Conference bookie::movies

I haven't seen it yet either but a whole lot of people better turn out is this 
movie is ever going to make a profit.  I read in the Globe that the movie cost 
$90M to produce.

It could be a major hit by conventional standards and still be in the red!

dave

    With Hollywood accounting, this movie could be a major hit and cost
    $50K to produce and *still* be in the red :-) .... Just ask the guys
    who starred in Batman (except Jack, who is a big enough star to get his
    percentage out of the gross).
    				Jim

"Star Wars for the 90's" means that it's a 90's equivalent of "Star Wars".

    Well, it's got plenty of eye candy, but not much in the way of brain
    food.  I liked it, or rather, I liked enough parts of it to sort of
    enjoy it as a whole.  Great cinema, though, or even really good cinema,
    it wasn't.
    
    The plot is such:
    
    There's a big ball of Evil (no, really) heading for the Earth.  It'll
    get here in 48 hours and once it does, it will annihilate all life. 
    Only the 5th Element can stop it.
    
    What's the 5th Element?  It's the "perfect, supreme being", represented
    in this movie by Milla Jovanovich, who spends much of the movie in a
    suit that, as Entertainment Weekly puts it, gives bandages a good name.
    
    Alas, she has been killed by the bad guys on her return to Earth.
    
    Reconstituted from a hand by some Earth Scientists who don't know her
    purpose, she escapes and does a swan-dive off a very tall building into
    the back seat of down-and-out Korben Dallas's (Bruce Willis) flying
    cab.  Once a top-notice military special teams type, the best in his
    field (big surprise), Dallas now just wantsto avoid trouble with the
    cops and running out of points on his license.  But after Lelu (the 5th
    Element) implores him to help her, he does.  And does she need help:
    not only do they need to escape the cops chasing her, but they must
    also find the stones representing the other four elements (the standard
    Earth, Fire, Water and Air), get to Egypt, and do whatever one does
    to fend off the Evil Ball heading our way.  The problem is complicated
    by the fact that the Bad Guys also want the stones (one group because
    they assume they *must* be valuable, the other group because Gary Oldman
    wants to help Evil).
    
    Meanwhile, Evil slips/floats/flies closer....
    
    
    Visually, the 5th Element is pretty interesting.  It's sort of an
    upbeat Blade Runner-type future represented here, all bright colors
    and motion.  The actors seem to be having some fun.  Bruce Willis is
    likable,  Milla is pretty even in orange hair, and Gary Oldman looks
    a bit like a cross between a vinyl-clad Hitler and Ross Perot.
    Certainly the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, which
    is very, very good.  As a serious movie, it would have been much, much
    worse.  The plot is thin, the characters fairly stock, the tempo
    uneven, and the running time too long (over two hours).  Too much goes
    unexplained, and it's just all a bit silly anyway.
    
    Still, I don't *quite* feel as if I wasted my money.  I suppose I give
    it a cautious recommendation.  If you managed to somewhat enjoy
    "Stargate" or "ID4" despite the fact that both really weren't very good
    movies, you might like "The 5th Element" at a matinee price.If you
    hated those two movies because pretty visuals didn't make up for an
    inane story, wait for video.
    
    FWIW, this was directed (and scripted partially) by Luc Besson, the guy
    who directed "The Professional" ("Leon") and "La Femme Nikita".  
    
    ** (and a smidge) out of ****
    
    kim
    

    <---  I couldn't have said it better myself.  I would only add that if
    you do want to see this movie, make sure you see it in a theatre.  The
    computer graphics and entire visual look to the film are really going
    to suffer on a tv screen, imho.

    I will second .5's recommendation of .4's review.  I would
    just add that the entire mood of the movie reminded me of 
    the movie "Brazil" - not quite serious, not quite pure camp.
    
    Vince
    

    
    When I saw the trailer, I thought it was a remake of Blade Runner. 
    Right down to the back flipping weird haired girl.
    
    

    I saw this movie the other night.  'Eye Candy' is the perfect
    description for it.  
    
    See this at the cinema; it won't be as good on video.
    
    -jason

RE: last several, but especially .4

>   the tempo uneven, 

What an incredible understatement.

My wife and I saw this with another couple.  Lest you think we are movie
snobs, we spent dinner talking about movies we enjoyed.  Prominent among
them were "Barb Wire" with Pamela Lee Anderson, "Hercules" with Lou Ferrigno,
"Tank Girl" with Lora Petty, and "Nine Deaths of the Ninja" with no one you
have ever heard of.  Does this give you a clue as to our tastes in movies?
I think the most significant point is that, to our knowledge, none of the
four of us have ever seen a movie which has won a major Oscar, with the 
sole exception of Best Special Effects.  And we like it this way...

When we finished watching "The 5th Element", we decided that it was really
three separate movies which were intercut with each other.  None of the
three movies had anything with the other two, but scenes of all three were
randomly mixed together, with 5-10 seconds of one of the movies being shown,
then 5-10 seconds of one of the other movies being shown, then either back 
to the first movie or on to 5 or 10 seconds of the third movie.

The three movies were 1) a straight action-adventure science fiction, with
Bruce Willis duking it out with Gary Oldman's troops over Milla Jovovich,
2) a comedy involving Bruce Willis's mother haranguing everyone within
reach of her telephone as well as a totally brain-dead incredibly loud
and obnoxious video star who does a live show with ordinary random people
(think Howard Stern on an overdose of speed doing man-in-the-street stuff)
3) various un-connected bits including a diatribe about man's inhumanity
to man and how bad war is, and an opera.

#1 was a decent movie, with good action sequences and decent special 
effects (the fight in the opera house and lounge of the luxury liner was
pretty neat).  #2 fell flat most of the time, but had a few decent bits,
and # 3 was jarring, as it kept interrupting the other two movies but
never went anywhere by itself.

Bruce Willis was good, similar to his efforts in the Die Hard movies.
Gary Oldman was a hoot, though you didn't have a clue as to why he was
doing what he was doing.  Milla Jovovich had abbreviated costumes, but
IMHO didn't do anything special for them, and since she spoke in a foreign
language the entire movie her acting skills were not stretched here.

Bottom line we liked the action sequences, but found the comedy sequences
mostly boring, and the other sequences were inexplicable*and* boring.  So
we didn't like this movie, and would not recommend it.

-- Ken Moreau

  Even by the greatly reduced expectations I had for this film, it still didn't
  live up to its potential. 

  I did not expect a great film, firmly written plot, or engaging dialogue.  I
  suspected it might either be a Bruce Willis driven high action film such as
  _Die Hard_ (those have been enjoyable in the past) or a piece of stunning
  visual creation that draws you into an alternate environment such as _Blade
  Runner_.

  In terms of a summer-type action film, this film fails miserably.  It was
  actually surprisingly boring in many vast stretches of this film.  There was
  also no sense of tension built up over the course of the film as it reached
  toward the completely foreseeable conclusion.

  I was further disappointed by the visuals in this film.  It was not the
  richly painted film which the trailers had it looking to be.  Not much effort
  was made here, and when you did finally get thrown a visual bone, they cut
  from it so quickly that you were never allowed to immerse yourself in the
  environment.  I suspect the low priority effort in the visuals could not live
  up to having longer glimpses of the city, star cruiser, etc.

  I expected either _Die Hard_ in fast-paced action or _Blade Runner_,
  _Brazil_, or even _12 Monkeys_ in richly created sets and environments.
  Instead of reaching toward those lofty goals, this film barely crosses the
  ground floor thresholds for action and visuals formerly put forth by
  _Stargate_.  In fact _Stargate II_ should have been the title of this one.
  The story was as ludicrous ("big ball of evil") and the visuals as little
  thought out.

  That said, the film did have a few good points.  It wasn't as hard to sit
  through as _Stargate_.  Milla Jovovich's performance was weak and almost
  laughable, but she did look incredible in that "bandage" outfit, so much so
  that I _almost_ didn't mind not seeing more of the city as she stood on the
  ledge.  I also enjoyed the opera scenes, it was the only time you were
  allowed to let yourself immerse in the environment.  The view of the planet
  below from the windowed stage backdrop was breathtaking.

  And despite the protest of some critics, I liked the completely over the top
  and outrageous "Ruby Ridge" black male musician character in the film.  The
  film was plodding along so boringly, that I actually enjoyed the sometimes
  entertaining, often annoying presence of his character.  It was so
  _obviously_ a parody of the womanizing, self-absorbed, and "high talker"
  image of rock star Prince that it was interesting to see it be so exploited
  (as his expense). 

  Still though, "Stargate II" sums up this movie well enough.  Two out of five
  stars from me...

    
    Re: .9
    
    	Sho Kusugi
    
    Chris D.