Leo (2002)

A Masterpiece!

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

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Watching this movie is like having your car break down on a hundred mile stretch of road smack dab between Dullsville and Boring Town. The first 50 minutes is nothing but drudgerous back story that could have been dispensed with through a handful of well written lines of dialog. The middle 30 minutes is a bunch of mediocre pretension with a twist you'll see coming a mile away. The only way I can describe the final 20some minutes of Leo is that this blah little tale comes to a definite end, but these filmmakers keep on going like someone who's having sex and can't achieve orgasm. It's a lot of uncomfortable pounding away at ground that's already been well pounded.This movie weaves together two thoroughly tedious yarns about life in Mississippi. In something like the present day, a taciturn man named Stephen (Joseph Fiennes) gets out of prison after serving 18 years on a murder conviction. He gets a job working in a hotel/diner and spends the rest of his time writing in his room and taping the pages up on his wall where they are blown about by an inexplicable breeze. In some nondescript part of the 1970s, an unhappy young woman named Mary Bloom (Elizabeth Shue) is living an unfulfilled life as the wife of college professor Ben Bloom (Jake Weber). After going into a whole bunch of Mary's life that absolutely didn't need to be gone into, Mary gives birth to a son named Leo (Davis Sweatt) while miserably carrying on with Ryan (Justin Chambers), a house painter who inexplicably transforms from sensitive man to trailer trash bastard.These separate threads come together when Leo grows up to become a pen pal of Stephen. Their relationship is more involved than that, but anyone who watches this movie will figure out what it is long before the film actually reveals the truth, so I don't see any need to get into it myself. Back in the present, Stephen has to protect a designated victim (Deborah Kara Unger) from Horace (Dennis Hopper), the almost comically abusive co-owner of the hotel/diner. Back in the 1970s…well, young actor Davis Sweatt essentially stands around watching Elizabeth Shue give a decent but obvious performance as a mother who hates and resents her son. The story then comes to a reasonable and logical conclusion, yet the movie continues on and on and on until reaching an artsy-fartsy final image that must have meant something to these filmmakers but won't mean anything to anyone else.Leo would have been a boring experience even if it had had an unexpected and interesting twist to it. That this movie's twist is predictable and stale sent my apathy level rocketing past the Moon and on its way to Mars. In fairness, someone with a stronger constitution might have gotten more out of this film than I did. But after the first 50 minutes of this thing passed and I realized I'd just spent that much time watching exposition and the real plot of Leo was only getting started, I'll admit that I emotionally checked out. As I mentioned before, not a thing in that first hunk of Leo couldn't have been more effectively communicated to the audience through a few lines of dialog and a few moments of behavior on screen. To sit there for that long, only to discover I'd been watching a 50 minute long equivalent of the opening crawl of a Star Wars flick was too much for me to tolerate.So, take this criticism with a grain of salt. I found viewing Leo to be as much fun as a dental exam and as touching as a traffic ticket. Your mileage may vary.

I bought this movie, Leo, three years ago in the "previously viewed" section of a ubiquitous movie rental company. I'd not heard of the movie until I saw it for sale that day and bought it merely because Joseph Fiennes was on the cover. What a gem I discovered. Not only in the fine cast but also in their performances, the direction and the cinematography. And this was Norowzian's directorial debut - outstanding.As far as film and television media is concerned I am limited in terms of critical commentary by the fact that I don't watch television (I've never owned a television set) and thus see most movies either on the big screen or on my computer screen. However, this movie so profoundly moved me that I wrote a commentary on a note card and placed it inside the "Leo" DVD box the first time I saw the movie three years ago. I watched this movie again last week (I've watched Leo ten time since I bought it) and still feel strongly that this a great movie that ought to rank as a classic. Following is the commentary I initially wrote about "Leo" three years ago:"In thirty-five years of watching movies and with an increasingly critical eye, I must rank this movie as one the best movies I have ever seen. To articulate a thought through an image; to express an emotion in a gesture is not just film making, it's poetry. The French Existentialist, Albert Camus said, "Like great works deep feelings mean more than they are capable of saying." This movie is the exact felicity of Camus."

Friends of IMDb :i've just finished watching this movie , and i am telling you its one of the best movies i have ever seen ...i've noticed that there's only 197 votes till now ... is that possible ? the dialogue is amazing , the acting is heart devastating , and the cinematography is perfect ,not to mention the lovely acoustic guitar background during the movie ...i don't know if it would make any sense to you guys , but for me this movie is a combination of Taxi driver and forest gump ( if the latter was as intellectual as leo here )i believe that Fiennes tackled a tough and complex character here ... he really did a great job !A must see

First of all you must be an adult who likes serious drama to watch this film, otherwise, negative comments don't qualify. For a first time director to helm a cast of extremely talented actors, he's created a drama just short of a masterpiece. Joseph Fiennes is one of the most underrated actors working today. His mastery of the American southern dialect is superb. Elizabeth Shue, who is constantly overlooked when juicy female roles are doles out, once again delivers a remarkable performance as does Deb Unger in a lesser and difficult role. Sam Shepard and Dennis Hopper are up to par as usual. This talented cast worked for scale and for the sheer love of the project and it shows. For a low-budget independent film, the DP went to great lengths to set up unusual photography and is better than most 'A' pictures. The flashbacks and present day stories are combined so well and naturally, it's easy for anyone to follow the engrossing plot of a kid, born out of wedlock, the night his mother's husband and daughter were killed in an auto accident. Shue, the mother, blames Leo, (Fiennes) the rest of his life which leads him to murder and prison while trying to save his mother's life. But even then, she won't come to his defense. It's a cold picture of child abuse and neglect of a smart intelligent kid longing to be loved while always trying to do the right thing, no matter the consequence. The movie is heavy drama and if you expect less, you'll be disappointed.