Leo Blockman (Scott Baker), an egocentric, sexist businessman who thinks he's God's gift to women, gets a taste of his own medicine when he tries picking up the wrong woman: a murderous psycho who shoots him. Leo falls off a bridge and emerges from the river, inexplicably transformed into a beautiful woman. Naming herself Cleo Clock (Veronica Hart), she / he begins to place herself in Leo's life. While avoiding sexist office types and trying to find a way to turn herself back into a man, "Cleo" begins to develop her own personality that takes over Leo's.

Leo, an egocentric, sexist businessman, who thinks he's God's gift to women, gets a taste of his own medicine when he tries picking up the wrong woman: a murderous psycho who shoots him. ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Cleo/Leo torrent reviews

Jennifer W (ru) wrote: A really unusual and funny film. I was genuinely surprised by the way it plays out. And the cast is terrific.

Alexey M (ag) wrote: Terrible in just about every way shape and form. I did not 'forget' to rate this, it actually deserves zero.

Lax A (nl) wrote: Everyone, Please Don't watch this film.

Jason K (jp) wrote: as i read through abunch of wonderous reviews I found the only one out of place being someone who said this film is like "watching paint dry"...i thought I would prove them wrong and agree with the rest of the reviews. After 14 minutes though- i found myself watching the lights of my laptop reflect off my wall or watching my second computers defragment process tick away. This just wasnt interesting at all, its artsy and I'm sure the rest of the 3 hours were full of that...but still- really....i guess you need to be a monk to find any interest or someone whos really into wanting to be one....i am neither at this point.

Adam R (au) wrote: (First viewing - Summer 2005 in theaters)

Eliabeth S (au) wrote: Painfully realistic. Well-acted, but ending is inconclusive and dissatisfying. Sigh.

Eric H (br) wrote: Luckily a movie that does not follow that standard formula's. It is a bit odd in some parts, but that is what I like most about it. There are a few mis-takes or a few scenes that could have been re-shot, but aside from that it is a good one to see. What scared the hair off of this kids head? Is there a P.B. solution that can make hair grow? Do drummers sound this bad? Check it out.

Thomas C (de) wrote: A visual masterpiece.

Wild F (es) wrote: This picture started something, at the grave sites of many people. People were and still are, Pouri out Wine. And sayin "This is for the brothers that arn't here" A wonderful film, about frriendship and a bond, that we all say I wish I had friends like this. I cry I laugh I remember basement blue light parties. Bravo to the cast and the writer..

Gleb I (it) wrote: A feel good story about a young girl who leaves a broken home behind in favor of fun, liberal San Francisco. Good score, good cinematography. Critics will condemn it for glazing over wrong turns and being too dreamy. Not for puritans or party-poopers.

Grant S (kr) wrote: OK, but not great. Takes a while to get going, is filled with superficial melodrama and ultimately isn't overly profound. Still, the Meryl Streep-Ed Harris storyline is quite moving, and makes the movie worth watching.I am not a Nicole Kidman fan, and this movie didn't change that. I always found her characters so prissy and pretentious, and this was no exception. She certainly didn't deserve her Best Actress Oscar (though there wasn't much competition in the 2003 Oscar year). Ed Harris and Julianne Moore got Supporting Actor/Actress nominations for their performances, and Harris' nomination was well deserved (he lost out to Chris Cooper, in Adaptation). Meryl Streep should have at least gotten a nomination for her performance.

Tanner M (mx) wrote: This Friday the 13th is without a doubt the most boring in the series. Jason is only in the info, and at the very end. The rest is just other people being controlled by Jason. The only thing really cool is at the very end of the movie, but I won't spoil it.

Timothy J (us) wrote: I am going to cut against the grain here. And perhaps it is just because this film is so dated. But watching this film is about as entertaining as watch water boil. It isn't that fact that it is just a conversation. If you can call a conversation one person talking and the other listening. It is that the character who is doing the talking is just dull. It the character and his stories were just a little more interesting, maybe.