Skip to main content

Big bada boom.

The Fifth Element
(1997)

(SPOILERS) Goofy movies that don’t announce their intent or stick to clearly-defined genre templates can get a rough ride. Ones that exhibit a “European” sense of humour even more so. Luc Besson’s long-gestating science fiction fantasy action comedy (he had the idea when he was 15, which critics would surely claim tells you everything) is underpinned by the simplest – some would say trite and hackneyed – of concepts, but unlike, say, Ridley Scott’s Legend, which also paints on the most unsophisticated of thematic canvasses, The Fifth Element’s core sincerity is diffused by overwhelming irreverence everywhere else. This is a mad, crazy, whacky, indulgent, over the top, immensely likeable rush of a movie, added to which it boasts design work as breath-taking as Blade Runner’s, albeit shooting in completely the opposite direction. Most of all, it is shamelessly, flamboyantly camp, which can be a very difficult sell to more conservative tastes.


If I were to find fault in The Fifth Element, I might point to that freeze-frame ending, which is on the naff side (and much as I like the Roger Moore Bonds, repeating the “He’s busy shagging sir” motif doesn’t quite work here; more in tune is the stewardess climaxing via Ruby as a bomb goes off), and that Leeloo’s reaction to all the hurt that humans inflict, even in such an intentionally unrefined manner as depicted here, is so overdone, it’s difficult not to groan at the faux-naivety. But those are relatively minor shortcomings. I adore the picture’s exuberance, its dedication to being its own thing, kowtowing to no one for pointers on acceptable approaches or genre boundaries. Such individuality, though, can do for a picture if it’s unleashed on unsympathetic critics and audiences. It’s particularly notable that the movie made 75% of its take outside the US (it came in ninth for the year globally), even with the Brucie bonus factor to bolster its appeal.


Ah yes, Bruce Willis. Even at his zenith, Willis’ bankability was patchy, but he still managed a Top 10 movie globally in five years of that decade. The Fifth Element represents something of a transition point, however. This is the last time we will really see fun Bruce Willis, the Bruce Willis who, for all the stories of an unchained ego, delivered something charismatic and relatable, above and beyond the all-purpose steely, impassive gaze masquerading as depth or thoughtfulness (and more commonly an all-purpose steely, impassive gaze on auto-pilot). 


This is just about the last time we’d reap dividends from Willis’ willingness to mock himself or not take himself and his “craft” seriously (he even gets bopped on the head, and doesn’t shoot anyone until the third act). Sure, there are a few comedic exceptions later (Disney’s The Kid, The Whole Nine Yards) but they aren’t ones to be celebrated. Here we get Willis with his Die Hard gun-toting and his whip smart, whacky, mouthing off (Hudson Hawk), and it’s refreshing to recall just why he was a star back then. He has long-since calcified, alas.


He looks like he’s having a ball here, but then again so does Gary Oldman as villain Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg. Oldman later attested that he took the gig merely to return a favour to Besson, commenting “Oh no. I can’t bear it”. Which is a shame, as he’s great, rising to the occasion of cartoonish eccentricity-and-then-some in a role where he doesn’t even share screen time with the protagonist (his arms sale to the incompetent Mangalores – “My favourite”, as he lets off a flamethrower – is a particular delight). Of course, Willis’ villains have a habit of blanking all notion of the merit in his more madcap vehicles, with Richard E Grant failing to register the appeal of Hudson Hawk (“What drugs do you take, young man?”), a similarly curate’s egg of a movie.


Almost everyone here could be said to elicit mixed responses from audiences, none more so than Chris Tucker’s Ruby Rhod. I’m generally quite cool on Tucker’s schtick (not that there’s much of it to assess, outside of Rush Hour sequels), but he slays it as the motor-mouthed pan-sexual Prince clone (the role was originally intended for the recently deceased purple pop star), and somehow gets away with implied cunnilingus in PG-rated fare. 


And where else could you gather such an eclectic cast? Willis sharing screen time with Lee Evans?! Gary Oldman accompanied by henchman Tricky (and the latter quite funny at that)? Tiny Lister as the President of Earth? Brion James as a good guy? Ian Holm doing comedy Ian Holm (and stealing whole scenes; he completely gets Besson’s tone)? Luke Perry…


There’s also John Bennett showing up as an Egyptian, continuing his status as a go-to for various ethnicities, and two decades after donning yellow face in Doctor Who’s The Talons of Weng-Chiang. Not that I think Besson would have seen it, but the casting here generally does suggest jackdaw appreciation of genre fare, from Gilliam (Holm in Brazil rather than Holm in Alien, John Neville in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen), to the aforementioned James (more in Crimewave mode than Blade Runner).


And Milla Jovovich as the supreme being of the universe showing a flair for comedy that’s been too-little tapped (see the Zoolanders) along with a beguiling innocence suggestive of a sexually precocious Starman (Bridges), in designer Gaultier threads (and they are mere threads, at least at the start).


Jovovich married Besson for a spell, of course, before getting hitched to Paul W Anderson and becoming most identified in the less than sterling, but financial robust, Resident Evil franchise. She’s every bit as vital to The Fifth Element’s success as Willis and Oldman, with her pigeon English and Neo-like capacity for learning Kung Fu from watching TV (I wonder where the Wachowskis got their idea from?) What exactly is the nature of Leeloo’s supreme being-ness that she goes on to have a normal relationship with a human? Besson is really unconcerned by such things; it’s a “love conquers all” scenario, not one to be analysed for literal sense, since the premise doesn’t support any kind of literal sense.


Much as I wish Besson well with his return to the lavish sci-fi well in next year’s Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, I’m given pause by the lead casting; Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Ethan Hawke?  DeHaan in particular is a fine actor, but there’s a distinct danger that, whatever the merits of the movie, the performers will slide indistinctly into the bold, captivating spectacle Besson is fashioning. Look what happened with the similarly star-deficient Jupiter Ascending, Godzilla, and recent Ben-Hur.


Valerian is sure to look amazing, at any rate, since Besson’s facility for science fiction world building (putting Lucy to one side) is up there with the greats. Here he eschews the darkness and gloom of dystopian sci-fi and instead accomplishes the impossible feat of something equally arresting. An over-populated, cramped, industrialised Earth that manages not to be depressing (there’s no greenery here; even the 1914 prologue is all desert), one where even the corporate culpability that is McDonalds is to be perversely celebrated/ripped. 


Mostly because he populates it with bizarre, absurd (those police uniforms), colourful costumes, daft conceits (even the cigarettes are reversed), and awesome design work from Moebius (Jean Giraud) and Valerian artist Jean-Claude Mezieres. The cityscape is amazing, the air cars extraordinary (the effects still look top notch), and the creature designs are just the right side of silly.


Dallas: Urgh, just found a picture of you.
Munro: How do I look?
Dallas: Like shit.
Munro: Must be an old picture.

The movie is full of lovely little asides and irresistible details, from the prologue onwards (“Ah-ah, are you German?” asks John Bluthal’s Professor Pacoli of the Mondoshawans) to the ever-present voice of Korben Dallas’ mum (“You miserable bastard, I should never have pushed you out”) and the banter with James’ General Munro, to Mathieu Kassovitz’s incompetent, drugged-up mugger (“That’s a nice hat”: “You like it?”), all staged and framed by Besson with an eye for the bold, clean, and caricatured, ready to bust right out of the frame. 


There’s Korben’s boss-eyed cat, the priests’ coyness over Leeloo and Munro’s lack thereof (“I’d like to take a few pictures – for the archives”; such invasiveness is counterpointed when Dallas is told at gunpoint “Never without my permission” after he kisses her sleeping), Zorg choking as a desktop elephant gets popped with a cherry, Dallas asking Cornelius “But you must drink a lot of coffee being a priest, huh?”, and the Marx Brothers-esque hiding of various parties in Corbin’s cramped apartment.


Cornelius: You are a monster, Zorg.
Zorg: I know.

And accompanying the proceedings is a magnificently rambunctious electronic score from Eric Serra. Serra copped a lot of flak for his contribution to Goldeneye two years earlier (I mostly really liked it), and his work has generally been confined to servicing Besson, for whom he is the perfect accompaniment, offering bold rhythmic beats that synchronise dramatically or humorously with the precisely edited images. For all the wackiness, he can also provoke awe, such as the operatic performance by Diva Plavalaguna (Inva Mula did the singing, while Maiwenn Le Besco, who was married to Luc Besson, personified her; the liaison between Besson and Maiwenn is a whole can of worms, particularly if it leads you to read strong elements of autobiography into Léon).


What of the thematic core then, that of the fifth element being love (in concert with “Evil begets evil, Mr President”)? I mean, it’s childlike and artless, but while I’m usually one to scowl at such obviousness in a movie, I find it very easy to be pulled along here, the aforementioned “What’s the use of saving life when you see what you do to it” aside (also rather clunkily called upon in Cameron’s The Abyss eight years earlier). It’s not as if the almighty force threatening to destroy the universe isn’t a tried and tested trope (at least two Star Trek movies have employed it), and the verve and panache of the telling, and chemistry between Willis and Jovovich, leave me with little to grumble about.


I don’t think The Fifth Element is a particularly deep film (and its self-awareness and high camp make it resistant to the kind of analyses that would ascribe serious layering, be it in terms of gender stereotyping or profound commentary on our capacity for self-destruction), but it’s a tremendously good-spirited one, encapsulating a joie de vivre and infectious knockabout anarchy, combined with its director at his unfettered best.








Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …