This is How Movies Should Be Made

Better Late Then Never

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

Joseph Fiennes is a fine actor, and the consistency of his performance is very much the centrepiece of this movie. There are elements of the script which don't seem as coherent, but I could gloss over these because of his consistency.I like the look of the movie, and the direction costumes and sets complemented each other well, and this was maintained in recounting present day and 'flashback' experiences.There are comparisons to other films which could be made, especially to Blue Velvet. Indeed Dennis Hopper could have made the two films without changing stride. And Fiennes' character is similar to that played by his brother Ralph in Cronenberg's masterpiece Spider, without the same degree of madness.I picked up fairly early on the way the plot would head, and I was right. The late novelist Kurt Vonnegut used to often tell the reader how the book would end in the first chapters, and yet the books were compelling. I found this equally so.

I try not to have great hopes for movies, however I was pleasantly surprised. I was afraid that it was going to dark, but instead it offers a very strong main character. Not like a action bondy type, but a rare inquisitive thoughtful man. There are some dark elements to it where people are just cruel. The story time line is not linear, and I was impressed at how well the whole thing ended. Its not really a feel- good type, definitely was a cure for the common movie. While not being perfect, I really enjoyed it.

Actually, I likened Leo to the Mickey Rourke film Angleheart as both films turned out to be a search for self.In Leo you have a young, troubled boy named Leo who as part of a school assignment begins writing to Joseph Fiennes, who plays a convicted felon in prison.When released from prison, Fiennes character sets out to meet the boy, Leo,and help both himself and Leo in the process.Outstanding performances by Elisabeth Shue, who reprises her role as an alcholic from Leaving Las Vegas and Dennis Hopper who rules the small town's diner as Capt. Bligh ruled the HMS Bounty only with a lot more violence and sexual tension thrown in.Sam Shepard's role serves as the Greek chorus and keeps the viewer aware of the progress of the other characters.All in all a very good film that will captivate and entertain.