film, or didn't like the film. I take issue with an irrelevant personal remark about the director and then model wife; & when he litters the review with comments like; Dustin Hoffman showed up just to get a paycheck. Really? Just one day? Josh knows this? Or Dunaway "looks" out of place, and offers no reason to support the claim. (Reminds me when Mr. Bracke ranted & made personal attacks against Mel Gibson in one of his reviews). In the end I enjoyed the film... Josh not so much. I disagreed with his review. So what? At least I offered input about the film. What did you contribute? We've strayed way too far off topic, so I'll leave it at that. (...no more blooters).

[krylonman]

Originally Posted by Nismo

Interesting that when I offer an opinion to counter the reviewer's opinion, I'm complaining. Would you feel better if I agreed 100% with the review?

If "complaining" is too harsh a word to describe what you were doing, strike it from the record.

It has nothing to do with agreeing with his review; you can like the movie as much as you want, for whatever reasons you want. And so can he!

I disagreed with his review. So what? At least I offered input about the film. What did you contribute?

I didn't see the film, so I couldn't contribute anything specific about it. It's just that criticizing a lack of objectivity in a movie review is something that drives me nuts. You know, like when people say "irregardless" or "at this point in time." Every time someone says "why can't this review be more objective" it means "why can't this review agree with my own subjective opinion?" There's simply no such thing as an objective movie review. It's not that nobody does it, it's that nobody can do it. It can't be done. So I can't help asking that person how to write an objective movie review. Someday someone will tell me and I can't wait to hear it.

Originally Posted by Nismo

I take issue with an irrelevant personal remark about the director and then model wife; & when he litters the review with comments like; Dustin Hoffman showed up just to get a paycheck. Really? Just one day? Josh knows this? Or Dunaway "looks" out of place, and offers no reason to support the claim.

These would all be good points about lazy reviewing, at least, except that you sorta deliberately misquoted. He does describe Jovovich's performance at length and why it doesn't work. Hoffman, he says, "comes across" as someone who stepped in for a day to get a paycheck, not that that's what literally happened. And he says Dunaway looks too "Hollywood glamorous" for this setting, which isn't endlessly effusive but is an understandable reason. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with any or all of these opinions, of course, but there's nothing particularly unprofessional about expressing them.

Also I can't find this "irrelevant personal remark," unless mentioning that they were married at all counts. There are ways to make cheap shots about the star being the director's wife, and he simply doesn't do it.