Best movie of this year hands down!

Fantastic!

A Masterpiece!

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

To me, 'Léolo' is like a rare gemstone. A unique, surreal fairytale, which you can look at from many different angles and yet it remains hard to describe. Although there clearly is a structured narrative, I believe this film is more to be felt than understood. While it's often tragic and disturbing, it's also very funny and darkly comic. Somehow fitting for a story inspired by childhood memories, reality and fantasy are seamlessly interwoven to create an often dream-like, sometimes nightmarish atmosphere. This was only director Jean-Claude Lauzon's second film, and sadly he never got to make more than two; he died in a plane crash while he was preparing his third film.A beautiful, unforgettable work of art, albeit not one for the easily offended.My vote: 10 out of 10Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/Favorite Low-Budget and B-movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

I'd heard of "Léolo" years ago, but just now got the chance to watch this masterpiece. This film is really one of a kind, bizarre, dark, amusing at moments (but should never be classified as a "comedy"), and extremely poignant. With a fantastic visual style, reminiscent of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Fellini ("Amarcord", especially), but also a complete original, and a mind-blowing soundtrack (that includes Tom Waits and The Rolling Stones), Jean-Claude Lauzon created the two worlds of young Leo Lauzon (played by Maxime Collin; the name Lauzon is not a coincidence): his real life with his (very) dysfunctional family in Montréal, and his imaginary life as Léolo Lozone, son of a Sicilian peasant."Léolo" isn't, however, a cute story of a child with vivid imagination. It is definitely not for kids, and its dark extremes (attempted murder, sexual awakening, etc.) can shock even some adults. Jean-Claude Lauzon (1963-1997) died on a plane crash five years after its release, having made only two films, "Night Zoo" (1987) being the first. It's a sad loss of an extremely promising, iconoclastic artist, who managed to create a masterpiece in his second feature. There's an interesting anecdote about "Léolo" leaving the 1992 Cannes Film Festival with no awards: according to Ken Turan of Los Angeles Times, "Léolo" would've probably won the Golden Palm if Lauzon hadn't made an obscene suggestion to Jamie Lee Curtis, one of the jurors. Lauzon himself would've told Turan that he found himself next to Jamie Lee at the buffet at the Hotel du Cap, introduced himself and said: "What the boy in the film does to the piece of liver, I want to do to you". Apparently, Curtis wasn't that flattered... With or without the Golden Palm or an Oscar for best foreign film, "Léolo" is one of the 'lost' masterpieces of the 90s that deserve to be discovered (Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel included it on their list of 100 greatest films of all time). A must see for anyone who loves unique film-making. 10/10.

Be forewarned that there is a shocking scene late in the movie in which a live cat is abused "for the sake of"--art, the film, the story, whatever.I patiently watched the movie up to the cat scene, appreciating some of the interesting approach to storytelling and some of the beautifully shot imagery. I kept hoping for some creative resolution or development in the story, but the movie seemed to slowly degenerate instead into a series of self-indulgent and unnecessarily destructive scenes and sub-plots. By the time the cat scene appeared I was already pretty fed up with the "I'm wallowing in filth and I want you to wallow in it with me" approach the director seemed to take (with a beautiful, poetic gloss to lure the viewer into this bait-and-switch movie), so it was an easy decision to turn the DVD off at that point with no regrets other than to wish the director had not felt it necessary to abuse a live animal and film the animal's obvious pain and panic for the sake of the enjoyment? titillation? of a human audience.Although I can't dispute the movie creator's talent (I feel he should get 8-9 stars for creative talent, 2-3 stars for abusing that talent), I was very disappointed with this go-nowhere, self-indulgently grotesque movie.

I have seen this movie on DVD, and I was a bit confused. I always thought that I am somehow intelligent and able to understand even complicated plots and thoughts, but this time, I failed. Or can it be that this movie is really not as good as so many people tell us? The story is weird, and I cannot believe that it is a proof of intellectual level that we see a young girl eating an old man's toenails, while a young boy watches her and "plays with himself". And also the rest of the story is only weird. Frankly speaking, this movie is also boring and did not touch me, at all. Everything only seems to give me the impression that the director wanted to talk about some severe problems that he might have had during his childhood!? If he wants, he should go to a psychiatrist. But he should not bore audience with his thoughts.