Loosely based on a real person, Ryan Gosling plays a right-wing Nazi who is actually Jewish. While he spends his time hating Jews and joining a Jew-hating group, he struggles his internal conflict. On the one hand he has a lot of respect to his religion and culture, on the other hand he hates it and his people. While many of the people in the group are just ignorant thugs, he is obviously one of the most intellectual people in the group.Very interesting subject (even more when you know it's actually (loosely) based on a real person) which raises some interesting questions.Ryan Gosling is very good in one of the earliest roles. While the movie is interesting, it shows the lack of budget and lack of experience by a first time director. The script itself could have also use some polishing and I didn't like the cinematography which uses close-ups way too often.Still, it's an interesting story with good points, good questions and good acting by Gosling - and the fact that I saw it at least 3 times by now proves something too.

This is definitely a low budget film to say the least. It feels very "art school" which did not influence my rating but I found it interesting to point out seeing that the lead actor is now an A lister. There are not special effects or such which puts more meaning on the roles of the cast to carry the film and keep the viewers interest which it most certainly does. If you are looking for a romantic, dreamy film because you have seen Ryan Gosling in films such as The Notebook then this is not the movie for you. If you enjoyed films such as American History X or Primal Fear then you will find this enjoyable and interesting.

This stirred up a lot of controversy when it was released . Up and coming pretty boy actor plays violent neo-Nazi in no holds barred indie film examining racial hatred and what sets THE BELIEVER apart from its peers is that it's 1 ) Based on a true story 2 ) The violent protagonist is from an orthodox Jewish background himself Now that the controversy has died to such an extent you're left thinking if there was any controversy at all then what we're left with is a movie that is confused and totally underdeveloped . So much so that I have no hesitation that this is a fairly dreadful movie regardless of its content Early on we're shown via flashback the protagonist Danny Balint struggle to believe that the Abrahamic God he is taught about at school is a benevolent loving God and the audience are left thinking he's no different from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in that God is the cruellist , most sadistic character in fiction . Effectively Danny's rage doesn't come from his views on race but from religion . In fact the film ends with a character telling him " Don't go up there. There's nothing there " which can be interpreted as going to heaven . But the way rest of the film has been badly developed this is surely coincidence rather than subtext Things happen in the film that are never followed up on and remain unexplained . Danny gets together with like minded violent Nazi types , or should that be stereotypes ? They're portrayed in such a one dimensional manner you're almost expecting them to burst in to Springtime For Hitler . They decide to bomb a Synagog but not before Danny tells them to leave the Judiac scripture alone . Luckily the bomb doesn't go off and one wonders if Danny had something to do with this , but this is never followed up . Likewise a sniper attack where Danny misses his target and one of Danny's colleague is wounded comes to nothing . Throughout the movie you're expecting Nazi characters we were introduced to earlier in the film to re-appear and add something to the plot but people appear then disappear from the narrative without explanation or follow through This is a painfully ill thought out film that leaves the audience thinking what the point of the film is . It does touch upon the suggestion that some of the hierarchy of Nazi Germany were of distant Jewish descent themselves hence a bitter irony but like everything else in the movie you never believe this is what the film is trying to tell us. It's confused storytelling at its very worst BTW the selling point that it's based on a " true life character " , namely Daniel Burros is merely artistic license . It's " a true story " in much the same way Michael Bay's PEARL HARBOR is a true story . In other words it's a cynical marketing excersise . In the words of Public Enemy don't believe the hype

Somewhat unbelievable story of a Jewish rebel. The portrayal of the protagonist as a Neo-Nazi is unconvincing in parts, mostly in his, what seems artificial, love of Torah and the religion he seems to respect but not embrace and intellectually can not submit.These affectionate displays and attachment to the doctrine and dogma are delivered in a rather teleprompter mode as if he is reciting and not truly reflecting on the religious teaching. What is convincing is his disdain and hatred for the pious and superior PEOPLE who practice the rituals and refuse to take a demonstrable stand against its own suffering.What is needed here for the film to be totally successful is the believability of both sides of his inner conflict. His respect for the artifacts and tradition come across as lip service, but his overwhelming overtures and monologues against the Jews come from a deep place and the superficial submission he witnesses from his his fellow clansman are riveting.