The Fifth Element (1997)
Anybody else wanna negotiate?
THE SUMMARY: An ex-military taxi cab driver assumes responsibility for the entire world when an eccentric woman who completes an ancient superweapon literally falls into his air car. For every bit of enjoyment I could squeeze out of this movie, there is an insufferable screaming Chris Tucker to cancel it out, and to keep screaming to ruin any further enjoyment to come. There might be a decent movie somewhere here, but the detractions from it are far too annoying for me to find it.
FROM MOVIE-PICKER CHARLES: An enjoyable sci-fi movie with themes of good versus evil - enough campy cartoon-like ridiculousness and hilariously over-the-top characters and costumes to keep it light.
THE BEST:
There’s some interesting philosophy here and there: The most philosophically interesting scene of the movie is the confrontation between Cornelius the priest and the villain Zorg. The priest implies Zorg is evil, and Zorg counters with a short speech about how his destruction actually helps people in that it creates jobs in the form of messes for people and technology to clean up, which in turn provides for families. Zorg says ‘by creating a little destruction, I’m in fact encouraging life.’
It’s a very similar concept to the ‘broken window fallacy’ of economics. Sure - it’s true that destruction creates jobs to repair it. But if all we’re doing is constantly reinventing broken wheels, humans are not advancing, either in technology or prosperity. Similarly, simply providing for a family in any way is not always beneficial or even moral. I could provide for my family by killing people and stealing their stuff. It doesn’t mean I’m ‘encouraging life’ because I’m providing for life while doing it.
I don’t agree with anything Zorg says in this scene, but it is a well-written depiction of how our logic can twist when we are tempted to use ‘bad guy’ tactics to achieve ‘good guy’ ends. Immoral means do not produce moral ends, as a rule. There may be isolated exceptions, but as a philosophy for a good life, this is not the way.
There’s another meaningful moment when Dallas is comforting Leeloo, who is losing faith in humanity. Leeloo asks ‘what’s the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?,’ referencing all the horrors of humanity’s wars. Dallas convinces her that love is worth saving, and so they do. There are profound moral themes here. Even if we often fail to live the ideal lives that we could, the fundamental premise that human life has value for its own sake is the foundation of all morality. If we don’t accept that premise, there’s no reason to pursue a good life, and no reason to treat each other well. That premise creates, and conversely its absence can erase, all purpose in life. To abandon that principle is to give up and embrace death, and Leeloo nearly does.
If the movie spent more time on themes like these and less time on obnoxious Chris Tucker interruptions, I’d be a happier viewer.
By creating a little destruction, I’m in fact encouraging life.
What’s the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?
The future air-car city is cool and likely influential: Watching the ‘air driving’ through the city, I was immediately reminded of Coruscant in the Star Wars universe, but then I remembered this movie released in 1997, and Coruscant wasn’t fully depicted in Star Wars until The Phantom Menace in 1999. Fifth Element’s car action scenes are impressive, and it seems highly likely that they influenced George Lucas to some degree. Compare the chase scenes in Fifth Element and Attack of the Clones, and you decide.
On the other side, there are arguments that director Luc Besson ripped off some George Lucas themes and ideas too.
THE WORST:
Action narrated by a frantic gay Chris Tucker is the worst action: For whatever action enjoyment I could get out of this film, the obnoxious flamboyant Chris Tucker commentary over it made it completely insufferable. The climactic combat scene in the theater was absolutely ruined by this character’s screeching nonsense, apparently for the purpose of ‘comedy.’ But not once did I laugh. The character is totally useless. He serves no purpose other than to annoy and destroy the show. He’s the Jar Jar Binks of this movie - maybe George Lucas did rip off ideas after all.
Delete the character outright, and The Fifth Element easily increases a full Wicky rating for me. Chris Tucker was nominated for a Razzy for ‘worst new star’ for this performance, and only lost to Dennis Rodman.
Delete him.
My perspective might be poisoned by Léon: the Professional, but: I’ll admit - I’m biased against director Luc Besson for his indefensible pedo bait in Léon. The guy sexualized a young girl, while he also personally enjoyed the company of a very young girl, and this movie is part of those events. He was 31, she was 15, and he had her pregnant at 16 - she’s the blue alien opera singer. And then Luc left her for the star of this movie, Milla Jovovich, who plays Leeloo, until he left her too shortly thereafter.
My problem isn’t necessarily Besson’s personal life. I acknowledge that’s not directly relevant to this movie as a work of art. My problem is that I can’t see Leeloo as anything but an adult adaptation of Mathilda from Léon. Same haircut. Same character arch struggling with the meaning of life. Same sexualization. Leeloo is a memorable, good character - don’t get me wrong. It’s just that I can’t see her as anything but a Mathilda redo, and it ruins my appreciation for that character.
They’re the same character, it’s just one is legal. Way to clean it up, Luc.
Neither the sincerity nor the comedy land for me: File this one under the movies that try to do everything, but don’t do any one thing particularly well. It’s not serious enough to be dramatic. It’s not silly or clever enough to be hilarious. It’s just a messy mashup, and nothing lands. There’s no memorable philosophical moral of the story, and there’s no memorable joke either.
THE RATING: 2/5 Wickies, and I’m stretching. At least Luc Besson used a woman of age this time - that’s an improvement. It’s not just me. Gary Oldman himself hates this movie.
YOUR RATING: Vote here ⬇
NEXT WEEK: WarGames (1983)
AFTER THAT? YOU PICK - VOTE! March’s movie nominations are from listener Matt P.
Want to be the movie nominator for the month? Here’s how - fill out the form below.