O Mundo de Leland

The title comes from an alteration an adolescent inmate in a correctional facility makes on the front cover of his school book on government, titled "The United States;" he adds "of (his name)."

Many characterizations in this movie work well -- the scenes between Leland (Ryan Gosling) and Becky (Jena Malone), Pearl (Don Cheadle) and father Fitzgerald (Spacey) as well as with Leland, Becky and sister Julie (Michelle Williams), among many others.

But the central thread of this movie -- the fulcrum on which everything hangs -- is the character and motives of Leland. He's a somewhat shy, passive, nice high school student who daringly introduces himself to Becky whom (we find) is going to an alternative school because of a past history of drug problems. In Becky's family, she has a sister, Julie, who's just graduating from high school and preparing to go on to college; Julie's boy friend, Julie's age (and whose parents' had recently died) is also living with them.

Leland lives with his mother; his father (Kevin Spacey) and mother have long been divorced and his father is a famous novelist. Leland is very perceptive. The young boy in "The Sixth Sense" saw dead people; Leland sees teenage lovers and recognizes that years later they will divorce, that pain is going to follow many people's present experience of happiness. BUT, for reasons that are never made explicit, his prescient gift seems to operate some times, for some people, some relationships, and not for others. ???

Parts of the movie feel a bit like a derivative quilt -- borrowing from "American Beauty," "The Sixth Sense," "The Graduate," and possibly some others I didn't recognize. That wouldn't be bad if only the character of Leland worked.

I think Gosling did a great job of playing Leland but the script and the story imposed limitations. Would such an observant, meditative young man ever be homicidal? Even for altruistic reasons? Nothing in the film gives a reason for this. I'm a retired therapist with much experience working with families and teenagers; while many of the reactions shown in the film work -- this part, this most essential element certainly does not.

And there is at least one other element which, in my experience, would not fit with real life although it's not as critical. The reason for the differences between the sisters, Becky and Julie, are never hinted at but that's okay. Once two sibs begin occupying different roles (one the all good girl, the other the troubled one), the roles themselves can begin driving each other to more extreme positions. For the troubled one, Becky, it's kind of, "what do I have to do to be loved around here -- give up being me and become Julie?" And the pressure to live up to being the All-Good, parent-pleasing child, is no less intense on Julie. So, why would she break up with her boy friend of long-standing and of whom her parents so obviously approve?

Don Cheadle was good as Leland's teacher; all others were good in their parts. 98% of the scenes were good. What was missing was that crucial slip in understanding human nature.

Good acting; flawed story and psychology; worth seeing; not a total loss.

Before I saw this film, I read the comment of someone who wasn't very fond of it. This I must admit made me apprehensive to dedicate 1 hour and 48 minutes of my life to it, but I'm glad I did. Ryan Gosling is a fantastic actor, I especially loved the Believer. Don Cheadle was also fantastic. The film presented an interesting view on life and death. It was very touching and very sad, yet it kept me interested, which most touching stories cannot do. It is a film that reckless of whether or not you like it, you should see it. It was unique,and I don;t think that anyone will ever be able to duplicate it. All of the young actors did surprisingly well given the subject matter and the emotion that must have gone into it. I was pleasantly surprised.

It's interesting to contrast Ryan Gosling's brilliant performance as the terrifyingly smart, aggressive, and articulate Jewish Nazi skinhead Danny Balint in Henry Bean's `The Believer' with his characterization of Leland P. Fitzgerald, the sweet, confused middle class child of detached, alienated American whiteness who's murdered an autistic kid in `The United States of Leland.' And this is probably the only reason to see this new movie. The roles are polar opposites, which must have attracted a young actor as talented and adventurous as Gosling. But the movie is a muddle and so, inevitably, is Gosling's Leland. The best actor in the world couldn't make sense out of Matthew Ryan Hoge's sappy, disorganized writing and unsure direction.

This is a movie that never decides where it's going and never develops a pulse. It's ill conceived in a whole list of ways. Leland is in special custody for committing this terrible, inexplicable crime – which his fellow inmates consider so evil they call him `Devil Boy.' Yet he is portrayed as a young philosopher, a mild-mannered (if potentially lethal) Holden Caulfield. The disconnect is never explained. The movie purports to be exploring Leland's motives for the killing but it never finds any.

The tension is diffused by telling the story out of order with intercut scenes that build up our knowledge of subsidiary characters like Leland's mean, famous writer father (Kevin Spacey), his mother (Lena Olin), his girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone) ), his girlfriend's little brother and sister and parents, a young guy who lives with them (Chris Klein) and. . . and. . . Hoge doesn't know where to stop.

These subplots weaken all the characterizations, not just the central one, and they rob the movie of any point. Hoge is so interested in the career and love problems of Leland's prison teacher and would-be biographer, Pearl (Don Cheadle), in Leland's nasty, remote dad, in the dilemma of Chris Klein's character, and in Leland's girlfriend's drug issues, that the mystery of Leland and his crime never gets plumbed, even if Hoge knew how to do that, which he doesn't seem to.

Is Leland some kind of perverted saint, or just a mild-mannered psychopath? We never find out. All we know is he has come to look on the world as very sad, and that's the best explanation we get for the crime: he wanted to save the little boy from sorrow.

At one point confused, vague flashbacks about trips when Leland was supposed to visit his father in Paris but wound up in New York reveal yet another subplot as he's semi-adopted by a well off Manhattan family.

This all seems either ludicrous or crazy. If it strikes you as sensitive and deep, maybe you'd better check your own pulse.

Autism advocates are up in arms at the suggestion that Leland's killing of an autistic boy might be merciful, but this is not a portrait of the autistic boy -- who's only glimpsed a few times, or of the crime (ditto). What's even more reprehensible than the slighting of the boy is the suggestion that murder might be seen merely as an expression of teenage angst. The thinking behind this movie doesn't bear looking into, and if you want to demonstrate against every badly written film you're going to be awfully busy.

Another interesting contrast is to compare "The United States of Leland" with Jordan Melamed's `Manic,' where Don Cheadle plays a very similar role as a psychiatrist dealing with a disturbed youth named Lyle (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who's killed a child in a fit of rage. `Manic' depicts in concrete terms where Lyle's rage comes from. We understand the rage is going to be a lifelong problem, but that with luck he may learn to tame it. There's no nonsense about the sorrow of the world and there aren't a lot of confusing subplots. `Manic," in fact, may be almost too simple, but it fairly bristles with powerful, authentic emotion. The story moves forward with intensity and the performances really sing.

Gosling doesn't shake our faith in his skill as an actor, and Cheadle, Klein, Spacey, and the other principals all do respectable, occasionally fine work, but they can't compensate for how badly this movie is conceived, written, and edited.

I saw this movie the day it was released back in April, and I absolutely loved it. I was blown away, as I always am, by Ryan Gosling's performance. Leland is such an intricate, amazing character that really makes the audience stop and think about their own life and their own actions. When a movie can take you out of your comfort zone and make you really stop and think about the world around you.. that's what I absolutely love. And Leland definitely did that for me. Gosling's performance is eerily touching, and the rest of the cast, including Kevin Spacey, Don Cheadle, and Jena Malone, put on great performances as well.

So please see this movie if you get the chance. [the DVD comes out on September 7th.]

I was looking at the external reviews (Ebert, etc.) for this film and they were all pretty much negative. However, after reading many of them, I noticed that they all made the same point. Critics were upset that the film centers around what appears to be a senseless murder of an autistic child. Certainly, this is a disturbing image. Critics like Ebert want a traditional detective story that uncovers why the killing happened and squarely places blame on the guilty. They want blame to be cast and resolved. Well, that status-quo theme is kind of what the movie is parodying. Just like society, the critics wanted a very quick resolution so they could move on to their next tragic opera. Perhaps there is no simple question to be answered here? There is a whole lot more to what happened then what is on the surface. The film does not seek to rationalize what happens, but rather understand the why. What also steams me so much about these inane reviews is that all they look at in the way of performances is Spacey and Cheadle, who were both great (and generally are). But there are other great performances at work here other than just the two current icons of Hollywood. Gosling gives an incredible performance that really only somebody of his extreme talent could deliver. Somehow, Gosling is able to make the killer of an autistic child sympathetic. This irritates many, I am sure. However, if one watches the film, they see what Leeland's motivation is, it is wrong, but it is not evil. Malone is also on top of her game as yet another confused young character. Basically, the killing of the child in this film is not the main theme of the movie. The main theme is life itself and how people go about dealing with it, the highs and lows, and how they attempt to sometimes help others deal with their lives (which does not seem to work out very well). There is a lot of good and bad in this world and how we handle each has direct impact on how much more good and bad will take place, and sometimes a confused attempt at doing good, can lead to a whole bunch more of bad. I think this is one of the more memorable films in sometime and has an ending that is as touching as anything in recent movie history. I strongly believe people should view this film, with an open mind.