Latest
“It Stars C. Thomas Howell. No.” Why AI Gets Stuck in a LoopShould You Query or Self-Publish Your Memoir If You’re Not Famous?Judge the Writing, Not the Tool: What the AI Pile-Ons Get WrongThiago Ferreira: Thinkers, Not DoersYana Semova: Let AI Do the AdminLisa Hamilton-Smith: Unstoppable, AI AssistedSuperman Day: The $130 Contract Behind the CapeF. Scott Fitzgerald Day: The Masterpiece That FloppedRaymond Chandler Day: The Novelist Who Started at FiftyJohn Steinbeck Day: The Reporter Who Wrote the NovelInternational Translation Day: The Invisible AuthorsMaya Angelou Day: The Dare That Became a MemoirNational Podcast Day: The Interview Is the Raw MaterialKurt Vonnegut Day: The Book That Took Twenty YearsTell a Fairy Tale Day: The Stories Everybody EditedHarry Potter’s Birthday: The Book Twelve Publishers MissedHarper Lee Day: The Draft Her Editor Saw ThroughGene Roddenberry Day: The Pilot Who Pitched the StarsRoald Dahl Day: Six Pencils and a Grudge Against Grown-UpsInternational Literacy Day: The Readers Books LoseJack Kerouac Day: The Scroll and the Last AddressIan Fleming Day: Two Thousand Words a MorningStephen King Day: The Daily Two ThousandZora Neale Hurston Day: The Ear She TrainedFyodor Dostoevsky Day: The Novels Written Against the ClockEmily Dickinson Day: The Poems in the DrawerRobert E. Howard Day: The Texan Who Built ConanAlice’s Day: The Story Told on a Rowing BoatNational Library Lovers Month: The Building a Town Pays ForBack to the Future Day: The Script Where Everything Pays OffEncourage a Young Writer Day: The Adult Who Read the PagesElmore Leonard Day: Leave Out the Part Readers SkipElmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing, and Which Ones I BreakShould Your Novel Have a Prologue? When a Cold Open Earns Its Place“People Who Use AI Deserve to Be Castrated”: When the Sentence Outruns the CrimeHow Famous Memoirs Were Really Written: What the Collaborators DidFlorida RoadkillThe Bell JarBeneath a Scarlet SkyOpen: An AutobiographyCampus BattlefieldLifeThe Phone Book: The Curious History of the Book That Everyone Uses But No One ReadsIt Doesn’t Take a HeroThe MAGA DoctrineThe Sage of SagittariusDid I Ever Tell You This?: A MemoirPa’anAmerican SoldierMake Your Bed: Little Things That Can Change Your Life…And Maybe the World

The Fifth Element (1997) Review

TL;DR: The Fifth Element (1997) rates 10 out of 10 on the rewatch scale. The Fifth Element is a perfect film. Not a perfect science fiction film, not a perfect action film, a perfect film, period.

Official trailer

The Fifth Element (1997)
10 / 10

The Fifth Element is a perfect film. Not a perfect science fiction film, not a perfect action film, a perfect film, period. Every element serves the same vision with complete commitment, and that vision is unlike anything else in the genre: operatic, maximalist, alive with color and noise and real joy. Luc Besson built a universe that could only exist in cinema and then filled it with characters who couldn’t exist anywhere but inside that universe.

This film makes me happy from the first frame to the last. It’s loud and ridiculous and drenched in color, and I wouldn’t change a single thing in it, Ruby Rhod’s shrieking included. Besson swings for everything at once, and I can’t think of another science fiction movie that commits this hard to its own strangeness.

The concept is simple on its face. Ultimate evil threatens the universe, and the only weapon against it is love, meant as a literal force and more than a metaphor. That could have been insufferably precious. Besson makes it work by building everything around it with so much specificity and humor that when the emotional argument arrives, it feels earned. He folds the theme into the story’s machinery and trusts me to find it there.

Why It’s Perfect

Perfect is a word used carelessly in film criticism and I’m using it with precision. A perfect film is one where every element belongs, where nothing is wasted, where the vision is completely unified from first frame to last, and where the whole is greater than the sum of already-excellent parts. The Fifth Element passes every part of that test.

The production design, Jean-Paul Gaultier’s costumes, Dan Weil’s sets, the vertical density of 23rd-century New York, is completely unified.

Nothing in the frame is an accident. Nothing is generic. The world feels built from the inside out by people who knew exactly what it felt like to live there. The taxicab traffic. The restaurants stacked on the side of a building. The opera house floating in space. Each detail adds to a world that’s coherent instead of merely elaborate.

The score, Eric Serra operating in a tone somewhere between film score and opera, is doing the same work the visuals do. The Diva sequence, where the alien soprano’s aria and Leeloo’s combat are intercut with exact rhythmic precision, is the film’s most explicit statement of what it’s doing throughout: treating violence and beauty as the same thing presented in different tones.

For Writers The Fifth Element shows that tonal consistency is more important than tonal seriousness. The film works in comedy, opera, action, and romance, sometimes in the same scene, and none of these tones undercut the others because Besson committed to all of them with equal conviction. The failure mode for ambitious tonal range is hedging: softening the comedy so it doesn’t undermine the drama, pulling back from emotion so it doesn’t embarrass the action. Besson committed fully in every direction. Full commitment produces coherence. Hedging produces incoherence that audiences feel as unease without being able to name.

The Performances

Bruce Willis understands exactly what kind of film he’s in and plays Korben Dallas with carefully measured reluctance. This is a man who doesn’t want to be the hero, who has arranged his life to avoid consequence and who keeps having consequence land in his taxicab. Willis plays it straight instead of knowing, the only approach that works. A winking performance would destroy the film’s tone. Willis gives Korben weight and detail and lets the comedy emerge from the character instead of from the performance commenting on the character.

Milla Jovovich’s Leeloo is one of cinema’s original creations.

A perfect being learning about imperfection, her education in human nature at once the film’s comedy and its tragedy. The decision to have Leeloo speak in an invented language for most of the film’s middle section is the most audacious performance choice in it, and Jovovich makes it work by communicating everything through physical expression and vocal tone. We understand Leeloo completely before we understand her words.

Gary Oldman’s Zorg is the great villain of 1990s science fiction cinema, a corporate bureaucrat of evil so specific in his enthusiasms and irritations that he becomes funnier and more menacing with every scene. His monologue about destruction and creation, explaining his philosophy to a priest using a dropped glass, is the film’s most compact expression of its thematic argument about the nature of evil. Evil doesn’t believe it’s evil. It’s a theory about how the world works, and the theory is internally consistent.

Oldman plays Zorg’s conviction completely, the only way the character works, and he’s my favorite thing in a film full of favorite things. His irritations make me laugh, and the speech with the dropped glass gives me a chill.

For Writers Zorg’s glass monologue shows how to give a villain a coherent worldview without making them sympathetic or excusing what they do. Zorg believes that destruction enables creation, that he’s part of a natural cycle instead of an agent of evil. The argument is wrong, but it’s internally consistent and he believes it. Villains who believe in their own worldview are more interesting and more frightening than villains who simply want power. Give your villain a theory. Let them believe it. Don’t let the theory be correct, but let it be held with real conviction.

The Emotional Argument

The film’s thesis, that love is the organizing principle that gives meaning to consciousness, that it’s literally the fifth element without which the other four can’t defend against ultimate evil, is stated explicitly at the end and earned throughout. Besson doesn’t build to the thesis. He builds the thesis into everything from the beginning.

Korben’s willingness to sacrifice himself at each stage of the film. Leeloo’s crisis when she learns what humans do to each other, her conclusion that the species isn’t worth saving, her reversal when she experiences love instead of just reads about it. The opera diva who dies but not before completing her song. Ruby Rhod’s cowardice giving way to something else when it finally matters. All of these are variations on the same theme instead of subplots competing with it.

When Leeloo decides to save humanity, it’s because she’s experienced the thing the argument is about. The conclusion works because the film spent two hours building the evidence instead of asserting the premise.

The Film’s Method Besson doesn’t deliver his thesis. He builds an architecture that makes the thesis inevitable. By the time the film states what it’s about, the audience has already felt it in a dozen scenes. The statement confirms what the audience already knows.

The Diva Sequence

The Diva sequence is the film’s centerpiece and its most concentrated demonstration of what it’s doing. The intercut between the alien soprano’s aria and Leeloo’s combat in the baggage hold is edited with exact rhythmic precision, each cut serves both the music and the action. Besson is making the argument that beauty and violence are different expressions of the same underlying force, and he makes it not through dialogue or theme but through editing.

The sequence also contains the film’s most visually inventive moments: the Diva’s appearance, her performance space, the translation of alien music into something that works as film score while remaining alien. It could only exist in this film. I think it’s the most purely joyful stretch of filmmaking in 1990s science fiction, and I wouldn’t cut a frame of it.

Is The Fifth Element as good as people say?

The Fifth Element gets its 10 as a science fiction film of rare visual originality, a film that invented its aesthetic from scratch and committed to it completely, that found the right cast for every element of its story, that trusted its own comedic tone without apology, and that delivered its love story and its cosmic threat with equal commitment. There’s no other film that looks like this. There’s no other film that sounds like this.

Diva’s aria plays over the action sequence that precedes the film’s climax, and it works. That’s the shortest summary of why The Fifth Element gets a 10. Every other big science fiction movie of its decade looks timid next to it, and I can’t find a single wasted element to complain about, so the number goes all the way up.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Fifth Element?
The film establishes four classical elements, earth, fire, water, air, embodied in four stones, with a fifth element that’s love, embodied in Leeloo. The mythology is simple and presented without apology: the universe’s defense against the Great Evil requires a being capable of real love to activate it. The simplicity is correct, the film isn’t interested in elaborate mythology, it’s interested in what love does when it’s the only remaining resource.
Is Chris Tucker’s performance too much?
Exactly as much as Besson intended. Ruby Rhod is a pressure valve and a comic climax at the same time, he’s what the film’s comedic tone looks like when expressed without modulation. Whether that’s too much depends entirely on your relationship to the film’s overall tonal contract. If you’ve accepted the world, Ruby is consistent with it. If the world hasn’t landed for you, he’s the most visible symptom of the problem.
How does The Fifth Element hold up?
Exceptionally well, because the aesthetic is invented instead of borrowed. Films that capture a specific cultural aesthetic date when that aesthetic passes. The Fifth Element’s aesthetic is its own, Gaultier and Besson’s vision instead of anyone else’s. That means it dates into its own thing instead of into something that looks like the period it came from. It looks like 1997 in the way that an original thing looks like the moment it was created: timelessly itself instead of timelessly contemporary.

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.