Leolo

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 10

Favorite 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/

Which came first, the disturbing or the disturbed? This is a difficult film for me to assay. Certainly I did not enjoy "Leolo" but then there are many films I have appreciated which I did not enjoy. Despite being tagged as such, this film was never a comedy for me, outlandish scenes too often were tainted by a ring of tragic truth. Well, I should clarify and say "at least an emotional truth."

This film reminded me of Baudelaire and Rabelais. I remember in my late teens, seeking out those poets feeling that I should appreciate them from the little I had heard about them. Someone probably mentioned Iggy Pop in the same breath with 'em. Anyways, their poems never did connect with me, I remember thinking that something in translation or in the transatlantic crossing was lost upon me. This film has many moments like that (despite a shorter journey down from Canada), but cast amidst shining gems of genius. One example, the recurrent use of the refrigerator light, and other illumination, shining over Leolo's shoulder.

This film slips and dips into the "rabelaisian" in the reduced definition, i.e. a fecal focus. A childhood is deprived more than depraved, but a little of both. If any sexual appetite is offensive for you, than this film is not for you... Spend your time on some counseling instead.

And yet for me, much of the film was grotesque...and I think that's a nearly perfect word for it, what with its stylish franco-suffix... gracefully covering over its seamier stewings. Like a sauce over spoiled meat.

But as I think more about this film: the merd, the bugs, the dead dog in the canal...all of that waste, is not wasted. Instead the images, the reviling of an earthly existence drive us off the screen and into the voiced-over poetry of Leolo. Even in translation and subtitle, the words had a precise beauty. A beauty I feel was intentionally and successfully accented by the sordid scenarios stitched together.

It would be an interesting test for someone to read the poetry from the screenplay first and then watch the film. Would the words be strong enough without the sights, sounds and implied smells of Leolo's world to suffice?

While I cannot honestly recommend this film (too many times I found myself hoping that a fade-to-black was final), it would be interesting to hear/read others' comments. I'll come back to the reviews here, and maybe the film in the future.

Til' then, I 'll give it a 6/10

PS Interesting. In posting my review the "s-word" now appears to be banned...so let them read "merd."

This is one of the few movies that left me mystified. Was it trying to create only mood (however unpleasant), was it trying to convey a deep message (however obscure), was it trying to show that there is squalor in modern Montreal (however unsurprising)? All of these? None of these? Why was this movie made?

A boy is coming of age in a totally dysfunctional family. The parents are obsessed with bodily functions - the father checks the boy's output after each visit to the toilet; all five children are forced to take laxatives. If you see dark humor in this, then you may like this movie. I'm afraid the humor flew over my head.

We see rats in the sink, rats in the bathtub. In one scene, that I assume is to have some special meaning, we see at some length a filthy turkey in the bathtub. What's the meaning of that? And what an inspiring thing it is to see a young boy having sex with a cat.

I felt like taking a shower after watching this movie.

The boy, Léolo, finds his family so difficult to deal with that he escapes into dreams, fantasy, and writing. Maybe understandably, most everyone in this family winds up going nuts or heading toward death.

The music is a grab bag. There is a mixture of things like Tom Waits' "Cold Cold Ground," Tallis' "Spem in Allum," the Stones' "You can't always get what you want," and chanting.

Much of the movie is told in a voice-over and sections of the novel "L'avalée des avallés" by the Canadian Réjean DuCharme are read - this is a book that Léolo is reading and it is the only book in his house. A recurring quote is, "Because I dream, I'm not." I think the idea behind that is that we dream to escape reality, but your guess is as good as mine.

I have to give this movie credit for coming out of nowhere to give us something like we have never seen before, but that doesn't mean that we will like it. Sometimes there is a fine balance between art and pretension and, for me, this movie weighs in on the pretension side.

I found this movie on a used VHS tape the other day and decided to check it out since it was a Canadian production.

Man, I can't decide whether I love or hate this movie. It's just plain weird! Sometimes it had me laughing (like in the beginning with the tomato, later when Leolo trades his flies for his sister's turd, etc); And then sometimes I was totally grossed out (like the cat scene). And the raw meat incident was sick, then later hilarious when it got served for dinner. There's definitely some "toilet" humour throughout this film.

Almost always I watch movies for enjoyment and I try not to analyse too much because it often spoils my enjoyment. But I've noticed some really deep analysis from previous reviewers regarding this film. And honestly, some of it is way too deep for me. (Maybe I'm the ignorant savage in the art museum.).

I wouldn't really class this movie as a comedy although it has some humorous scenes (very dark humour). I'd say this movie was more like a trip through a mental institution. It is a very haunting movie and I did find myself reflecting on it every so often for a while. It's a thinker for sure. It seemed sensitive, but in a very harsh way.

Acting was very good in my opinion. Any actor who can pull off roles like the ones in this movie has to be good.

Normally, I'm not fond of narration. But for some reason it didn't seem to bother me in this film. It sort of fit in better I guess.

This movie could freak out a lot of people. It's really worth watching, but not for young kids. I gave it 8 out of 10 because it was well acted, made me think on it, and it was certainly unique. Also I respect a person who goes against the flow to make something original.

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.