MovieChat Forums > Thief (1981) Discussion > killing leo wasnt warranted

killing leo wasnt warranted

posted 8 years ago by ArchxStanton
15 replies | jump to latest

leo had his flaws and brought the heat onto caan, but leo did give him the kid, the house, etc ,etc. I think leo should have just paid caan more than 70k out of the 900k, or paid him half. leo wanted to keep caan in the game and hold the money as a tool to keep caan from retiring. they could have worked it out, except caan goes ape *beep* and flips out, he should have reasoned w leo and worked it out. leo put him in his place at the car dealership and caan still didn't get the message. he also ddint have to send his wife packing, he killed leo, he should have went back in leos house and found some money and stuff. thief part 2 would tie up some loose ends haha

[–] catch_the_spindrift 8 years ago

Leo had no intention of letting Frank go. Ever. Frank saw this and knew he had to get out.

Drifting through lost latitudes with no compass and no chart

[–] residentevil6901 8 years ago

If they're going to kill you and not let you out of the game it was definitely warranted.

[–] Melancholy11 8 years ago

Leo ruined Frank's dream. Frank was a talented theif and Leo took advantage of him. Frank said it as well as anyone could it was his sweat, his risk, not Leo's. I was happy when Leo got popped.

[–] miljenko1 8 years ago

What Frank (James Caan) did to Leo fits perfectly with his character. Frank is a guy who has had it with the system and the society, and had long before established his MO while serving in prison: he wouldn't put up with anyone trying to pin him down. The movie was very explicit about this, and no way would he ever chose reconciliation with the likes of Leo.

http://worldofmishimi.blogspot.com

[–] !!!deleted!!! (63057267) 8 years ago

O.P., your take on the ending is ridiculous. Leo didn't deserve to live, and Frank killing him was a great gift to the world. Leo was a sadistic, ruthless, bloodthirsty gangster. If you felt wronged by his demise, that speaks volumes about your personality. Leo much?

[–] lostinamerica70 8 years ago

You kill my close friend and then threaten to whore out my wife and then kill my wife and kid and feed them to the public in a Wimpy Burger and you think there is room for reason?

I'm a very reasonable guy buy that wouldn't fly in my world. Whether it was Leo or it was Frank, one of them was going to die.

[–] filmklassik (51) 7 years ago

Yeah, I think the original poster was trolling, actually. Leo was an evil sadistic murdering scum who fully deserved the payback Frank administered. Times ten.

Great ending. Great movie.

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 5 years ago

F Leo, he totally had it coming!!!

[–] Michael71 8 years ago

True but then the ending would have been boring and wouldn't have worked if they just "worked it out".
But I agree Leo should have given Frank a lot more, he scammed Frank.

[–] brinsonmh 8 years ago

Leo lied to Frank--remember Frank was supposed to be paid all in cash and Leo tried to get him to accept a little cash and the rest in stock or whatever?

Leo sealed his fate when he told Frank how it was really going to be going forward.

Frank was not going to be Leo's punk.

[–] BillHicksFan (10087) 7 years ago

Exactly... Frank was his own man. He kept his end, Leo did not. Leo is a scumbag and I was never so happy after seeing him being taken down.