Leo

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.

Writing gives you the ability to create worlds and examine your own life more effectively. Could writing be the perfect ticket to self-understanding? That may sound contrived, but it may just not be.

Leopold Bloom is a young gifted writer, but his mother believes he is the product of an affair. For this she resents him. Stephen on the other hand, is an ex-convict. He's quiet and controlled, as is Leopold. In a class, Leopold is asked to write a letter for an exercise. He writes this letter to a convict, where it is received by Stephen. They exchange letters, and become each others only friends.

The ending is cliched, but with the rest of this highly original behind it, there was no other way.

You'll be surprised by how moving this becomes towards the end after remaining quite sterile for most of its runtime.

A quiet man who's a gifted writer (Joseph Fiennes) gets out of prison in Mississippi and immediately starts writing in his motel room while working at a nearby restaurant where he has to deal with the local loudmouth (Dennis Hopper). Meanwhile a woman struggles with her moral failings as she lives in an antebellum mansion (Elisabeth Shue). Sam Shepard, Justin Chambers, Deborah Kara Unger and Mary Stuart Masterson are also on hand.

"Leo" (2002) is Southern Gothic that mixes elements of "Sling Blade" (1996), "Blue Velvet" (1986) and "Two Moon Junction" (1988) with a little "Forrest Gump" (1994). While nowhere near the entertainment level of "Forrest," it's arguably on par with the others. It was Mehdi Norowzian's only feature-length film and his (currently) last one, which is a shame because it certainly shows that he knows how to make an aesthetically appealing motion picture.

If you appreciate those movies, give it a try. I value it for its artistic style and the quality cast, but the storytelling could've been more compelling and less ambiguous on certain points. I'll have to view it again soon to try to figure out those muddy aspects. I'd say more, but I don't want to give anything away.

The film runs 1 hour, 43 minutes, and was shot in Oxford, Mississippi, and Charleston, South Carolina.

GRADE: B-

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.

The movie itself is a kind of southern Gothic drama with a very distinct cinematographic approach. The storyline is made up of two subtly intertwining narrative layers that make the movie as a whole hard to grasp at the first look, but thoroughly convincing as an independent character study at last. Very complex material in terms of plot and narrative style, very gloomy and depressing in terms of character portrayal and very distinct in terms of pace and cinematography. A convincing and experienced cast round off the movie's basic quality. The complexity and the unusual style might make it hard to digest for the masses, but it is a real gem for people who like to look beyond the surface and dive into the mind of the protagonist.