Leon the Professional is a very hard movie for me to rate, because I am both impressed and creeped out by it. For entertainment value, it is one of the better action movies that I have seen, and I can even say that it is ahead of its times, as it holds up rather well even today. However, at the same time, the presentation of Natalie Portman, who was 11 when the movie was filmed, is rather disturbing, to be frank. Then one read more into the director Luc Besson's life, especially during this period, and everything that happens now, with all the allegations and accusations, suddenly becomes a lot more believable, and it just leave a sour taste in one's month. That also begs the question: Is the art separate from the artist, or does all aspects around the art has to be considered?
In all fairness, Leon the Professional is a very good movie. Even though it is made in 1994, the cinematography is amongst the best I have seen, and a lot of scenes, especially the opening assassination set piece, stands out in my mind. It is very well-paced, with a good mix of action and relationship building moments, and the music is fun. Of course, the acting, lauded by many critics too, is the highlight of the movie. Both Reno and Portman are very good in their roles, and their great chemistry together provides the movie with the extra boost, especially in the slower scenes. Portman is especially impressive, given her very young age, and she, while still rather green, more than delivers, and even manages to holds her own against the veteran Reno. It is apparent that she has natural talent, and today, it seems that her performance is a prelude to her Oscar-winning future. That said, Gary Oldman simply steals the show. Critics then loved the way he plays the villain with such freedom and flair, and his character becomes so iconic, that it has its own wikipedia page. Personally, I am not as high on the performance, and think he hams it up, as usual, but one cannot deny that he is a lot of fun to watch, and provides the perfect foil to the stoic Reno.
Unfortunately, the biggest issue is the usage of Portman. Even though the script requires her character to grow up in a hurry and be more mature than her age, Besson, for some reason, equates that to sexuality. He dresses her in increasingly skimpy clothing, and in one scene, he even has her in a bra. Frankly, I feel more uncomfortable as the movie progresses, so much so that it becomes a distraction. Portman later revealed that the original script called for even more sexuality and nudity, and even though she claimed that she finds nothing objectionable about the finished product in 1996, I am still rather uncomfortable with the movie. Then I find out that Besson's second wife was 15 when they met, and she claims that the story is based on their relationship, and I am further disturbed by the whole product. The movie, thus, can be seen as an extension of Besson, and it can be argued that his presentation of Portman is his personal belief. He is also accused in the #MeToo era too, and that only lends more credence to my discomfort.
Again, this goes back to the question: Is the art separate from the artist, or does all aspects around the art has to be considered? If it is the first answer, then this movie is a solid 7/10. Portman's usage is problematic, but the rest of the movie is very well-done. However, if it is the second answer, then I am not sure I can even recommend it, to be honest. Besson's personal life makes it hard to argue that the movie is just mere art.
