Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Andreas Niedermayer 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.

notantisocial 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.

talltale-1 LEO is the kind of film few people will have heard of--and that your local video store dealer will try to get you to rent because he knows nothing about it, either, and wants you to check it out for him. That's what happened to me, at least. And with a cast this interesting, why not? Let me tell you why not. This is a very ambitious attempt to deal with themes of identity, child abuse, guilt, redemption and acceptance (all wrapped around James Joyce and his Ulysses, for Christ sake!)--with almost none of the requisite writing or directing talent to back up all that ambition. The director appears to have relied upon his good cast, who undoubtedly came aboard due to the ambitious script. But acting talent can only go so far; here, it stops well short of productivity. Elizabeth Shue is particularly wasted--emoting to beat the band in a role that is one-note (well, one-and-one-half) and tiresome. A young actor named Davis Sweatt does wonders with the main character as an adolescent, and Joseph Fiennes is fine, too. Deborah Kara Unger gets abused again (she's got to stop this sort of thing), Dennis Hopper is his usual nut case, and Sam Shepard's laconic and macho. By film's end, almost anything good has fallen away and what is left seems like pure pretension. It's rare to see so much possibility come to so little.

Gerard Malavenda 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.