Are you serious?. God does not exist. "He could" give her MANY SIGNS, but he couldn't save her (as usual). She was more evolved than the people back then; full stop.
@@Nepente333 Actually the atoms that made up her body don't need saving, they are all ( every one of them) still here in this Universe. We get to use them for a time. Given the fact that we can only perceive or measure less than 4% of the visible Universe and of that 4% we barley understand a fraction of it, as I respect your right to make the claim that God doesn't exist. I hardly think you have adequate information to make such an informed decision. Or perhaps you will turn out to be correct ( only because of the way you have decided to measure it, because the way we measure the quantum often decided the outcome. Besides What is your definition of being saved or not? As I said her atoms didn't need saving. Here is a question that will really bake your noodle. If God does not exist then why is there quantum error correcting code written into nature? look it up. you will be surprised.
@@cr0nus821 Atoms ? universe ? quantum theory ? 400 years ago you'd have been damned from the grace of god for mentioning these blasphemous things with a healthy chance of being burned alive . By whose authority do you claim there is a god when you couldn't move a single hair by your faith in god ?
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 , I completely understand that you are (and very rightfully so) appalled at the thing's people have done, supposedly in the name of God. I am also and it also makes me angry. Just so you know. If a person does not truly submit to God and is taught by God. Things like the Bible will only make that person more of what they already are. In most cases the end result of such a person is ruinous. All the things they have sought to hide, come to light. Then that person usually self destructs. History has born this out time and again. I say this to you because this is the real issue you have, and the real reason you have replied to my comment. What you choose for yourself isn't anyone's business and no one has a right to comdem you for what you have chosen. People do so because they are weak and without knowledge. As for the other things you have mentioned. I do not do anything on my own authority, to be honest I do not want authority, especially over anyone else. However what I said about the universe and quantum theory are still true. As for what people would have done 400 years ago. You are absolutely correct, they would have, after all they did crucify Christ Jesus. What hope would I possiblity have of escaping their condemnation? For thiers is the way of the world. On a side note, it may be of interest to you, to look up quantum micro tubulars. But that's completely up to you. You are the Captain of your own ship. As for me, I have had it proven time and again through personal experience. However when I eat an Orange, I can only tell you how it tasted. As that experience is mine not yours. And that is ok.
I almost cried here, I'm a Christian (not Catholic) and i knew if she confessed to man one more time instead of to our Lord and savior she would have surely burned forever, but she repented and I was so happy for her, one of the best endings to a movie I've ever scene and DEFINETLY the most satisfying
What are you on about? In the Scriptures, St. John 20:23 permits the Apostles to forgive sins or to retain them. Apostolic Succession is a thing since the Apostles, and then they appointed Bishops to replace them when they died, such as St. Pope Linus and St. Clement of Rome, who are both mentioned in the Bible to have met an Apostle and succeed St. Peter in Rome
Historians have pointed out that this entire movie was almost entirely fictional, and this section at the end was one of the most fictional parts. The scriptwriter, Andrew Birkin, said he wrote the script based on his personal belief that the Bible says that God would never support even defensive warfare under any circumstances, hence he has her reject her own visions and then receive absolution from sin only after renouncing all things military. Some people seem to think the movie promotes atheism, but it actually promotes Birkin's version of Christianity. He gave her a revenge motive based on an entirely fictitious rape and murder scene in which Joan's sister Catherine is killed by English troops, which never happened: Joan herself mentioned that Catherine was still alive during her campaigns, hence she certainly wasn't killed during Joan's childhood as the movie claims. Birkin also, despite his anti-war views, made her into a fighter - e.g. she punches an armored English soldier with her bare fists and makes lone charges against the enemy - in spite of the fact that she said bluntly at her trial that she didn't fight (she said she carried her banner and stayed out of the fighting).
and Jean didn't actually speak English and probably didn't look like Milla Jovovich... so what? there was a hell of a lot of factual shit in here too that you don't point out. is this less of a movie for the historical liberties it took?
@@Reaglejuice89 The "historical liberties" were on important points whereas the authentic parts were mostly minor or just basic things (yes, Orleans existed, etc).
@@actadiurna6733 Your god is a schizophrenic man's episode in a desert somewhere . Like joan of arc who died because she lived in a time where people didn't had knowle of mental problems .
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 LOL. Your phrase "didn't had knowle of" doesn't make any sense, so maybe you're the schizophrenic. Both doctors and historians have pointed out that Joan didn't exhibit the outward symptoms that the APA defines as criteria for schizophrenia or other mental illnesses since each mental illness entails a number of outwardly-identifiable symptoms such as chronic memory loss (in the case of schizophrenia) or seizures (in the case of epilepsy) which she didn't have. If you're just trying to live up to your name "Original Rude Boy" you're going to be blocked as a troll.
@@actadiurna6733 picking on a clear typo, you're just a low life fanatic .Your god doesn't exist and Joan of arc although a hero was a product of brainwashing, of church that ultimately condemned her to a horrible death .
8Kung sinasabi nating wala tayong kasalanan, dinadaya natin ang ating sarili at ang katotohanan ay wala sa atin. 9Kung ihahayag natin ang ating mga kasalanan, siya ay matapat at matuwid na magpapatawad at maglilinis sa atin sa lahat ng ating kalikuan. 10Kung sinasabi nating hindi tayo nagkasala, ginagawa natin siyang sinungaling at ang salita niya ay wala sa atin. 1 Juan 1:8-10
@@GaryHField not really, those we're the Burgundian, the opposing party. Charles reportedly wanted to help, buuuut as we see didn't really take action, perhaps due to lack of means
No, King Charles abandoned her in Paris and didn't put any faith in her after that. He was more worried about relaxing, eating, and saving money for himself. If I were King of France, I'd try to take the country back like William Wallace tried to do @@ogladaczr.t.3168
Qual era o real motivo que ela queria salvar o seu pais? Justiça ou vingança pela morte da irma. Qual e a intenção do nosso coração quando fazemos o que fazemos???
Yeah, but this whole movie is confusing I liked Leelee Sobieski's movie but this one is crap I think Joan of arc was more disappointed with this movie than Leelee's.
Its basically the last version of Jeanne's 'visions'. Some, even the movie has it labeled as her conscious - with how the character is played, just isn't true. In essence, its God blowing holes in everything shes done and saving her in the end. You can make the argument one way or another, thats just how I feel the character is played IMO.
Dustin Hoffman's character in the movie asks as a foil to Joan's hubris. The entire flick she justifies her rage as coming directly from God. The Conscience (Hoffman) is her morality catching up with her now that imprisonment has given her time to reflect on her actions and her motivations. It makes sense: no saint thinks of themselves as a saint. She acknowledges the uglier parts of her feelings.
@@joanamummert9993 the character is listed as "The Conscience", but it isn't clear whos conscience it is. You can interpret it as her conscience, but I honestly find that hard to believe, because why would her conscience appear as an old monk? There also things The Conscience says that doesn't match up with it being her conscience. So I interpret it as The Holy Spirit.
i asked the same question and i think his character was full of crap, i don't know what the intention of the writers was but other people say he was her conscience...
BEST SCENE IN THE WHOLE MOVIE!
Your comment has almost a decade
BEST SCENE IN ANY MOVIE !!!
As a teenager I used to watch this and braveheart ending scene over and over. Im not sure how I did it as it was on tv. In 1999 or so
I fought for battle. For revenge lust greed and war. I fought for demons: I fought for ambition
Dustin Hoffman is a beast in this movie
Do you want to confess?
It’s chilling to watch. Very powerful.
This is the best part. I always cry during this part, knowing that god can be sentimental and forgiving even for the cruelest sins committed.
Are you serious?. God does not exist. "He could" give her MANY SIGNS, but he couldn't save her (as usual). She was more evolved than the people back then; full stop.
Nepente333 where’s your proof
@@Nepente333 Actually the atoms that made up her body don't need saving, they are all ( every one of them) still here in this Universe. We get to use them for a time. Given the fact that we can only perceive or measure less than 4% of the visible Universe and of that 4% we barley understand a fraction of it, as I respect your right to make the claim that God doesn't exist. I hardly think you have adequate information to make such an informed decision. Or perhaps you will turn out to be correct ( only because of the way you have decided to measure it, because the way we measure the quantum often decided the outcome. Besides What is your definition of being saved or not? As I said her atoms didn't need saving. Here is a question that will really bake your noodle. If God does not exist then why is there quantum error correcting code written into nature? look it up. you will be surprised.
@@cr0nus821 Atoms ? universe ? quantum theory ? 400 years ago you'd have been damned from the grace of god for mentioning these blasphemous things with a healthy chance of being burned alive . By whose authority do you claim there is a god when you couldn't move a single hair by your faith in god ?
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 , I completely understand that you are (and very rightfully so) appalled at the thing's people have done, supposedly in the name of God. I am also and it also makes me angry. Just so you know. If a person does not truly submit to God and is taught by God. Things like the Bible will only make that person more of what they already are. In most cases the end result of such a person is ruinous. All the things they have sought to hide, come to light. Then that person usually self destructs. History has born this out time and again. I say this to you because this is the real issue you have, and the real reason you have replied to my comment. What you choose for yourself isn't anyone's business and no one has a right to comdem you for what you have chosen. People do so because they are weak and without knowledge. As for the other things you have mentioned. I do not do anything on my own authority, to be honest I do not want authority, especially over anyone else. However what I said about the universe and quantum theory are still true. As for what people would have done 400 years ago. You are absolutely correct, they would have, after all they did crucify Christ Jesus. What hope would I possiblity have of escaping their condemnation? For thiers is the way of the world. On a side note, it may be of interest to you, to look up quantum micro tubulars. But that's completely up to you. You are the Captain of your own ship. As for me, I have had it proven time and again through personal experience. However when I eat an Orange, I can only tell you how it tasted. As that experience is mine not yours. And that is ok.
This movie has many campy moments, but this scene is incredible.
A great scene!. A wonderful song!.
Adrian Tellez it is my best movie
I almost cried here, I'm a Christian (not Catholic) and i knew if she confessed to man one more time instead of to our Lord and savior she would have surely burned forever, but she repented and I was so happy for her, one of the best endings to a movie I've ever scene and DEFINETLY the most satisfying
What are you on about? In the Scriptures, St. John 20:23 permits the Apostles to forgive sins or to retain them. Apostolic Succession is a thing since the Apostles, and then they appointed Bishops to replace them when they died, such as St. Pope Linus and St. Clement of Rome, who are both mentioned in the Bible to have met an Apostle and succeed St. Peter in Rome
I am now orthodox actually :)@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515
Historians have pointed out that this entire movie was almost entirely fictional, and this section at the end was one of the most fictional parts. The scriptwriter, Andrew Birkin, said he wrote the script based on his personal belief that the Bible says that God would never support even defensive warfare under any circumstances, hence he has her reject her own visions and then receive absolution from sin only after renouncing all things military. Some people seem to think the movie promotes atheism, but it actually promotes Birkin's version of Christianity. He gave her a revenge motive based on an entirely fictitious rape and murder scene in which Joan's sister Catherine is killed by English troops, which never happened: Joan herself mentioned that Catherine was still alive during her campaigns, hence she certainly wasn't killed during Joan's childhood as the movie claims. Birkin also, despite his anti-war views, made her into a fighter - e.g. she punches an armored English soldier with her bare fists and makes lone charges against the enemy - in spite of the fact that she said bluntly at her trial that she didn't fight (she said she carried her banner and stayed out of the fighting).
and Jean didn't actually speak English and probably didn't look like Milla Jovovich... so what? there was a hell of a lot of factual shit in here too that you don't point out. is this less of a movie for the historical liberties it took?
@@Reaglejuice89 The "historical liberties" were on important points whereas the authentic parts were mostly minor or just basic things (yes, Orleans existed, etc).
@@actadiurna6733 Your god is a schizophrenic man's episode in a desert somewhere . Like joan of arc who died because she lived in a time where people didn't had knowle of mental problems .
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 LOL. Your phrase "didn't had knowle of" doesn't make any sense, so maybe you're the schizophrenic. Both doctors and historians have pointed out that Joan didn't exhibit the outward symptoms that the APA defines as criteria for schizophrenia or other mental illnesses since each mental illness entails a number of outwardly-identifiable symptoms such as chronic memory loss (in the case of schizophrenia) or seizures (in the case of epilepsy) which she didn't have. If you're just trying to live up to your name "Original Rude Boy" you're going to be blocked as a troll.
@@actadiurna6733 picking on a clear typo, you're just a low life fanatic .Your god doesn't exist and Joan of arc although a hero was a product of brainwashing, of church that ultimately condemned her to a horrible death .
They cut the scene, the funeral pyre scene is missing. (with dramatical music!) The best!
Leila Samarrai it is my best movie
I love you
8Kung sinasabi nating wala tayong kasalanan, dinadaya natin ang ating sarili at ang katotohanan ay wala sa atin. 9Kung ihahayag natin ang ating mga kasalanan, siya ay matapat at matuwid na magpapatawad at maglilinis sa atin sa lahat ng ating kalikuan. 10Kung sinasabi nating hindi tayo nagkasala, ginagawa natin siyang sinungaling at ang salita niya ay wala sa atin.
1 Juan 1:8-10
French people turned her to the hands of their enemies.
@@RayB1656 They did, specifically, Charles Valois.
@@GaryHField not really, those we're the Burgundian, the opposing party. Charles reportedly wanted to help, buuuut as we see didn't really take action, perhaps due to lack of means
No, King Charles abandoned her in Paris and didn't put any faith in her after that. He was more worried about relaxing, eating, and saving money for himself. If I were King of France, I'd try to take the country back like William Wallace tried to do @@ogladaczr.t.3168
I simply don't understand how this movie has just 6.4 on imdb.
ditto. its a great film. underrated
Amazing scene!
wow, certain parts of this dialouge were not in the DVD i bought...
glad I'm not the only one
the messenger was her own conscience,
@EmmyRossumFan94
Its her conscience
Best scene ever
@EisigHollen epic comment =p I agree completely
to tell the truth i thought her "Concious" was the devil at first till i read more about the movie.
The false doctrine is of lucifer
Ahhh!
Milla's ASMR 😳
Qual era o real motivo que ela queria salvar o seu pais? Justiça ou vingança pela morte da irma. Qual e a intenção do nosso coração quando fazemos o que fazemos???
Yeah, but this whole movie is confusing I liked Leelee Sobieski's movie but this one is crap I think Joan of arc was more disappointed with this movie than Leelee's.
what have happened to her face????
it looks like Scream!!
What was the point of Dustin Hoffman's character in this movie? His character in Outbreak had a point. I just don't get his character in this movie.
Its basically the last version of Jeanne's 'visions'.
Some, even the movie has it labeled as her conscious - with how the character is played, just isn't true.
In essence, its God blowing holes in everything shes done and saving her in the end.
You can make the argument one way or another, thats just how I feel the character is played IMO.
Dustin Hoffman's character in the movie asks as a foil to Joan's hubris. The entire flick she justifies her rage as coming directly from God. The Conscience (Hoffman) is her morality catching up with her now that imprisonment has given her time to reflect on her actions and her motivations. It makes sense: no saint thinks of themselves as a saint. She acknowledges the uglier parts of her feelings.
It was said that Besson was in need major actors for his movies,
especially playing for an American public.
My life.... 12 - 29
Dustin Hoffman was The Archangel Michael.
No he was lucifer
no it was her conscience
@@joanamummert9993 the character is listed as "The Conscience", but it isn't clear whos conscience it is. You can interpret it as her conscience, but I honestly find that hard to believe, because why would her conscience appear as an old monk? There also things The Conscience says that doesn't match up with it being her conscience. So I interpret it as The Holy Spirit.
Dany on season 8
this is my life
you could explain just a bit more.... this could be interesting !
ba't parang gulat ka?
i asked the same question and i think his character was full of crap, i don't know what the intention of the writers was but other people say he was her conscience...
in the aspect of things jehanne de arc accomplished fuckall compared to lords like bedford and john talbot