The Fifth Element (1997). Directed by Luc Besson. Written by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. Starring Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Ian Holm, Gary Oldman, and Chris Tucker.
Once upon a time, somewhere in the French countryside, a bored teenager began to write a novel. It was pretty much exactly what you’d expect from an imaginative sixteen-year-old boy: hundreds of pages about an everyman character with a ridiculous sci fi name having madcap adventures in a futuristic city and falling in love with an ancient being who looks (of course) like a beautiful teenage girl.
We’ve all been there, spilling our teenage hearts all over pages and pages of notebooks. Alas, most of us will never get the chance to turn our cherished teenage ramblings into blockbuster movies. We’re not Steven Spielberg with his teenage stories about UFOs, or James Cameron with his teenage fascination with deep sea exploration.
Or Luc Besson with his hundreds of pages of unfinished novel about a guy who drives a flying taxi in a futuristic sci fi city.
Most of us will never get that chance, but I’m glad Besson did, because I love this movie and I’m so happy that it exists.
Besson first wrote the story that would evolve into The Fifth Element in the mid-’70s. The story evolved over the years; Besson started working in film from a young age and so quickly shifted from writing prose to writing screenplays. Eventually he rewrote this particular story as a very long screenplay (400 pages!), then tried to split that into screenplays for two movies, and finally condensed it into a single film.
Work on The Fifth Element began in the early ’90s, after Besson found international success with La Femme Nikita (1990). With a script in hand and production company Gaumont on board, Besson approached French comics artists Jean “Moebius” Giraud and Jean-Claude Mézières to bring his vision to life. Concept artists are always important in sci fi cinema, but that is especially true in this case. The Fifth Element is not based on a comic, but it absolutely looks and feels like a comic, to a degree that many adaptations of comics to film never achieve, and that some actively try to avoid. I think it’s a big part of the film’s charm that so much of its aesthetic has that retro comics feel.
We’ve seen Giraud’s work in other sci fi films; he contributed concept art to Tron (1982) and The Abyss (1989). Before that, he worked on Alejandro Jodorowsky’s never-made Dune. After that film was abandoned, Giraud co-founded the magazine Métal Hurlant, a sci fi comics anthology that hit the comics world with a splash.
This is not the place to get into a detail history of comics, but Métal Hurlant was hugely influential during its years of publication from 1975 to 1987. It has been recognized as an influence on sci fi movies across the board: everything from Star Wars to Alien (1979), Mad Max (1979) to Blade Runner (1982), Akira (1988) to the works of Studio Ghibli. It played a large part in developing a new visual style for sci fi through the ’70s and ’80s, and Giraud’s artwork is a big part of that.
Similarly, the influence of Mézières, and particularly his very long-running comic Valérian (which was published from 1967 until 2018), can be seen in sci fi from the ’70s and onward—although mostly via the filter of Star Wars. I don’t think George Lucas ever specifically named Valérian as a source of inspiration (knowledgeable Star Wars fans, correct me if I’m wrong!), but Lucas is and always has been a huge comics nerd, and many film critics have noted the similarities.
Also, as we’ve seen in several films already, the ’70s were when sci fi began embracing that lived-in, worn-down aesthetic, a shift from the clean, mid-century mod looks that had dominated so many earlier films. Valérian was one of the more prominent comics taking that approach at the time. (Besson would eventually adapt Valérian into the film Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets in 2017. I’ve never seen that film, so I welcome opinions from the crowd: Is it worth watching?)
As many of you likely already know, Besson also brought in an artist of an entirely different type to round out the design of the film, with haute couture fashion designer Jean-Paul Gaultier creating the costumes for the film. That means everything from Korben Dallas’ (Bruce Willis) ordinary guy clothes to Vito Cornelius’ (Ian Holm) priest togs of the future to Zorg’s (Gary Oldman) proto-tech bro corporate wear to Ruby Rhod’s (Chris Tucker), well, everything. And, yes, that also includes the barely-there bandages Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) wears when we first meet her. Gaultier designed nearly a thousand costumes for the film, including some nine hundred for the opera scene alone. That’s a lot of costumes, with a lot of unique designs that reference both Gaultier’s previous work and numerous other influences, and it’s hard to overstate just how important they are to the overall look of the film.
I bring up all the artistic elements of The Fifth Element’s visual style for a few reasons. For one thing, I love the film’s artistry, so I want to rave about it. It’s visually striking and unique in many delightful ways, from the aforementioned comic book aura and high fashion costumes to the charmingly old-school sci fi alien designs in the look of the Mondoshawans, the Mangalores, and the diva Plavalaguna (played by Maïwenn Le Besco, with her vocals provided by Inva Mula).
Besson has spoken about how he imagined the futuristic city setting of his story in great detail for years, so of course a great deal of work went into how this New York of the future looks and feels. And because it was made in the ’90s, the movie sits right in that cinematic sweet spot of utilizing both practical and computer effects for maximum impact. The Fifth Element’s New York is, in fact, a gloriously detailed miniature model—a huge miniature, large enough to walk around in, but still a miniature. The flying cars, the restaurant boat, the Mondoshawan ship, the whole of Fhloston Paradise—those are all also miniatures, created under the supervision of effects artist Mark Stetson. (Stetson also made the models for Blade Runner and a gazillion other films.) But all of them are surrounded by digital effects: the layers of traffic in the city, the lower and higher levels of the buildings, the distant buildings and the sky, that’s all layered in with the models to create a busy, vibrant city. It’s a very skillful blend of practical and computer effects, the sort of combination that still doesn’t look the least bit dated.
Note: But some scenes are a lot simpler. The theater aboard Fhloston Paradise is literally just the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden. That’s where they filmed it. Sometimes a film has to fake it, and sometimes a film can just use the real thing.
Second note: Associate producer John Amicarella has told the story about how when he was bringing the negatives of the Diva’s scene at Fhloston Paradise from London (where the movie was primarily filmed) to Los Angeles (where the special effects were produced), the containers carrying the physical reels of film fell out of the airplane and onto the tarmac at LAX, where they were run over by a forklift operator. But they managed to save it.
Third note: Every time I have to look up how to spell “Fhloston” I cry a little inside.
I do also think there’s something more going on, however, when it comes to the film’s visual style, something that is just the fact that it looks cool and was skillfully made. And I think it relates to why people still love this movie so much.
There’s an interesting 1997 interview with Besson and Gaultier in The New York Times, where they talk about the critical response to The Fifth Element in France, as well as being in the peculiar position of working on a film that deliberately mashes up what is traditionally considered high-brow art (French film, high fashion) and what is thought to be more low-brow (sci fi with comics sensibilities, American-style action films). At the time of its production, The Fifth Element was the most expensive French film ever made, something that a great many contemporary reviews note with a combination of bafflement or even faux outrage. It’s as though critics—both in France and abroad—could not comprehend that a French film (from France! where they make arthouse films!) could incorporate the whiz-bang wackiness of American-style action film.
To be clear, the movie was a tremendous success and remains beloved to this day. You can’t swing a tentacle at a convention without hitting a Fifth Element cosplayer, which is a sure sign of enduring love. But it is clear from reading contemporary reactions that a lot of people didn’t quite know what to make of it at first. And I guess I can understand that, especially if one feels it a necessity to make something of a film to justify enjoying it.
But I also think it’s important to note that Besson said, “The movie is not like a big theme movie, but it’s important.” Sure, it’s about saving the world, but that’s deliberately set up in a very straightforward, good versus evil way. Sure, it’s about love defeating evil. And, yes, it takes those big ideas and makes them wacky and camp, with jokes and slapstick and zany misadventures. But the other thing Besson has said about the film is that he wants all of it to lead to that moment at the end when Leeloo asks, “What’s the use in saving life when you see what you do with it?” It may be an oddly serious note at the end of a movie with very few serious moments, but it’s still a good question. What are we doing? What is the use of life when there is so much pain and suffering and violence in the world? What can we do that would make life worth saving?
The movie offers one answer to Leeloo’s question: We can love. But I think, intended or not, the film itself is another answer: We can make art. And we can do it boldly, brashly, without restraint.
Everything about The Fifth Element is meant to be big and flashy and impossible to ignore. The aliens, the villains, the heroes, the settings, the style, it’s all deliberately, joyfully in-your-face, and it never tries to pretend otherwise. It’s not a film with a bit of glitter dusted over the surface; it’s a film with glitter in its bones, all the way down to its core, the kind of glitter that sticks on everything. It’s weird, it’s wacky, it’s all over the place, it’s loud, and most of all it’s fun. It’s a strong argument in favor of never letting go of those wild ideas we had when we were bored and lonely sixteen-year-olds letting our imaginations run wild, to never fully demolishing the worlds we escaped into when we needed a place to play.
The Fifth Element feels like it’s made up of bits and pieces from other sci fi stories across all types of media, because it shares so many influences with so many stories that are woven in the fabric of sci fi media. That makes it comfortable, even familiar, but not in a bad way. Because, at the same time, there really is nothing quite like The Fifth Element. Even now, decades later, there’s nothing like it out there. And that’s brilliant. That’s why it’s so wonderful.
What are your thoughts on The Fifth Element? Has your perspective on it changed over the years?
Next week: I hope you’re ready for some more wacky sci fi misadventures, because we’re watching Repo Man, which a few commenters on this column have suggested over the past year. Watch it on Amazon, Apple, Microsoft
I love its bright cheerful strangeness but still with storming action, the little message in the middle about not isolating yourself with technology, and to this day ID checks at geeky events can lead to calls of MOOL TEE PAAASS!
This was very much not to my taste. I’ve seen it once, found it obnoxiously garish and conceptually stupid, and never wanted to see it again. I might not have quite so negative an opinion of it if it hadn’t included Chris Tucker, whose voice and persona are nails on a chalkboard to me.
Tucker’s performance has grown on me through repeat viewings (the film was a popular party choice at my old theatre). Once you understand that his character is going to be onscreen from Act 2 through the end, and not just a shock cameo, it’s easier to adjust to his energy level. And maintaining that level of energy has to be acknowledged as a serious accomplishment for any film actor.
And if you just can’t stand that energy at all, check out his remarkably restrained work in Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk.
You may want to watch Jackie Brown for a scene involving Chris Tucker that should satisfy you.
I don’t want to see anything bad happen to him (if that’s what you’re implying), I just don’t want to watch or listen to him performing at all.
Love the movie. It’s so deeply ingrained that if it’s ever on TV, I have to watch the whole thing, no matter what time it is or where I am in the world.
Loved this movie. Seen it so many times, several in the theater, on cable, VHS, DVD, and blu-ray. It’s so much fun, and the actors seem to be having a lot of fun doing it.
Except for Bruce Willis, who apparently didn’t like being there and thought the whole thing was going to flop. Which, of course, made his portrayal of Korben Dallas—who ALSO wanted to be anywhere but there—that much more believeable.
Much as I love this film — it’s definitely my favorite of Besson’s films (although I haven’t seen all of them) — I kinda wish we had a film about a guy who drives a flying taxi in that world. Maybe not instead of this one, but in addition to it. On the other hand, sometimes less is more and I also don’t love the compulsion to turn every genre film that is remotely successful into a franchise. So maybe what we have is fine.
But you asked about Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. For what it is worth, my opinion is that it is watchable entertainment, but not much more than that. I found it hard to take the leads seriously. Dane DeHaan in particular just doesn’t really fit the role for me. (Although I don’t think I’m alone in that opinion.) The plot is forgettable (as in I literally could not remember it without looking at a synopsis) but the world-building and visual work is decent.
Re: DeHaan, I’d go so far as to say that the film would have succeeded with almost anyone else in the lead. Clive Owen in his prime would have been ideal.
Your taste is your own, of course, but I thought La Femme Nikita was a significantly better film tbh :)
I liked La Femme Nikita well enough, and it’s probably a better film on some measures. But, having seen it once, I don’t feel any desire to watch it again. I don’t need to spend more time in that world. But the sheer exuberance of The Fifth Element invites rewatches. It’s more of a comfort film (which Nikita is not trying to be).
For sure about the comfort aspect :D
I wouldn’t be that kind. Yes, the look is cool, but the way the male officer keeps hitting on the female enlisted is the sort of thing that a comic might have gotten away with in the 1960’s but is seriously out of place in 2017, and what I recall of the rest of the plot was just silly.
Besson may have written this in the 1970s, but I always felt that L’Incal and the Harry Canyon sequence from Heavy Metal heavily inspired this film.
Still a visually stunning work, of course.
yeah, I always thought that if Giraud wasn’t actually involved, he and Jodorowsky might have grounds for legal action
kinda glad I have a physical copy of this so I can watch it with no risk of Besson seeing any profit, coz I recently learned things, o boy.
I loved it when it first came out and I love it to this day.
I can’t help but wonder if Ruby Rhod is based on some of Luc Besson’s teenage fantasies.
On a side note Adam Savage (on TV’s Savage Builds) built a working model of Zorg’s gun with Gary Oldman’s help. Gary says that the flame thrower was his favorite function.
Reportedly, Besson wanted Prince for Rudy, which would have been a completely different vibe.
Loved this movie. It was an audio visual delight in the cinema. Money very well spent on in-your-face entertainment that eschews the usual SF approaches. And I know someone who has cats named Leeloo and Korben.
IMO this movies shares a plush velvet-lined fun palace with ‘Flash Gordon’ and ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show’. However I do understand why there are people who don’t like it. Saving the universe without a stereotypical three act serious hero’s journey isn’t for everyone. Big budget but not four quadrant will always leave some feeling cold. Worry not. Mr Zorg has something warm for them :D
Edit: The ‘Valerian’ movie? Not so much. Impressive visuals but so poorly cast. Would recommend it as a one shot as long as you keep your expectations in check.
I adore this movie. It is one of the movies that whenever I see it on, I’m bound to watch it to its end. So many lines from this movie are regular quotes in my household. An interesting point in the narrative is that the presented protagonist (Corbin Dallas) and the presented antagonist (Jean Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg) never actually meet face to face in the entire film. The editing in this film is impeccable as well.
As for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, I rather enjoy the film. It is visually spectacular enough to overcome the rather flat acting from the leads. Also the opening sequence is perhaps one of the most beautifully hopeful scenes ever shot in a sci-fi film. I don’t really want to say that the film’s highest peak is in the first 5 minutes, but yeah, it’s close.
I unironically love this movie. It has a wonderful sense of timing running through it, like it’s a dance and everything is being done exactly on the beat while looking effortless.
It reminds me in some ways of the original Star Wars – a gleeful mashup of tropes from a variety of genres, made with passion, talent, and care, that works beautifully in spite of things that would be flaws in something less well executed. It’s extraordinarily hard to reproduce – marketing driven imitators tend to have budget but not soul, and gleefully weird passion projects tend to end up simply messy and incoherent rather than brilliant.
I hadn’t known about the connection with Valerian, which I also enjoyed, but didn’t stick the landing the way The Fifth Element does. The plot needed tightening, and the romance plot really didn’t work for me.
Just a reminder to keep the conversation civil if you would take part–there’s no reason to take others’ opinions personally or respond in a dismissive manner, particularly when that opinion is not expressed as a reply or addressed to you in any way. The full moderation policy can be found here: https://reactormag.com/moderation-policy/
I enjoyed this movie, but I have it filed under “Movies overwhelmed by the art director”. In the same realm as the 100-foot-tall elephants before Minas Tirith. Visually fascinating, and fun to watch, but unutterably ridiculous. (Example: Why would the villain train his thugs in the new weapon, and then murder them all with them a second later? How did they plan to get the magic rocks if someone didn’t blow part the musical act? Why did they put all the passengers in stasis on the way out, when the return too half an hour?)
Though I’d watch it again.
An amazing movie. I watched it three times at the cinema and if it came out again I would go for a fourth. I loved the ending especially. The cast was perfect too. As for Valerian, I think it was okay, but some editing and perhaps a bit more work on the script could have made it a great movie.
(I posted this on my social media back when I saw Valérian – reposting here, for anyone interested)
Alrighty, let’s talk about the Valérian and Laureline film :) I can’t guarantee that there won’t be spoilers below, but I’ll try to keep them to a minimum.
Right off the bat, I’m going to say that I enjoyed it. I was excited months ago when I heard that Luc Beeson was making another sci-fi film (I adore “The Fifth Element” absolutely to bits), and even more excited when I saw that gorgeous trailer, and read up a bit on the source material to find out what it was all about, particularly the acknowledgement that it was a major influence of Star Wars, and shared pages with Asterix. Then the reviews came in, and they were absolutely savage. In particular, the one reviewer that I usually actually bother to read individually instead of in an aggregate – Howard Taylor, author of another respected Space Opera comic, Schlock Mercenary – absolutely crucified it. “Screw it,” I said, “I’ll see it anyway!” – and so I did. I don’t regret it, and would probably see it again, given the opportunity :) I don’t believe the film deserves the vitriol that’s been levelled at it thus far – this was not “Jupiter Ascending”, which I saw after hearing much hype about its charms and was utterly dissapointed by (way to get rescued a lot, Juniper. Now channel all that awesome cosmic power through that menial labour job you decided to keep), but it wasn’t “The Fifth Element” either – it had its flaws, and its graces, its highs and its lows.
“Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets” sounds like the sort of romp you’d get in a sci-fi magazine from the 1960s, which is appropriate given the source material – a serialised sci-fi comic from the 1960s. What the title doesn’t do is acknowlege the balanced pairing that actually makes up the film, though – the comic is titled “Valérian and Laureline” to reflect the fact that it’s a story about the adventures of two equal partners, and fortunately the film reflects this even if the title doesn’t (I can see why they may have to change the title to sell tickets though, given the prejudices of some of the target audience. In an ideal world, you’d say “screw ’em”, but this film was hella expensive to make). Laureline is at least as much of a focus of the film as Valerian is, and could arguably be said to kick even more ass (I particularly like the scene where she’s “subduing” a particular scoundrel with repeated punches to the face, just because he deserves it and she can, pausing only to give her knuckles a brief rest between bouts). Where it falls over in respect to the two main characters is not so much in their characterisation, but in their portrayal. As I understand it from my small amount of research (Wikipedia – I hope to read the actual comics at some point, but who knows when that might be), Valerian is supposed to be a Kirk-like character, whereas Laureline sounds like Leela (the Doctor Who one, not the Futurama one) with a technical bent (so actually quiet a lot like the Futurama one after all :)). They are fiercely devoted to each other, but not afraid to use their “extra-professional” skills to achieve a mission objective. Some of this comes through in the film – Valerian is shown to be more of a stickler for the rules and favours gunplay, and Laureline is a bit more cavalier, and does the technical stuff. However, somewhere in the mix somebody decided to mix in some Sapphire and Steele (perhaps because their comic selves are time agents?), and that air of cocky detachment just doesn’t mix well with their other characteristics. Another unfortunate aspect is that the two lead actors have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever, with the end result that an on-screen romance that is absolutely canonical in regards to the source material and should feel completely natural feels at best shoehorned in, and at worst like workplace harassment on Valerian’s part (I could be biased here, since Dane DeHaan seems to embody everything that I disliked about Leonardo DeCaprio back in the 90s, and I therefore want to see Laureline slap his pretty face. Cara Delevigne, by contrast was fine. Not spectacular, but fine – I go the impression that she was being instructed to hold a lot back, possibly in keeping with the Sapphire and Steele charatcerisation mentioned above). The film would probably have been a lot better with at least one of the leads switched out. Preferably Valerian. While I’m discussing cast, I’ll also take this opportunity to discuss the one low of this film that I can’t qualify or justify – what the hell was Rihanna even doing there? Just try and justify to me why this film had any need of an extended burlesque scene to introduce a character that was entirely unnecessary in a universe with established advanced holographic technology…
Anyway, enough about the cast, which the film worked for me in spite of rather than because of (and let’s face it, that’s a problem that’s endemic to the sci-fi genre in general – watch early episodes of Farscape or Babylon 5 and tell me I’m wrong). Let’s talk about why it all worked :) First up, let’s talk about that opening sequence – wow :) This sequence – the gradual evolution of the International Space Station into (basically) Babylon 5, set to David Bowie’s “Space Oddity”, with its progressive waves of visitors from humans, to different types of humans, to definitely not humans, could have and should have been used as the intro to “Star Trek: Enterprise”, and if it had’ve then it probably would have lasted more than four seasons :) Leaving aside the uncomfortable introduction to the two leads (uncomfortable for the reasons cited above), I very much enjoyed the story – without giving too much away, this isn’t the typical “humans save the universe from evil aliens” that we’re conditioned to accept as our default view of the universe, and in spite of some reviewers claims that the story was convoluted or difficult to follow, I found it perfectly straightforward (I may be drawn into a more detailed discussion of this or I may not, depending on how capricious I’m feeling). It’s clear that the story is drawn from a very large universe, of which we’re only seeing a tiny fraction, which is characteristic of a setting that’s been under development for over forty years. A common flaw of adaptations is jamming in references to things from the source material that aren’t explained in the context of the film, and thus confuse viewers from outside the hardcore fanbase (see the regeneration scene in the Doctor Who TV Movie, or the entirety of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), but I got no sense of that from this film – it maintained its internal consistency as presented, and my usual post-viewing research only served to expand upon, not clarify, my understanding of anything that went on. There was no unneccesary clutter – we don’t need to know that Laureline is an 11th Century French peasant, for example, so it’s never mentioned (whether that means that they’ve decided to drop the time travel aspect of the comics remains to be seen in potential sequels – I doubt it, though, since it seems to be a fairly central part of the series’ identity). One criticism I’ve seen is that the film goes crazy at the end, and doesn’t make sense, to which say “pshaw” – watch it again, and pay attention this time. Certain other points are easily explained using Clarke’s Law. I could elaborate more, but spoilers – with one exception, which I’m sure will come up more than once: regarding the problem with the Converters, pay attention to what Laureline says when she’s fixing it right after they obtain it. It all hangs together.
Onto the next high point, which was the visuals. There’s absolutely no denying that the visuals of the film were beautifully realised, and its theatrical lineage was unmistakeable – if they’d said that this was set in the same universe as “The Fifth Element” then I would have accepted it without question (no surprises there, given that Luc Beeson’s been wanting to make a Valérian and Laureline film since he was a kid, and used it as a reference when crafting his earlier film). Everything from the sets to the costumes to the characterisations (other than the leads) were reminiscent of that earlier film. Some resemblance to Star Wars was also inevitable, although technically the influence goes in the other direction (if you think that ship looks like the Millenium Falcon then you’re not imagining things – thing is, that ship has looked like that since ten years before the Millenium Falcon existed). If I could flaw the visuals at all, it would be to call attention to the early scenes on the planet Mül – I understand that Beeson held off on making this film for a long time because he didn’t feel like effects technology was quite up there enough to do it justice yet, and whilst beautiful the scenes on this planet justify this position – they almost, but not quite, manage to appear realistic, but I was undeniably reminded of video game graphics.
So, I’ve just noticed how much I’ve written already, so I’m going to summarise and wrap up. In spite of all the negative coverage of this film, I really enjoyed it. Did it have problems? Yes. Were those problems any worse than other genre properties that have received particular acclaim? Not really – I mean, I adore Farscape, for example, but I’m glad I’m rewatching the first season with my headphones on so my wife can’t hear the silly accents :P In spite of some missteps with the casting and characterisation of the two leads (and an extended celebrity cameo that I’d rather forget) it still managed to be thoroughly enjoyable. It made me laugh a bunch of times, made me go “oooooh pretty!” a bunch more times, and by and large I left the cinema feeling like I’d gotten my money’s worth :)
I liked Moebius, Valerian, the Heavy Metal movie as well as Nikita and Leon, so I was predisposed to enjoying The Fifth Element, which I did. There are tons, and tons of fun details in the movie. Whether it hangs together as a whole is something that can be debated (and for my taste the opera lasts a little long).
Buuuut I didn’t buy the romance between Dallas and Leeloo for one second and that ruins the ending for me since it hinges so heavily on the “fifth element”.
Valerian, on the other hand was thouroughly mediocre. I’ve only read two or three of the BD albums, but I was expecting someone maybe like a young Jean Dujardin (from the OSS 117 films), and got a laid-back, dry male lead without the winking charm needed. Delevingne was passable (certainly pretty enough) and spirited enough to embody Laureline.
Re: Valerian. Visually, it’s almost on a par with Fifth Element but conceptually it’s less engaging. Where Corben Dallas was a taxi driver but also a retired elite soldier, Valerian is just an elite soldier. Also, Dane DeHaan has zero presence, and presence may be the most important thing in a Besson joint.
Fifth element is one of my favorite films, because everything just works on so many levels and because it feels fresh.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets ... not so much. There are good things in this,: The visiuals are great and some parts (actually a lot) are quite cool and original, but they feel stitched together in a lot of “And then”s. There is no feeling for the overall story as in Fifth element, because the elements dont fully form a whole.
It didnt help that Besson, who normally nails casting, has picked two leads with absolutly no chemistry to be a … couple? Lovers? Love-interests? Coworkers? Its never quite clear how long they know each other and they miss the playfulness of Willis/Jovovich by about a thousand parsecs. Generally the acting is bad in the movie (even Clive Owen is phoning it in), so the good performances of Rhianna and Ethan Hawke are absolute standouts.
So where Fifth element works on all levels, Valerian only really works on onme (the visuals) – it feels disjointed, a slideshow of scenes. To quote the better movie: ” I. am. Very. Dissapointed.”
I reckon The Fifth Element was (and is) great fun, but it has a serious side which I’ve never heard anyone else rave on about. Many hundreds of years ago, when I taught urban planning classes at university, I used extracts from the film to emphasize to students the role of the largely invisible supply infrastructure on the shaping and functioning of cities. As a small example, when Dallas zips down into the fog gathered down near the ground as a way of avoiding the pursuing police, that’s where you find the heavy trucks. Cities work like that. There may be smart flying cars in the nicest parts but still the basic supplies are provided by heavy carriers working away largely unseen.
Of course that’s a very selective use of a minor part of the story. But I loved the film because it was fun. Some serious lessons, but it didn’t take itself too seriously.
Valerian movie: no, not worth your time. Fifth Element caught lightning in a bottle and many of us hoped similar with Valerian. There is a reason it disappeared from theaters so quickly.
I dug this movie when it came out, but I think I like it more now. For all the reasons written here, it was made with real passion, quite a bit of skill and artistry, unabashed enthusiasm, and it was fun. But also, because it was a weird movie not based on anything except someone’s creative dream. It wasn’t chasing a franchise or an interconnected universe, it was this unique weird bit of cinema that was ridiculous but incredibly charming. This movie oozes character, and feels so much like it’s inviting the audience into this world that surely has been a cult classic or decades. We really don’t see that much anymore.
I would really dig a mini series set in this world, or something like it.
I love The Fifth Element and watched it more than a dozen times, noticing fun new details with every watch. Lots of silly visual jokes, lots of weird set-ups that play the best when you know what is coming – it all warms my heart.
The only thing that doesn’t work for me is the romance between Corban Dallas and Leeloo
I really enjoyed the film. I’ve seen bits and pieces of the Fifth Element on tv when I was a teen but I’ve never watched it all the way through until now. It’s a very 90s film in good ways and (a few) bad ways. I love the practical effects (my jaw literally dropped when I read that the cityscape of NYC was a miniature) and the costumes are amazing as is the soundtrack (shout-out to the opera scene and Inva Mula’s incredible singing). I especially like that they made the creative choice to have the future look colourful and visually interesting rather than the dystopian grey-scale slog that science fiction often envisions today.
The sexual humor is also very 90s and sometimes comes across as more skeevy than funny, like the scientist and the military general blatantly perving on Leeloo when she’d just been ‘born’ into her human body and clearly terrified was just gross to me. And the way everyone automatically assumed that the “Supreme Being” had to be a man but “surprise it’s actually a woman! what a twist” was also very eyeroll-worthy.
I felt like Bruce Willis was mostly just channeling Die Hard in this movie but it works somehow, although I would have liked to see more development in the relationship between Korben and Leeloo. I honestly think this movie could have really benefited from being a two-parter or at least a longer run-time than the then-standard two hours, as that would give the plot and characters a bit of room to breath. Or maybe not – the frentic pace seems to fit the weird silliness (affectionate) of the plot.
I’ve seen Chris Tucker’s character get a lot of hate, but I’m most ambivalent – he’s a bit annoying but given that he’s basically a futuristic Tiktok influencer, that’s par for the course. He’s shallow and artificial, an exaggerated reflection of the world he inhabits, but I’m glad he doesn’t get killed off. The movie thinks he’s still worth saving just like the movie’s vision of a crappy and flawed future that is still worth fighting for. That said, I think Prince would have been incredible in the role.