Reviews

I've seen many movies in my life, some of them masterful and thoroughly impressive, others less appealing, but none could have prepared me for the unique experience of watching "Boyhood" by Richard Linklater. Having seen it, I felt utterly overwhelmed by a torrent of emotions: deep affection for having witnessed so much beauty, sadness that the experience is irrevocably over, a deeper melancholy about the sorrows and hardships that life has in store for everyone, weirdly also lightness and elation….

If a movie manages to hit you emotionally from so many different directions, evoking opposite feelings while leaving you in a profound state of reflection, it must be great (and of course I am aware that "great" is too small a word here). The most dazzling quality of "Boyhood" is its naturalness. The viewer is privy to witness the boy Mason (Ellar Coltrane) grow up to become a timid teenager and from there to see him evolve into a stunningly handsome, reflective and creative young man who has his bit of wisdom to share with all of us…. 12 years of bittersweet development, of building up connections and breaking them off, of memorable scenes and unconscious day-to-day routine, of shaping the relationships with the most important persons in your life, these 12 years are fabulously captured in about 160 minutes.

In the beginning, it may be irritating to some viewers that nothing "big" is happening: no great drama is staged, not the usual sex & violence-crime-story we have grown accustomed to being fed. It shows how Hollywood has shaped our viewing expectations, how we are used to consume clichés and stereotypes. Director Richard Linklater lifts us out of this false film universe and rewards us with real life, compressed ad fast-forwarded. However, that does not mean that the movie feels in any way rushed. We still have enough time to get to know Mason and the people dearest to him; his mother (Patricia Arquette) who undergoes a dramatic transformation from housewife to independent psychology lecturer, his sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater) who has a certain waywardness about her that we also find in Mason and his flippant but affectionate father (Ethan Hawke).

The fact that this movie was shot at certain periods over a 12-year- stretch singles it out from all other cinematic attempts at capturing a longer personal development in a 2-3 hour film. This boy Mason is real and when he's a teenager and later a young adult, it's still the same actor and not just someone who resembles the other actor. The 2017 Academy Award winner for Best Movie, "Moonlight" tried something similar in portraying the life of a black homosexual from a poor family at the three stages of boyhood, being a teenager and adulthood. Yet, no matter how much the movie was "on message", the actors playing the main character Chiron didn't even look alike. Thus, the whole movie didn't feel right.

Here, we don't have that problem. All of it feels smooth and natural, which makes it virtually impossible not to empathize with Mason when he encounters the first bumps in his young life, when he suffers under the regime of alcoholic, bad-tempered stepfathers, when he is impeded by self-consciousness and shyness as a teenager, when he asks the big questions as a young adult and desperately seeks answers that provide him with a compass for life. All these experiences are universal, everyone has made them one way or the other and we know that they don't come with cheesy dialog lines out of a 19th century drama.

What Linklater had in mind when he embarked on a project of such magnitude that demanded extraordinary discipline and a lot of time, was to capture life in its purest form. This clarity in his ambition pays off multi fold as it allows us to focus entirely on the characters and not be distracted by the often irksome question of which message the director wants to convey with this and that. Moreover, this astonishing film about existence surpasses the existentialist reductionism that many find expressed at its best in Beckett's play "Waiting for Godot": there the characters are engulfed in an existence beyond hope, spending their days waiting for someone who never comes. There's a whole array of movies out that transport the same existentialist loneliness and disillusionment (take "Kids" or "Ken Park") and leave the viewers with a feeling of gloom. By contrast, "Boyhood" ends on a decidedly hopeful chord – there is change (for the better) all around us, we just need to allow ourselves to give in to the moment.

I've seen many a weird movie in my life but this one has to be the weirdest yet. I've also seen other movies by Cronenberg such as the "The Fly" or "Crash". They deal with controversial subject matter too, and confront the viewers with disturbing images but what distinguishes these flics from "Naked Lunch" is that they have a coherent narrative.

As much as I can appreciate the extraordinary effects (typewriters turning into cockroaches with a speaking pink anus), this lack of narrative makes "Naked Lunch" a decidedly tough watch that drags on for long 115 minutes. What can be gathered plot-wise: The unsuccessful writer Bill Lee works in NYC as an exterminator. His wife gets addicted to the bug powder he uses in his job and when he tries it too, his writer- libido awakens: typewriters transform into living organisms that guide the creative process. After Bill Lee accidentally kills his wife on a drug trip, he is made to flee to North Africa, to a place called the Interzone that defies reality and rationality…. Everything beyond that should not be included in the summary – it is as confusing and mind-boggling as it gets, supposedly based on the thoughts of a drug-addled brain.

Some may call "Naked Lunch" the apex of creativity as the movie seems to mirror the process of writing a novel. A few elements can be discerned: the drug abuse as a starting point to get some ideas, the ideas gain authenticity and the writer plunges into an alternative reality where typewriters dictate him what to do and he becomes entangled in intrigues and homoerotic passions….

The imagery is highly evocative of events and themes that coined the life of famous US author William S. Burroughs whose novel "Naked Lunch" inspired David Cronenberg to do this. Burroughs actually killed his wife in Mexico-City in a Wilhelm Tell-inspired act of madness and intoxication. Burroughs, who for a huge chunk of his lifetime was fleeing prosecution in several countries, in fact settled down in Tangier, Morocco for a couple of years to enjoy drugs and young men under the blazing African sun. He went on to live in Paris and London until he settled down in Kansas, while being most of his life busy getting on and off heroin.

Now if there is a biography worth making into a movie, it's his. There are numerous facets that are utterly intriguing about this artist such as his differing sexual preferences, his lifelong battle with the law, his massive drug addiction and his attempts to become clean, his friendships with other glaring Beat Generation authors such as Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg etc… Personally, I found this movie largely unapproachable and boring. If you have a working narrative, then you can include almost as many drug bouts as you want. But this is clearly not the case here….

Austrian film-maker Ulrich Seidl is known for his documentary-style cinema that subjects the oftentimes dreary everyday life to a closer examination. In his famous "Paradies"-trilogy he studied "Liebe", "Glaube" and "Hoffnung" in 3 movies and showed how sordid reality can look when confronted with human ideals. In "Dog Days" there are no ideals – we observe people – most of them downtrodden and hopeless in their aspirations – surviving the hottest days of a merciless Viennese summer. 6 different episodes are intertwined to offer a disturbing medley of sex, violence, desperation, examples of pettiness and greater evils:

• a security salesman is confronted with a lot of pressure to track down a vandal - a mentally retarded woman hitchhikes through her day and gets on the nerves of the drivers - an estranged couple is forced to live together even though they have nothing to say to each other - a female music teacher feels fatally drawn to an antisocial brute is abused and gets her (involuntary) revenge later on… - an old man, who otherwise spends a lonely uneventful life, celebrates the marriage anniversary even though his wife is long deceased - a teenage- looking stripper is harassed by her pathologically jealous boyfriend

These episodes are more or less interconnected (rather less) but certainly not as artfully interwoven in a masterpiece like "Magnolia". It has to be questioned whether an overall message is intended except for the existentialist layer that mirrors the fundamental misery these people are in. The first premise of making such a movie was – according to the director – that conflicts are more likely to erupt under the sweltering conditions of a midsummer heatwave. Fittingly, the characters appear to be permanently on the edge, ready to yield to violent outbursts, ready to leave the confines of common sense. The second premise that makes the movie special is that Seidl almost exclusively relied on non-professionals who were asked to improvise most of the scenes as there was no real screenplay.

Apparently, the desired effect was a heightened level of authenticity in the depiction of everyday reality. However, as Seidl laconically remarked in an interview, it is impossible to imitate reality in all of its horror and depravity. Well, this movie certainly represents a valiant effort: filming bloated beer bellies sweating in the unforgiving sun sets the aesthetic tone for a movie that does not shy away from showing not- quite-attractive middle- aged women and men engaging in a porno. The overarching theme is the subjugation of women in a male-dominated society as almost every episode makes its contribution. Especially hard to watch is the excessive party where the female teacher is ridiculed and abused by her rowdy boyfriend and his younger pal….

"Hundstage" is in many respects the very opposite of light-hearted entertainment – if there is love, it is doomed to turn into misery. If there is comic relief, it is only by the absurdity of what is shown and by the futility of human efforts. The undoubted authenticity is the strongest quality of a movie that may leave you with a bland feeling. "Hundstage" falls definitely short of true greatness as the story lacks coherence and the episodes seem arbitrarily chosen. However, as an unblinking study of the human condition, it works just fine.

I will attempt a somewhat deeper interpretation of this great Sci- Fi-movie and thus there are major spoilers ahead! 26-year-old programmer Caleb (D. Gleeson), who works for a big internet company wins an internal competition: he gets the privilege of visiting the company boss and ingenious software developer Nathan (O. Isaac) in his remote estate for a week. There, Nathan encourages Caleb to take part in an epoch-making experiment: the young employee meets Nathan's latest creation, the marvelously beautiful robot lady Ava (A. Vikander) and he is supposed to find out how human she really is….

"Ex Machina" is a gem of a movie: director Alex Garland did radically away with all antics and appendixes, focusing on an exceptionally well-crafted screenplay that contents itself with no more than 4 characters and the basic setting: Nathan's hypermodern claustrophobic "research facility". The result is a film without any flaws, a theater-like play that almost entirely feeds on the fascinating interactions between Caleb and Nathan and between Caleb and Ava. As the viewers will only gradually come to understand, the innocence of winning a company competition and taking part in a revolutionary experiment transforms into a dark manipulative game that challenges the ethics of scientific research….

Oscar Isaac's performance is stunning as he plays what I consider a uniquely multi-facetted villain: in the beginning, Nathan comes off as a surprisingly casual and relaxed pal…. Caleb is understandably in awe when he first meets his boss, the owner of a multi-billion tech- company and one of the foremost innovators of his time. But soon clouds appear on the horizon: Nathan has an arrogant streak and his casual we-are-on-the-same-level treatment of Caleb is contrasted with the feeling of superiority that he undoubtedly has for his employee. Mid-way into the movie, Caleb sees through some of Nathan's lies and learns that he was chosen to be the proband because of his above- average intelligence and his coding skills. However, the scope of manipulation and deceit goes even further and in the bitter end, Caleb finds out that he has been the bait for Ava. He was played by Nathan, who wanted to know if a human could fall in love with a robot, thereby getting a valid response to whether the Turing Test has been passed. And the hapless employee was also played by Ava, who uses his feelings to get out of her prison. Ultimately, Nathan appears as an unscrupulous and ruthless scientist villain who subordinates human feelings to his research interests. It is one of the most frightening depictions of where superior intelligence in a human being can lead when it is not grounded by any moral standards and this is a very current issue. To create his A.I.-robot in the first place, Nathan drew on the massive amount of data provided by the billions of cellphone/notebook-users. Unknowing to them, he tapped into this infinite data stream to construct a machine that is bound to be smarter than any human and also more beautiful than any human because its beauty is permanent, unfading and immaculate. Ava, the robot counterpart of Eve, seduces – just like her biblical precursor – Caleb to respond to her urge to be free and thus uncontrolled by her human Frankenstein, Nathan. Like in the Frankenstein-story, the creature eventually turns against its creator. The stunning and disturbing ending transforms the innocence of the beginning: courtesy of its superior intelligence and limitless knowledge, Ava has outplayed Caleb and Nathan. She steps into nature and into the populated world of cities and the viewers are left to wonder what she is planning to do next…..

George Falconer (Colin Firth) is an esteemed university professor in an idyllic academic town and everything should be fine except that 8 months ago, the love of his life, his boyfriend Jim, was killed in a car accident. Since that tragic turn, George has been struggling to come to terms, but he is failing to enjoy life again… One day, he decides to commit suicide to overcome the overwhelming feeling of loneliness and futility. Yet, on the presumably last day of his life, he learns to perceive his existence in a new light….

The storyline is conspicuously inconspicuous: it offers nothing more than one day in the life of a privileged intellectual who suffers from loneliness and a midlife crisis. Yet, it is exactly this narrative minimalism that enables the director to focus on the cinematography and that turns this movie into an orgy of aesthetic brilliance, creating an imagery that is endowed with symbolism and sheer beauty. Be it George's pedantically clean and wonderfully neat home which represents a fusion of traditional comfortable hut and urban apartment with a lot of glass, be it George's meticulous clothing, be it the old-fashioned campus setting that is nostalgically reminiscent of the 1960s - the director was painstakingly aware of the slightest detail and this perfectionism makes the watching really enjoyable. Of course, this sublime project wouldn't have worked without trademark performances by Colin Firth, Juliette Moore and Nicholas Hoult. It's hard to image anyone else playing the part of George than Colin Firth – he brings so much authenticity to the character that he becomes almost transparent to the viewers. Firth's performance mixes dignity and intellectual brilliance with an emotionality that never gets corny. When tears are flowing, you do not doubt their real- ness. When George rejects sexual temptations, he does it believably. Juliette Moore fills out her supporting role as George's best friend Charley with all she has: the story doesn't yield much room to her, but like in many other films (notably in "Magnolia") she delivers a memorable performance. Nicholas Hoult shines as the breathtakingly handsome student Kenny, who takes a deeper interest in George, who is his literature professor. Many may find it unrealistic that a student cares to such an extent for his professor and that he instinctively feels that the latter is deeply depressed. Yet, if you understand this odd attraction in a more allegorical sense, then you will see that Kenny is just an impersonation of youth with all its attributes: beauty, curiosity, innocence. In the end, George is reminded that these attributes still exist and continue to do so. Even though life has lost some of its color when his boyfriend passed, the colors are still there for him to grasp. The ending is both tragic and ironical, thus very life-like: George has rationally accepted and also deeply felt that there is still a lot to live for and thus he embraces life again. Then a sudden heart attack kills him and reunites him with his deceased partner…

All in all, this movie is an aesthetic achievement, carried by outstanding charismatic actors.

It's a Noé so one viewer expectation will certainly be fulfilled: this is anything but conventional. It's a 2,5-hour-roller-coaster ride that floods the viewer with hypnotizing pictures, mind-boggling sceneries, mesmerizing colors. Be prepared for a camera panning and swerving as wildly and turbulently as you will have rarely experienced in any other movie. Be prepared for a narrative perspective that is unique in that the main protagonist is killed off the stage after about 25 minutes. Be prepared for a story that virtually dissolves itself into myriads of fragments. Be prepared for an organic study of life and death, love and hate, the power of the libido that is both profound as it is elusive…….

"Enter the Void" is an art movie, even more so than Noé's previous masterpiece "Irreversible" in which the story is told backwards: "Irreversible" showed the fragility of life with savage ferocity: one false decision (taking that underpass) can lead to a moment that destroys several lives. The peaceful bliss of two lovers is shattered when the woman is violently raped and mistreated, an atrocious act of inhumanity that sparks an unbelievably brutal revenge. Some of the topics of "Irreversible" are picked up in this movie and dealt with in a more philosophical, subliminal way. "Enter the Void" does not revert to the savage violence that shocked audiences in Noé's previous film but this one is yet another movie that dares to go to places where few other directors would go.

The plot with major spoilers ahead: a youthful American called Oscar lives with his sister Linda in Tokyo. He makes his living as a drug dealer and he himself likes drugs quite a lot. His sister spends her evenings in night clubs where she is stripping. One night, Oscar is betrayed by a friend and the police are after him. He is fatally shot but his soul won't leave this world, because he has promised his sister to never leave her…..

This basically is it: the audience has to digest the (anti-)hero's demise after 25 minutes. This is an unprecedented move: the main protagonist is condemned to the same passivity as the viewers. He is cut off from the realm of acting and interacting and changing the direction of fate – as bodiless soul he is hovering above the actions and his attempts at reincarnation are misguided: even as he returns to his body, his former friends and relatives won't accept he is alive because they know that he died. Just as in "Irreversible" the direction of fate cannot be changed, the past cannot be undone….

The narrative concept of "Enter the Void" is also stunning in its abolition of chronology: when Oscar dies, the narrative dissolves: there is no past and present and future. The spectators are plunged into Oscar's consciousness in which present events trigger memories from the past that he subsequently lives through again. Thus, the viewer learns what defines the special relationship between himself and his sister: when they were still young children, they lost their parents in a terrible car accident. Afterwards he promised his sister that he would never leave her. Countless images of the eternal love for his sister occupy his mind, intercut with quite different manifestations of love that accumulate in the final visit of the "House of Love" in the last chapter of the movie.

Like all of Noé's movies, this one is highly existential: it is a movie created at the intersection of life and death, the intersection of love and hate, the intersection of unremitting sexual desire and shrill jealousy. It probes into the very questions that define human existence: What constitutes human life? Why are we here and what are we supposed to do? Can we change as individuals and what does death change? Are we independent actors of our faith or are we not rather governed by forces that we cannot begin to understand? While "Irreversible" gave rather concrete answers, "Enter the Void" is elusive, highly allusive and effervescent. It takes its time exploring the most challenging subjects without providing clear answers. Every viewer has to arrive at their own answers while experiencing and afterwards reflecting this piece of art. Yes, it is a veritable statement of art that Noé has submitted with this one. This is NOT a movie for viewers who want to consume films to pass the time and entertain themselves. With its seemingly endless roller-coaster rides through colors, patterns and its exhibitionistic display of sexuality, this is a film for cineastes and those who are seeking a broader understanding of the forces that steer human life.

WoW! I am writing this review as a way of crediting Joseph Gordon-Levitt (JGL) for his ambition as a director. We all know him for his stellar performances as an actor in movies such as Mysterious Skin and Looper as well as the Nolan masterpieces Inception and The Dark Knight Rises…. he has a great career going on there as he has repeatedly proved to be one of Hollywood's most versatile performers – he can play the villain, he can play the mastermind, he can play the sweetheart… here he has chosen to mime a dumb, incredibly superficial Don Juan of the 21st century. The main character Jon is certainly not on the bright side…. he keeps his life restricted to the same patterns and the same schedule as ever: working as a bartender, hitting on attractive women and getting them to bed, working out at the gym, going to church and confessing his sins and watching a lot of internet porn. It is the last-mentioned occupation that this movie revolves around, which is kind of revolutionary in itself. How do you make a movie about a topic as sordid and yet ordinary as internet porn? You have to give it to JGL – he had had an idea there and explored it thoroughly to come up with a film that investigates the consequences of excessive porn consumption. For Jon, it has become unquestioned everyday routine to raid the internet for porn whenever he feels the need. Thus, he jerks off multiple times every day and even does it after he banged a hot girl. When he gets emotionally involved with particularly attractive Barbara, played by Scarlet Johansson, he is – for the first time – confronted with the idea that his porn addiction might be something bad. But not only Jon clings to stereotypical images- his girlfriend has a hard time challenging her own romantic ideals, which are basically epitomized by corny Hollywood tearjerkers. This is a clever arrangement by JGL which endows the movie with a depth and reflectiveness you would not expect from a comedy with this plot line. The logical synthesis that transforms Jon into a decent human is represented by Esther, fabulously played by Juliane Moore. Jon comes across her during his evening courses at university and is clearly not interested at first, because she is much older and probably not attractive enough for him. However, the lady does not let go of him and tells him truths he cannot stand to hear …. at first….

After the first viewing, one may not really appreciate the complexity that is underneath the surface. Initially the main characters Barbara and Jon embody clichés – he is the testosterone-filled alpha male who cannot bear criticism and she is the little princess who expects her boyfriend to do everything she wants. While Jon is gradually made to question his ideals, Barbara is not. As a consequence, Jon has changed at the end of the movie while Barbara hasn't. Another compliment to JGL for his unforced handling of a delicate topic. This is an actor who clearly does not shy away from sexual performances. He treats the topic in such an honest and relaxed way that the movie transports its message to all viewers…. highly recommended.

I saw the trailer and I liked it, I read reviews replete with accolades, I noticed that the movie was nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories. So I thought that I couldn't go wrong with this one. But what I got was an irritatingly wordy play-in-a-movie that confuses humor with hysteric outbreaks. Of the latter you'll find more than enough in this flick. OK, there were scenes that provided some enjoyment such as when the Michael Keaton character is running naked on Broadway and then has to improvise his way back into the play. Or the shrewd dialog between him and the critic. But these witty and lighthearted scenes are rarely to be found in a movie that otherwise lacks orientation and a satisfying denouement. "Birdman" starts out with a lot of dialogs and then… many more dialogs follow. This is getting aggravating as one hardly cares about the characters who are altogether selfish, hysterical, flippant and pathologically unstable. One can usually count on an actor like Edward Norton to elevate an otherwise boring movie but here he doesn't really fit in and ultimately cannot even out the deficient screenplay. One major flaw is to be found in the fact that this movie should have centered entirely on Michael Keaton's character but instead it is weakened by subplots and other uninteresting characters. The most disappointing aspect is that the viewer is made to sit through endless dialogs conducted by aggravatingly high-strung actors and in the end, he is not even redeemed by a great finale. I found myself thinking all the time: "Well, there has to be a reason why this movie is so high on IMDb ratings, thus the ending has to account for this." In fact, it simply does not happen. The ending is pretentious, dishonest - a cheap trick. Thus: save your time and money and do not watch this pointless artsy piece of crap.

Enter fabulous Patrick Bateman, successful Wall Street broker and nowadays embodiment of evil not only for his job, which is held in rather low regard these days, but for the things he does at night. It takes an actor as brilliant as Christian Bale to deliver a believable impersonation of a handsome powerful womanizer who ruthlessly indulges his darkest desires. Of course, some may see this movie as problematic because the viewer is forced into the perspective of a psychopathic serial killer who is simply too shining, too smooth, too perfect to be caught for his heinous crimes. Bateman can hardly be someone you sympathize with but then you are made to feel his abysmal desperation and his escapist fantasies. The horrendous ambiguity of the main character may be the overarching theme of this movie – in the end, we are left to guess whether the atrocious acts of violence took place in reality or merely in the mind of a seriously deranged personality.

There are two main interpretations for the riddle this movie constitutes: 1. In the first interpretation, Bateman really is the incarnation of Norman Bates and yes, he has pornographic sex with prostitutes before he slaughters them. Being probably slightly aware of the evil he is doing, he rarely lets go of a chance to confess to his crimes that reveal his true character. Remember the scene when he tells drunken Paul Allen in this Mexican restaurant that he likes to dissect women and that he was "utterly insane"? But as so often, his fellow human beings ignore his confessions; it is as though they were unable to face the truth. They rely on their fixed image that they have of Bateman as an attractive successful CEO who can buy anything he wants. The power he has makes him intangible for the authorities. Then there is also room for the interpretation that they confuse the identities of one another because some of them have exactly the same job and they look very much alike. This hands Bateman a perfect alibi for his murder of Paul Allen and so Bateman even escapes the tricky interrogations with the private detective, played by Willem Dafoe. In a metaphorical reading, Wall Street is turned into a hotbed of moral corruption in which only surfaces and material values matter. A man as intelligent as Bateman has no difficulties at maintaining the false image he stands for but what is more horrifying is that no one cares who he really is. There are no borders set for him, neither by the law nor by common conventions. In this reading we can see Bret Easton Ellis's intention of crafting a jarring satire on the condition of American society in the 1980s, which is marked off by its superlative dark humor. 2. In the second interpretation, Bateman is a serial killer in his mind only. The terrible aggressions that he seems to harbor are unleashed in his bloody visions which are growing more and more intense. Possibly owing to high medications and a psychosis, Bateman thinks he really does the things he only dreams of or envisions. Thus, in the somewhat weird ending he is utterly desperate and close to madness when he learns that his lawyer ate dinner with a colleague he believes to have murdered long ago. I think the direction of Mary Harron suggests that the second interpretation is more likely. Take for example the scene before the ending when Bateman's secretary spies on his notebook and discovers all the gory drawings of his, thereby also seeing the real character of Bateman behind the surface.

Being what it is, "American Psycho" is one of the most misunderstood movies of film history. This is not a slasher flick that puts a lot of gratuitous violence on display. But it still has elements of a horror movie in it. It is not so much meant to shock than to make the audience think about what they've just seen. It's a dark satire that works seemingly adverse elements of various genres into a whole and it is a testimony to the greatness of Christian Bale, who renders the range of all possible emotions visible and manages one of the most controversial figures of modern cinema.

Bruce Willis saves the world, Gary Oldman plays the villain and Milla Jovovich is meant to shine as the Fifth Element. Well, there's no denying that some clichés have to be dealt with at first glance. But director Luc Besson certainly succeeds in creating a both strange and refreshing concoction that has a solid share of many different genres: first of all, this movie represents a sci-fi-fantasy that spares its viewers irritating facts about what we need to understand about the future. Compare that to the 2014 sci-fi-milestone "Interstellar", which surely has its advantages over this flick but is not anywhere as entertaining. The plot line has elements of both adventure and crime in it: Pure evil in the form of an approaching planet is threatening the very existence of good ol' Earth. Violence begets only violence and therefore the planet continues to grow excessively when it is bombed or shot at with whatever weapon Earth can muster up in its desperate efforts. The only possible remedy lies in the Fifth Element which needs to be combined with the four well-known elements water, air, earth and fire to defy the evil forces. Milla Jovovich gives an amazing performance as the perfect being, the Fifth Element. Of course, the stupid humans don't get her importance and so she is chased by the police and rescued by….. Bruce Willis who was able to squeeze in another world-saving job between the Die Hard-franchise and "Armageddon". But you can't help enjoying Willis' unique talent for stunning action sequences (as an air cab driver in the future he can expand into another dimension) peppered by blunt remarks and disrespect for all authorities. His worthy antagonist is mimed by Gary Oldman with a forbidden haircut and a thoroughly self-ironic performance. "The Fifth Element's strength is that it does not relies too heavily on its rather flimsy story but trusts in its creative potential to appeal to the senses: The audience may indulge the colorful bizarre costumes tailored by star designer Jean-Paul Gaultier and the futuristic cityscape. Jovovich with her fiery-red hair and immaculate body is eye-candy in its purest form. The stunning opera performance on the spaceship Phloston Island serves as an equivalent on an acoustic level. But more than any other genre, this movie lives up to its comedic potential: by telling a serious story about the impending end of the world in a decidedly unserious way, Luc Besson has created an extremely funny mélange that hardly misses a punchline. At times, he may have overdone it if you take Chris Tucker's completely unnerving portrayal of a self-important MC. At other times, comedy oddly mixes with horror such as in a memorable scene when the villain Zorg phones with absolute Evil and he starts to sweat in such a way that his hair dye is streaming down his forehead. All in all, this flick plays out his creative potential nicely and it represents a very refreshing genre mix in an age where Hollywood bosses rather go for conformity.