I think that you are looking at this film from a flat,
narrow minded viewpoint. First, in pompusly predicting the
plot of this movie you seem to try and make yourself appear
as some omnipotent force of supreme skill. If you take
into account that there are only 36 different plots in
existence, predicting what comes next in a film is no big
feat. Perhaps, if you looked at this film not only as an
action movie, but as an artistic piece you would get more
appreciation out of it. You seemed very eager to swat it
down simply for being a tragedy. Try to be more universal
in your reviews. Perspective and state of mind are
extremely significant.

Sap that I sometimes am, I have difficulty in turning
against a movie that features already accomplished actors
like Jean Reno and even the talented Natalie Portman, who I
hope to see in the recent Star Wars prequel(I sadly haven't
had the chance yet) and also Anywhere But Here. The movie
has some good performances, and I think that director
Besson chose the right people to play some of the villians,
but it is still a very routine movie, I agree. Best viewed
on rainy days.

I feel crazy adding my comments so late, but I just saw
this film so here goes. This one grabbed me, and I had to
sit down and watch the whole thing. I won't say it was
because I'm a big Luc Besson fan. I am not real big into
flicks that are mainly a love story between a director and
his camera. I won't say the story line shocked me or blew
me away. It just WORKED. When Leon entertains Mathida with
an oven mitt after her family is massacred, while you can
tell she is a little old for that, you see the realization
on her face that this is a man that cares that she is
hurting. When Leon watches 'Singing in the Rain', slight
changes on his face show his almost childlike envy and
enjoyment of Gene Kelly. You start getting the feeling we
are watching one of 'those' movies, one that the
combination of direction, casting, acting, and all else
just work to make a really memorable story. Yes, you know
the plot, the probable ending. But what it really boils
down to is the journey to that ending worth it. I am
definitely glad I took the journey, it was throughly
enjoyable. I was absolutely shocked at Natalie Portman's
performance. It was a knock out. I am a mom of a thirteen
year old, and as such am very sensitive about pedophilia
issues. The only thing I saw was the fact that the child
was acting a little like an abused child will act, and felt
she was falling in love with her protector. The tough guy
however, only showed an innocent love and almost gratitude
that he was finally able to some good for a change. I now
would like a copy of this movie. Of course I will always
fast forward through the Gary Oldman parts. :o) (Gary's
character/performance is such a shame, I usually really
like him too.)

For me, L�on is a masterpiece and my favourite film of all
time. It is not in the slightest bit paedophillic or
boring. It tells the heartwarming story of an unlikely yet
beautiful bond between a hitman and a 12 year old girl,
and shows a developing friendship through the eyes of an
innocent girl and a deadly assassin. The film is magical
yet somewhat surreal from end to end and offers a superb
performance from Natalie Portman as "Mathilda" with
unmistakable use of camera panning across the New York
skyline during the beginning credits and throughout the
film. This film defies the rules and is not afraid to be
contraversial or critisizable. L�on has never been
internationally recognised as a great film, but packed
full of action, suspence and emotion, it has the makings
of a classic.