All you need to do is take a look at the upcoming films this summer and realize that Hollywood is running out of ideas. Look at how many sequels, remakes, and adaptations are being made, then compare it with how many original films are being released. It's amazing, isn't it? I'm not criticizing directors like Ron Howard, Bryan Singer, Gore Verbinski, or Brett Ratner (who all have films this summer), because I don't believe it is their intention to produce garbage.

I made a short list of what films I would like to see and what films I would like to avoid. Maybe this will help you decide which films you would like to see and avoid this summer.

Movies to See

1. The Da Vinci Code - Not much else needs to be said about this film. Don't expect Oscar-winning performaces or an emotionally driven plot. Instead, expect exciting chase sequences, thrills, twists, puzzles, riddles, and some interesting surprises. If you feel the movie will offend you, then I advise you not to see it.

2. X-Men 3: The Last Stand - Perhaps the only reason why I'm listing this film is because if you've seen the first and second film, then its virtually compulsory for you to see the third one. You want to know what happened to Jean Grey right? You want to know what happens to our beloved X-Men, don't you? Of course you do, because director Bryan Singer is the one who brought life to this franchise with his unique style and input in the multi-layered character plot lines. But here's something that is very important to know about X-Men 3: Bryan Singer did NOT direct it. It's a long story, but to make it short, I'll just say he wanted to do another film in between X-Men 2 and 3, but the Studio said "No, you can't do that," so Mr. Singer said, "Fine, I won't do X-Men 3," meanwhile "Rush Hour" and "Red Dragon" director Brett Ratner was having all sorts of problems with "Superman Returns," so he backed off and searched for something else to do. Interesting enough, Bryan Singer got hired to direct "Superman Returns," and Brett Ratner got hired to direct "X-Men 3"! Pretty cool, huh? Yeah.. but not until you see X-Men 3. I will write a review on it soon. It's such a shame that outward things have to ruin the story of a film. Brett Ratner really tried his best, you can tell, but his film lacks the emotional aspect that Singer brought to the series. See the movie anyway though. You must if you're an X-Men fan (I'm not bashing the movie because there are some good things in it, like Kelsey Grammer perfectly casted as The Beast).

3. Superman Returns (June 28th) - After being disappointed by X-Men 3, I'm relying on Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" to satisfy my craving for a great comic book movie. The new Superman looks great and so much like Christopher Reeve, and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor... wow, I can't wait to see that. It's important to remind everyone that Bryan Singer's breakthrough film was also Kevin Spacey's breakthrough film ("The Usual Suspects). I recently revisited X-Men 1 and 2, and I love the enormous depth Bryan Singer brings into it, especially in a short amount of time. The inner comic book geek within me is so utterly depressed and miserable that he didn't direct X-Men 3; why does the business world always have to interrupt the creative minds of brilliant artists and filmmakers? He carried those X-Men films on his shoulders. Just watch X-Men 3 and look at how lost everyone looks. I heard that Kevin Spacey was even going to be a part of X-Men 3 if Singer was still directed it... *sigh*. 20th Century Fox should have put X-Men 3 on hold instead of letting him loose to do "Superman Returns." I would have waited.

4. The Omen (June 6) - I was a little hesitant about putting this movie on the "To See" list, but since there are more movies out there to avoid, I figure that the one I'm mixed about should be rounded up to the "To See" list, haha (if that makes any sense). I probably won't see this movie, but I put it up here for all those horror fans. It doesn't look like some lousy teenage "I know what you did last summer" slasher flick, it looks like something that really would like to scare you. Plus, Liev Schrieber is in it, so it can't be that bad. The director is John Moore. I don't know who that is.

5. Cars (June 8) - This movie looks cute. I Love Pixar animations ever since "Toy Story." There aren't too many family movies being made these days, so I think this is one of those films that everyone can enjoy.

6. Pirates of the Carribean 2: Dead Man's Chest (July 7th) - I Loved the first film, I thought it was great entertainment. Johnny Depp was criticized by producers while the film was in production because they didn't like the way he was performing, but after the film was such a success, they came back to him with apologies. This proves that Mr. Depp is always active in bringing input and his own ideas to the films he works on.

7. Lady in the Water (July 21st) - My favorite M. Night Shyamalan film was "Unbreakable," but for some reason, it didn't have much of an impact on people as "The Sixth Sense" did. I thought "Unbreakable" was an original comic book idea, something that we've never seen before. In a time of unoroginal ideas, sequels, remakes, and adaptations, one can always count on M. Night Shyamalan in bringing fresh new ideas that come straight from his mind and heart onto the silver screen. The only thing I'm worried about is the issue of him being rushed because of his contract with Disney. I believe we could see how his previous film "The Village" seemed to lack calculation and focus. "Lady in the Water" looked interesting when it was a teaser trailer, but after seeing the trailer, I hope it doesn't get as cheesy as it looks like its going to be. Paul Giammati, by the way, is an amazing actor.

8. Miami Vice (July 28th) - Michael Mann is one of my favorite directors. His style has inspired my work a lot; I was really flattered one time when one of my friends said that he could see how Michael Mann has influenced my work just by looking at one of my scenes. Michael Mann has directed great pictures such as "Manhunter," "Heat," "The Insider," "Ali," and "Collateral." I Love his choice of music for his films; instead of having one composer, his work is inspired by a lot of indie bands that many people haven't heard of. He even worked with Lisa Gerrard (of Dead Can Dance) on "Heat," "The Insider" and "Ali." I Loved the music in "Collateral" as well, and honestly, his use of music is what I'm looking forward to the most in "Miami Vice" (its based on a TV show he created). From the trailers, this does not look like a family movie, so I don't suggest it to everyone. I honestly don't think Michael Mann can direct a better film than his crime drama "Heat" which starred Al Pacino and Robert De Niro.


Movies to Avoid:

1. Mission: Impossible 3 - I believe I can survie the summer without seeing this film because I wasn't too fond of the first film. The second film wasn't a Mission: Impossible movie in my mind; it was a John Woo movie. I believe Mr. Woo brought a unique look to the film that makes it different from the first and third one (even though I haven't seen the third film). I would have been more interested in Mission: Impossible 3 if it was directed by David Fincher who was initially interested in the project, but something happened along the way which put screenwriter J.J. Abrams at the directing helm. I like Tom Cruise; I think he's a very talented actor, and probably one of the most overlooked actors, but was all that scientology preaching and Katie Holmes stuff really neccessary? It may have been the reason why the film was a disappointment at the box office.

2. Poseidon - Here's a guy who is really running out of new material. His name is Wolfgang Peterson (yeah the same guy who forgot he was German while directing the disappointing "Troy"). I believe this is his third film where he has dealt with nautical related stories: The first was the classic German film "Das Boot," then he did "The Perfect Storm" (it was okay), and now "Poseidon." Sorry, I'm not interested. I heard the film was really bad from frirends and critics, so I don't intend to see it at all.

3. See No Evil - Okay, this is what I was talking about when I spoke of lousy teenage slasher movies. Avoid this movie, especially since its relying its income on a former wrestler. All they want is your money. Producers throw things in the pot just to see what would make money; don't dance to their tune.

4. The Break-Up (June 2nd) - The Director of "Bring it On" and "Down with Love." Three words: Waste of Film. Skip it.

5. Click (June 23rd) - I don't like Adam Sandler. I don't think he's funny. Jim Carrey is funny. Adam Sandler; no. This looks like a rip-off of "Bruce Almighty" anyway: Some guy gets a remote that controls the entire Universe. You can tell the producers were behind this one.

6. The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (June 16) - Why are they still making these movies??

7. Little Man (July 5) - The Wayans brothers are way too vulgar for me. I don't know what's with them sometimes. Marlon Wayans did an excellent job in "Requiem for a Dream," but then him and his brother go ahead and make really sick, disgusting, and exteremely immature films...  Anyone can make dirty jokes; the real comedians are the clean ones. Check out "Allah Made Me Funny" on Google video; that's funny.

8. Clerks II (July 21) - I am openly prejudice to Kevin Smith for his dislike and disrespect for one of the greatest storytellers of our time: Tim Burton. Which is why I won't see "Clerks 2" or anything else he makes. Period.

9. Snakes on a Plane (August 18th) - No, dude!!!

10. DOA: Dead or Alive (August 25th) - A movie based on a video game that is popularly known for revealing the polygonal underwear of the female characters. Umm..... No.

Film: The Da Vinci Code
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Paul Bettany, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Jurgen Prochnow, and Jean Reno
Director: Ron Howard

I went into Ron Howard's "The Da Vinci Code" with an open mind, only because I was curious about how I, as a Muslim, would react to it. You may have heard about the controversy surrounding this film, but a lot of times, that just helps the movie make more money in the box office. I never read the book, but because of its popularity I eventually learned what it was about and understood why it could be a very sensitive topic for not only Christians, but Muslims as well. So, is the movie sacrilegious? Should one boycott it because of the conclusions it draws? Is it worth seeing or getting upset over?

First, I want to talk about "The Da Vinci Code" as a movie and not so much as an instrument to reveal a new revelation or start some religious cult (which I don't believe was the author's or filmmaker's intention). Ron Howard is coming off the success of last year's "Cinderella Man" which, for whatever reason, was snubbed at the Oscars. It wasn't even nominated for Best Picture or Best Director. I almost forgot about the movie until I learned that Paul Giammati's brilliant performance was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Anyway, filmmakers like Ron Howard, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Robert Zemeckis are, what I call, the Big 4 (it used to be the Big 5 until Stanley Kubrick passed away. Some may say M. Night Shyamalan will soon be, if not already, amongst their crowd for his films draw a lot of attention in the box office). Their films are not to be missed when released in the theaters. Why? Because their films are intended for mass appeal. Their films stand out on their own material wise, but also notice how they have poster names screaming across the top of their advertisements that almost guarantee a box office hit. Names like Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Russel Crowe, Bruce Willis, and Tom Hanks, who stars in "The Da Vinci Code." This doesn't mean that their films are mediocre and lack artistic value. The last thing any of these directors are, are talentless and greedy box-office hounds unlike the countless no-name directors that plague Hollywood today with their nonsense. Filmmakers like Ron Howard want to tell great stories and make great films through the art of cinema. They want to make films that attracts and satisfies the mass majority of people (of almost all ages) who wish to enjoy their weekend at the movies.

So the questions that I thought about were... Is the film entertaining? Does the film keep the audience interested? Does the film have twists that keep you on the edge of your seat? Do the actors deliver strong performances? The answer is "Yes" (although, I have to say that I wasn't very impressed by Audrey Tautou's performance). The movie started off really weird, not in terms of plot, but in terms of acting and direction. The actor's performances were very weak and static, as if Ron Howard wasn't directing them. I don't know if it was the script, the actors, or the director, but something was certainly wrong about the effort to maintain the audience's attention in the opening 45 minutes or so.

I am happy to say that the rest of the film redeems itself for the remaining hour and a half. I really liked Tom Hanks' performance in this film as Robert Langdon, a professor of symbology at Harvard University. He's not my favorite actor and there are certain movies of his that I'm not fond of, but something about his performance in this film made me give him a second chance. It must have been the character that I really liked. He reminded me of Indiana Jones, except without the machismo. Maybe the controversy adds to the suspense of the film, because being someone who hasn't read the book, I was curious as to what really offended the many Christians around the world who are boycotting the film. The film kept me on the edge of my seat, I was always anxious to find out what would happen next, and the surprises weren't cheap; they were satisfying and planted throughout the film very well. The character development between Langdon and Sophie was weak, but the filmmakers did their best to play on their sympathetic characteristics to cover up for it. Again, I really liked Tom Hanks in this film, his carefully calculated performance was quite different than other films he did in the past. The last film I saw him in was "Road to Perdition" where he played an amazingly skilled hitman, so it was nice to see him "disarmed" in "The Da Vinci Code" as a professor. It's so important to develop an attachment with the characters, especially the protagonist, because without it, you don't have anyone to guide you through the film. A good protagonist carries the film on his/her shoulders, but this doesn't have to always occur in dramatic fashion; I think Tom Hank's subtle display of heroism in this film proves that.

Howard does some interesting things with camera movement, editing, and special effects. I can't forget how he fooled audiences around the world with the special effects in "A Beautiful Mind." What special effects, you ask? If the special effects artists heard you ask that, they would take it as a compliment. The special effects in "A Beautiful Mind" weren't noticable at all unless someone had seen a behind-the-scenes documentary before watching the movie. Howard incorporates techniques reminiscent of the effects used in "A Beautiful Mind," however these effects are more noticable, not in the sense that things look "fake," but in terms of the casual viewer thinking to his/herself, "Oh that's neat. I'm sure they did that with computers." It's strange that Howard didn't use many effects in the flashback sequences which I thought were shot pretty poorly. I think they lacked style, and there was one moment in the film when the flashback came too awkwardly. I understand that it is in the filmmaker's best interest to "show, don't tell" when dealing with a flashback scene; in other words, instead of having a character explain the past, SHOW the past as the character is talking and cut out as much dialogue as possible. So regardless of the awkward flashbacks and poor choice of color balancing, lighting, and composition, at least Howard didn't make the scene boring with a character simply talking. I'm honestly not a fan of those intense zoom and extreme close-up shots that popular Hollywood movies have been over-doing ever since the release of the first "Matrix" film, but it was an exception in this film when Sophie was explaining what would happen if an incorrect code was entered on one of Da Vinci's devices. It reminded me of how George Lucas created special effects for one sole purpose: To tell a story. Throughout the film, we see Howard use such effects to add a new dynamic to the film that would never have existed if not for special effects.

A lot of people are criticizing "The Da Vinci Code" because it's "too confusing." I personally don't think it is. Someone at the Cannes Film Festival said that the book wasn't confusing for him, but the movie was, and he felt that people who didn't read the book would be confused by the film. I never read the book and I wasn't confused by the film. I don't know if its because of my familiarity with certain aspects of Christianity or because I give the filmmaker all my attention when I watch a movie (when I say this, I'm indirectly referring to the people who are busy chit-chatting, running to the bathroom, or getting something to eat, while the movie is in session - this is what I call "disrespecting the filmmaker," believe it or not, lol). I honestly don't know how other people felt about whether or not the film was confusing. At some points, it did seem like the screenwriter, Akiva Goldsman, was trying to cram a lot in, and maybe some people can't follow things when information is thrown at them at that speed. Okay, that's understandable. I would have to get other people's opinion about that, but for me, I don't think it was confusing. The only confusion I felt was that satisfying confusion which made me anxiously await what was to be revealed next.


If you haven't seen the movie, I strongly suggest you don't read any further. Spoilers ahead.

The controversial aspect of the film is revealed half way into it when the characters learn that they are caught in the middle of a war that has been going on "forever" as Ian McKellen explains. "The Last Supper" painted by Leonardo Da Vinci will probably not be looked at the same way again after people watch this film. The film argues that the man sitting next to Jesus' right (our left) is not John the Baptist, but Mary Magdalene, and that Jesus and her were married and had a child. The significance of the painting is that Da Vinci belonged to a secret organization that knew of this "greatest kept secret in the world." The force of antagonism in this film comes in the form of a secret Catholic organization that hunts down the living descendants of Jesus Christ, because if anyone were to find out about Jesus' marriage with Mary, this "Truth" would destroy the Church. I must mention here that Paul Bettany's role as a monk assassin is chillingly superb and adds a certain intensity to the movie. But there has to be more, right? This can't be the surprise, the audience is thinking. No, the surprise comes at the very end, but I'm sure the audience is smart enough to figure it out sooner. I don't mean this in a bad way though, because Ron Howard makes you unsure about your conclusions, he still keeps you into it, so I don't believe the ending is a disappointment.

As a Summer movie, is it good fun and entertaining? Yes. As Ron Howard said, "It's entertainment, not theology." However one might say that it is sinful for one to take the Holy scriptures and twist it for material profit. I can see how I might find myself siding with this view, but the reason why I'm not encouraging the boycott of this film is because of its ending. I'm not sure if its the same in the book, but the filmmakers use Tom Hanks to tell the audience: It all depends on what YOU believe. I think the film leaves things open for discussion and opinion, I don't think its intentions are to change people's beliefs.

I know that if I were to encounter a fellow Muslim who all of a sudden believes Jesus was married and had a child after watching this film, I wouldn't feel indifferent to the film because I believe it is being misinterpretated as a movie that's trying to convert people's beliefs. My faith in Jesus being single and a virgin has not changed, nor has it shifted in any way after watching the movie. Many people may compare the way Christians are reacting to this film with the cartoon drawings of Muhammad, peace be upon him. I believe these incidents are different, however, since the cartoons of Muhammad depicted him as a terrorist, while all this movie is saying is that Jesus was married and has living descendants. On second thought, I guess to believe in such a thing would virtually destroy Christianity, wouldn't it?

Honestly though, I don't believe the book or the film are meant to change people's beliefs about Jesus being single, especially considering the manner in which it is presented: pretty much a B-movie popcorn flick filled with puzzles, riddles, treasure hunts, chase scenes, and nice touches of justified deus ex machina. My advice is... if you believe strongly about your faith, whether it be Christianity or Islam, and you are open-minded to a fictional entertaining film, then by all means, see "The Da Vinci Code." If you are sensitive to the idea of Jesus being married and having a child with Mary Magdalene, then do as Ron Howard says, "Don't see the movie if you know it will upset you."

p.s.  Ron Howard should have utilized Jean Reno more.

In an age of countless computer animated films, Tim Burton's "Corpse Bride" returns the film medium to classic puppet stop-animation. I do not mean to bash on computer animation for I immensly respect the works of George Lucas and Pixar films, but lately, there have been other programs and films that simply play on the success of computer animation instead of exploring it's significant purpose to tell a story.

"Corpse Bride" is a return to the animation we've seen in "The Nightmare before Christmas" (another Tim Burton production). I saw this movie last night and found it pleasantly relaxing and charming; a priceless experience and uncommon combination of darkness and light that harps on a return to the child within and, at the same time, touches upon mature themes. From the title, you'd expect to see something rather twisted, but the world of Tim Burton always promises to deliver unique and fascinating concepts that have a rare blend of darkness and humor. It is hard not to fall in Love with Tim Burton's extraordinary concepts and characters: Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Jack Skellington the Pumpkin King, his unique takes on Batman, Ichabod Crane, and Willy Wonka, and now the brilliance of his latest creation, the Corpse Bride.

The story starts off as a simple Love story when two young people from respectable families are arranged to be married. To their surprise, and ours, Victor (voiced by Johnny Depp) and Victoria (voiced by Emily Watson) fall in Love at first sight. But a strange and eerie turn of events complicates their lives when Victor accidentally brings a corpse bride (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter) back to the world of the living. The character of the corpse bride is tragic; an innocent, trapped woman who suffered from a great wrong. Her Love for Victor makes her feel as if her dead body has been restored with new life. The film touches on universal human emotions such as finding a special life partner and Love, but it also deals with an interesting theme of life and death.

"Corpse Bride" is an atmospherically dark and gloomy film, and yet, it is one of the most charming and compelling tales of Love and sacrifice I've ever seen. The animation is vivid and breathtaking, the characters and voices are adorable, the humor is wonderful, Danny Elfman's music is chillingly relaxing, and the lessons it contains are valuable.

People of all ages can enjoy this, be sure to check it out

Late in high school, I became an avid fan of Luc Besson, a French filmmaker with an extraordinarily unique visual style of story telling. Each shot is delicately composed and framed to mirror the ultimate defining theme of the film. “The Fifth Element” was a film that I watched countless numbers of times because I found his visual style to be reflective of his French ethnicity. This affected my work immensely because it not only inspired me to incorporate my culture, but also to seek a style that is beyond the norm, something that is different and unique.

 

“The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc” (or “Joan of Arc” as the international director’s cut is titled) is a film that I revisited recently and until now, I don’t think I fully understood the meaning of the film when I was younger. It is an enormously visually stunning film with a strong mystical theme. The actual story of Jeanne d’Arc (Joan of Arc) itself is an inward struggle between Jeanne and her inner demons. I remember reading excessively in my high school's library about Jeanne d’Arc after I saw this movie. I was so fascinated by her that I would skip lunch and go to the library to read about her instead. Although there are some historical inaccuracies (such as Jeanne witnessing the rape of her sister, which never happened), the movie stays fairly close to the actual events. Luc Besson even had actors read from the actual transcripts for Jeanne’s trial towards the end of the movie. But one of the valuable lessons I’ve been learning in my screenwriting class is that the poorest excuse for making a movie is that it’s a true story, and even if one decides to make a true story, the actual events don’t matter if they don’t serve the purpose of progressing the film forward.

 

But these technical details aside, the beauty of this story is how devout and spiritual Jeanne is at the beginning of the film. She’s about ten years old and instead of playing with her friends, she prefers to stay in church, confess her sins, and “speak to Him.” The priest asks, “who is this He?” Jeanne responds “He never says His name.” Jeanne explains how this voice of hers tells her to be good and help everyone. Then she asks the priest, “Do you think it’s coming from the sky?” The priest smiles and says “I think so. But wherever it’s coming from, I think you should listen to Him, because He is giving you very good advice.” This opening scene sets up the entire film of how Jeanne’s heart is led by the voices she hears.

 

Along with other characters, we question whether or not Jeanne really has direct communication with God. For me, the most interesting aspect of the film is her visions, which are woven beautifully throughout. A virgin at the age of 19, Jeanne leads her first battle, but later observes the horrors and brutalities of war around her. A vision appears to her at the end of the battle and asks, “What are you doing Jeanne?” Jeanne starts to realize that blood and violence is not the way to peace. When she is betrayed and captured at Burgundy, we are introduced to Dustin Hoffman’s character, who is actually a personification of Jeanne’s conscience.

 

I like this part of the film because when Jeanne is speaking to Dustin Hoffman’s character, she is not speaking to anyone else but her inner Self. The real war is not riding on a horse and battling the English; the real war is the battle she must fight within. This is the same war we all fight every day. Sure, we have conflicts in the outside world, but to meet these challenges, we must consult within and make choices under pressure. Jeanne reveals how the “signs” she saw were not actually signs sent by God, but merely her own desires to believe and perceive them as signs. “You did not see what was Jeanne,” says her conscience, “you saw what you wanted to see.” But can we not admit ourselves that we have also held such beliefs? Have you ever experienced an event or something in your life, like a coincidence for example, that made you believe that it was a sign sent by God? To say Jeanne was extreme is a strong statement, but by saying so, I mean that in a postive way because I believe she is an incredible figure in the history of our humanity. She reminds me of Prophets and mystics in respect to their battle with personal desires and devotion to God. Her story is as compelling as it is tragic because we sympathize and empathize with Jeanne. We sympathize and admire Jeanne for her courage and bravery to defeat the English army, but we empathize with her because of her struggle with the external and internal worlds.

 

Jeanne is put to trial in the English court for heresy, or in other words, for claiming to be a messenger from God. What Besson is trying to show in these scenes is how devout and spiritual Servants of God are, ironically, prosecuted and executed by their own people. It also shares a valuable lesson about how there always seems to be people who need to see to believe. I personally share Besson’s beliefs in that Jeanne did not directly speak to God, but rather she was more along the lines of a mystic. Her experiences were real because human emotions are real. There are still some mysterious events that revolve around Jeanne’s life, but many are afraid to say “it was a miracle.” Her Love for God also became a tragic danger for her because it drove her onward to pursue battle, revealing Jeanne’s own contradictions. At one point, she preaches peace, but at another, she wages war. The performance by Milla Jovovich, by the way, is very well done (unfortunately, ever since she broke up with Luc Besson, she’s been doing cheesy “Resident Evil” movies and trashy, meaninglessly violent “Kill Bill” rip-offs). But we all make contradictions. This is simply in our human nature. The point is not whether or not Jeanne is right or wrong; the point is that Jeanne strives to do what is good for all human beings. She thinks she is destined to lead the French against the English, but when she witnesses the atrocities of war, she realizes that all human beings are created from the same God.

 

The beautiful thing about the ending is how Jeanne confesses to herself about how “selfish” and “cruel” she was. I didn’t understand this scene when I first saw it, but now I do. As the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said “Happy is the Soul who finds flaws in himself.” Jeanne explains to the English priest that she is not trying to save her body, but her soul. She accepts her own flaws, and ultimately, her own death. In worship, we experience utter humility. We submit ourselves to something Greater than us. At the end, Jeanne no longer perceived herself as a superior being, but as a regular human being who strived to devote herself to God. The key word is “strived,” because there are times in the film when we see Jeanne grow angry and selfish, but this is all part of her learning process.

 

Many people misunderstand this movie and think Luc Besson concludes that Jeanne d’Arc was a mere lunatic. The truth of the matter is, it’s much more complicated than that. I believe there is a madness in religion that is largely left out in Orthodox teachings, no matter what religion you belong to. When I say “madness,” I do not suggest insanity or lunacy, nor do I invoke lack of control or discipline. What I mean is an inexplicable Passion for something that cannot be seen by the eyes. Something so powerful that it causes one to believe it is worth dieing for. It causes the physical world to scramble for logic and explainations because it lacks understanding of the Spiritual realm. When we have such experiences that we can't find words to describe, we are called "crazy" by the majority of the world because they live on the outside. This is the craziness and madness I invoke. A man asked how often he should be mindful of God and was told by the Prophet to remember God excessively until someone labels you a madman. I have written this hadith (saying of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) many times, not to simply justify what I'm saying, but to point out the Universally shared human experiences. It is a realization and a discovery to a vision of a better world, a world beyond material value. To choose an inexplicable Force over worldly life is an incredible and admirable choice of a human being. The beauty of our humanity and existence lives deep inside. The film conveys that Jeanne cared more about the purity of her Soul – something Unseen and immeasurable – rather than her life on Earth. When she is proven "guilty" and as a "heretic," she is burned at the age of 19, but Besson masterfully paints the finale not as flames of torment, but as flames of Passion.

 

I believe anyone of any faith can enjoy this film. It is about how we are all driven by desires that we simply cannot explain. The only question it leaves is: Where did Luc Besson go? He hasn’t directed a movie since this one :P