Stylish but barely mediocre overall

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

This is an interesting movie that reflects the elements of being a non-US release, and it has many nice moments, including moments of great bonding between the father and his sons, and between the brothers. However, the movie is marred by some very obvious and frankly trite interludes, such as the death of the chicken, the lengthy episode with Ivan and Marcel, some of the Paris scenes (while some were loverly moments, others just felt like they padded the film out - such as the bench scene, the sexual interlude at the hotel lobby with the desk clerk), etc. They don't add to the film and the detract from the narrative and mar the message (and frankly also help to muddy matters).If the movie was overlong and narratively dense, it would be one thing, but the movie is very short and much of it jumps, without explanation. If the movie were merely an exposition of family life, it would be one thing. But it's not -- that's merely one element.Another thing that hurts the film is the fact that a 1996 book (that likely was written somewhat earlier than that) that finally got made into a made for TV movie released some six years later (and despite some of the praise on here, the film does feel very much like a well-made and well-intentioned but filmed teleplay nonetheless), the notable thing about Close to Leo is how dated it is in its approach to an HIV diagnosis or to a drug cocktail (15 pills? No one is taking 15 pills as a first line HIV therapy in this decade, and certainly not in France in 2002). While the family may have been a provincial one, even in 1996, an HIV diagnosis was not a death sentence and certainly in 2002 it was definitely not one. While plenty still die from HIV and others do not want to take a drug cocktail, nothing is done to establish any real or genuine basis for the perceived ending of this film.The other flaw of the film is the limited (and in some respects conflicted - such as her sudden desire to have sex with the father immediately after he consoles Marcel over the slap at the dinner table) role the mother is given. Some of what the actress is forced to do is absurd, such as the wearing of the burgundy (or perhaps it was intended to be blood red) dress without shoes and her collapse in the garden.This is a typical problem with a writer director film, particularly unfortunate as this happens with their first film and this is at least his second film, depending on when they were produced and shot, versus the release date.Watchable but not worthy of some of the comments on here or it's current higher score. Not as bad as some of the negative comments, just deeply and unfortunately flawed.

This movie was for a while in my collection, but it wasn't before a friend of mine reminded me about it – until I decided that I should watch it. I did not know much about Close to Leo – just that it was supposed to be excellent coming out of age movie and it deals with a very serious topic – Aids. Although the person who has aids – is Leo – the scenario wraps around the way in which Marcel (the youngest brother of Leo) coupes with the sickness of his relative. At first everyone is trying to hide the truth from Marcel – he is believed to be too young to understand the sickness of his brother – the fact that Leo is also a homosexual contributes to the unwillingness of the parents to discus the matter with the young Marcel. I know from experience that on many occasions most older people do not want to accept the fact that sometimes even when someone is young this does not automatically means that he will not be able to accept the reality and act in more adequate manner then even themselves . With exception of the fact that the family tried to conceal the truth from Marcel, they have left quite an impression for me – the way they supported their son – even after discovering the truth about his sexuality and his sickness. The fact that they allowed the young Marcel to travel along with Leo to Paris to meet his ex boyfriend was quite a gesture from them– most families I know will be reluctant to do that. There is a lot of warmth in the scenes in which the brothers spend some time together – you can see them being real friends , concern about each other.Close to Leo is an excellent drama, which I strongly recommend

THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic… nothing really makes any sense.Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it… nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close –knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do – but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him – and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people – it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here… I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things… Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine… especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough… HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it – he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer.

It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honoré describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion. Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real.