The Basketball Diaries (1995)

*** out of ****

Here in 2015 we can look back on Leonardo DiCaprio's career (thus far) and admire what a great talent he is. As far back as “Titanic” in 1997 he has been a fantastic leading man – and possibly the most likeable on-screen face you'll find. Absolutely NOBODY is better at playing the “nice guy” and I admire his ability. But even if you didn't have the past two decades to watch him, if you'd seen him 20 years ago in “The Basketball Diaries” you'd know you had someone pretty special on your hands.

DiCaprio is Jim Carroll, a New York kid with aspirations – he is a well thought of athlete and writes well enough to be considering a career as a scribe. He and a couple of his buddies think a bit too highly of themselves and get in plenty of mischief, mostly having to do with their lack of respect for authority. Eventually their little experiments with drugs (weed, ether, etc.) mount into a dabbling into heroin. And of course, as always happens when heroin is dabbled with, it becomes the only thing they want to do.

Jim lives with his single mother, but when she sees what he's getting himself into she gives him the “my way or the highway” ultimatum, and Jim chooses the highway. Over the next several months (years?) he and two of his lifelong cronies (played admirably well by Mark Wahlberg and James Madio) start lives of petty crime where the only objective is to find a way to get the next fix.

Wahlberg (at the time of this film he was still Marky Mark) got a lot of attention for his performance in this film, but I personally think it's only because nobody expected him to be any good as an actor. It's DiCaprio that owns this stage – he not only performs it well, he has the whole junkie thing down pat. The sniffly nose, the spaced-out eyes, the obsessive look and the single-mindedness. If you didn't know better you'd think he actually had experience in the lifestyle....

There is a particular scene late in the film, where Jim is on the run from the law and tries to go back home, that is really spectacular. Her agony at what he has become, her conflict over her desire to help him and her fear of him, and his conflict over whether he just wants her to throw him a few bucks or to really come home.... it's a fantastic scene. Both DiCaprio and Lorraine Bracco (who plays Jim's mother) couldn't have been more convincing.

Beyond being great entertainment, I would go as far as to suggest it's something that parents might want to make sure they get their middle-teens to watch. Drug addiction is one of those things that kids always think “yeah, other people get in trouble with it but it can't happen to me”. This film shows just how far such experimentation can take you before you end up on the other side of the sod.

A bit too gritty for some tastes, but a fine film and a great performance.

The Believer (2001)

** ½ out of ****

Since the age of 16, I have always been fascinated by religion. Not having any particular faith myself, I make a habit of asking believers why they believe and non-believers why they don't. On only very rare occasions have I ever met anyone that had a good reason either way, and often I have found people that claim not to believe to be horribly conflicted – that they are not actually non-believers, rather people who have some kind of problem with the religion they grew up in.

“The Believer” follows a young man with similar conflicts. Ryan Gosseling is Daniel, a rabidly anti-semetic skinhead who makes a hobby of tormenting Jews for sport. We learn early on that he admires the third reich and wants to reinstate a program of systematically eradicating all Jewish people. He becomes aligned with a fascist group who are in turns compelled and disgusted by his aspirations.

However, we suddenly come to find that David himself IS Jewish. Raised in the church, attending Hebrew school, and clearly very intelligent, he raised the ire of his teachers with his open doubt about God's word and deeds. But rather than try to deal with his curiosity and defiance with understanding and discussion, he was met with anger and demands. As a result, the youthful David fell away and has decided to cleanse the world of what most torments him.

And he most definitely is tormented. When he and some of his allies break into a synagogue to plant a bomb (designed to explode during temple to kill as many Jews as possible) he is starkly offended when they disrespect, tear and spit on a Torah scroll. Later he returns alone and steals the scroll so he can repair it. And as a result of his remembering many of the things he grew up learning, his hatred for the Jews starts to convert into what it really was all along – a hatred of himself and his unwillingness to submit to God.

“The Believer” is a fascinating movie. In turns disgusting and beautiful in the development of Daniel's character, it shows an inner conflict many young people suffer through when they become old enough to really consider the things their religion taught them growing up. That isn't to say many people become haters of their own religion or race, rather they come to hate themselves for not having the faith their elders taught them is a virtue. The parallels are many and obvious, and I enjoyed how they explored this in Daniel's specific circumstances.

Personally, I have no religion. I don't think it's impossible that there could be a God but as a young man I decided that no religion had any more claim to represent an actual deity than any other. So I remain open minded and respectful of all beliefs, though I also know that no organized religion could ever hold much for me. However I see how easy it would have been to become hateful, and though I think it would be a very rare case that someone could go to the extremes that Daniel did, if there is any self-doubt in a person's rejection of religion I can see how they could be angry and self-loathing as Daniel is.

Ryan Goseling is very good in the lead role – better than I personally would ever have thought him capable of. And while the film itself isn't a great one, it is incredibly intriguing to anyone who considers things like religion, and the evolution of Daniel is gripping. The final scene is also pretty compelling – one I would love to have a discussion group about the meaning of with a bunch of similarly curious individuals.

Not for all tastes, but intriguing. I have no doubt I will watch it again.

Goldfinger (1964)

*** ½ out of ****

I know lots of film lovers for whom Sean Connery is the only James Bond. Personally I liked all of them, with Roger Moore being my least favorite. The current Bond (Daniel Craig) is certainly making the most compelling films out of the group, but Connery remains my favorite 007. And “Goldfinger” is easily the best of the Bond films he was in.

“Goldfinger” featured a bit of a shift in the movie version of Bond from a straight secret agent to the cartoon character that he would become throughout the 1970s and parts of the 80s. The intrigue and tension of the first two films was in part replaced by gadgets, gizmos and cars with ejector seats. In this film however, the intrigue remained as well as giving us two of Bond's greatest villains, Auric Goldfinger and his fireplug of a henchman, Odd Job.

Auric Goldfinger is obsessed with gold and has a deep seated need to acquire as much of it as possible through any means necessary. He and Bond start off playing a bit of a cat and mouse game that culminates in a pretty engrossing golf match with the stakes a large gold brick. Eventually Goldfinger turns out to be much more clever than Bond gives him credit for, and Bond is captured and cut off from his allies. He finds that Goldfinger intends to rob Fort Knox by spraying the entire area with fatal nerve gas before sending in his team. Bond, with no help from MI6 or the CIA, is left to stop the plot single-handedly.

“Goldfinger” has some of Bond's most memorable scenes. The gold painted naked lady in Bond's bed, the “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!” laser scene and the hand-to-hand battle with Odd Job at Fort Knox. It also has one of the most famed Bond girl characters, Pussy Galore (later paid tribute to in “Austin Powers” by the character Alotta Fagina). Overall much of the film sounds like a comedy when described, but it is so well written, with Sean Connery so perfect in the role, that it plays as a classic piece of cinema.

Heck, I even love Shirley Bassey's themesong.....

“Goldfinger” is the apex of the James Bond films. Before he became the mugging, cliche-ridden gigolo that would emerge over the next ten films, this Bond movie is the one that caught the character at exactly the right time. The writers found that perfect mix between absurdity and fantasy, and were able to come up with realistic dialogue for the unrealistic situations. Daniel Craig's Bond is certainly more of an action hero, and more of the character that Ian Fleming originally wrote about. But as a film hero, Connery's Bond in “Goldfinger” is as good as it gets.

Absolutely not to be missed.

The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015)

** ½ out of ****

Having seen this over a week ago now, I am still not completely sure what to think about it. The critics are ripping it, the audiences are staying away in droves, and it seems that it is being virtually written off.

But I think I liked it......

“Insurgent” picks up right where “Divergent” (2014) left off, with Tris (Shealine Woodley), her Brother Caleb and Four and a couple of others on the run after the massacre in the Abnegation sector, which has been pinned on them. All of the remaining authorities are hunting them, though many citizens understand that things aren't exactly as they're being told in the media.

Meanwhile Jeanine (Kate Winslet) is still running the overall show, and has come into some kind of magic box with a secret message inside from the “founders”. It takes a divergent individual to open it, but she has been unable to find a strong enough one yet to get the job done. All of the divergents she's tried so far have died, and she realizes it will take a very special one. Guess who the lucky girl is going to be?

Basically the film takes the long way around the barn. When it's over we haven't really learned a lot about anything, except that the entire society was a trial and there is a bigger world outside. Very little is ultimately resolved (which is to be expected, as there are more sequels to come). Critics have derided it as a ripoff of “The Hunger Games” series, and with the revolutionary themes, the “chosen one” and the uniting battle of different factions against the powers-that-be, there are definite similarities. But of course, there are many other similarities.....

There were times while watching it was thinking “this was ripped off directly from “The Matrix””. Other times I saw they had stolen ideas from “Star Trek: The Next Generation”. In fact, the STTNG ripoffs, while less obvious, were considerably more far-reaching. But that being said, I didn't really find any of these things to be negative – they simply contributed to the action and story.

Woodley is a talented girl and she carries the film. And it IS carried. At no time during the movie did I look at my watch which is, to me, a good barometer of how much I enjoyed it. The special effects are fabulous, heavy on CGI but utterly seamless. While this film wasn't nearly as compelling as its predecessor (which was a true surprise – “Divergent” was far better than it had any right to be), neither is it a weak follow-up. “Matrix Reloaded” was a mega hit with good reviews, but it sucked compared to the original. This one holds its own.

I think it's getting a bad rap from the critical community because nobody expected the first one to be good, and it was. So everyone expected this one to be as good, and it's not. But it's still a solid effort in my opinion, and makes me want to see where it's going next. Don't let the negative hype bother you – it is worth seeing.

Save the Tiger (1973)

*** out of ****

Movies that are largely character studies can be interesting, especially when you find yourself really relating to the character in question. When I first saw “American Beauty”(1999) I connected so deeply with Kevin Spacey's “Lester Burnham” that he has always been one of my most cherished movie characters. In “Save the Tiger”, Jack Lemmon provided an equally compelling character in Harry Stoner, but in the end Harry lacks the personal redemption that made Lester so important to me. So while the performance is amazing, and the film is very good, it simply lacks the emotional connection that, at least for me, is so necessary for this type of film.

Harry is a bad guy, though he doesn't see himself that way. He's a WWII veteran, and still suffering from some shell shock from the experience. He co-owns a fashion company, where he employs some 40+ people and he puts up the appearance of a good, entrepreneurial guy. But he cheats on his wife, cooks the books at the company and is negotiating with an underworld character to burn down the factory for the insurance money.

Like a lot of aging guys, he longs for the days of his youth – when the Brooklyn Dodgers were king, when jazz was in the air and and when athletes performed like athletes. He excuses these thoughts because things used to be better. He excuses his personal shortcomings because he keeps his employees paid. He excuses his infidelities because they're none of her damn business. Using a more modern vernacular, he's kind of a douchebag.

But the film presents his point of view as well. There is no real black and white. Is he bad, or just misunderstood? Can the ends justify the means in his business dealings? The film never takes a position, not excusing him as a curmudgeon or condemning him as a villain. He is definitely the anti-hero, as his business partner Phil (Jack Gilford) is the moral center of the film, trying to do the right thing all along.

The scenes with Lemmon and Gilford are gold. Their conversations flow so perfectly that it doesn't seem scripted at all. Lemmon is remembered mostly these days as the straight man to Matthau's loudmouth, but the guy was a flat-out great actor, and it is on full display here. Terrific performances, but as previously stated, I just couldn't get behind the character. He is someone I would never want to know in real life. I can say that with assurance too, as I have known several guys just like him.....

A good movie, with great performances. Not one to be revisited often, but surely worth a first look at least.