The story of Michael Berg, a German lawyer who, as a teenager in the late 1950s, had an affair with an older woman, Hanna, who then disappeared only to resurface years later as one of the defendants in a war crimes trial stemming from her actions as a concentration camp guard late in the war. He alone realizes that Hanna is illiterate and may be concealing that fact at the expense of her freedom.
When he falls ill on his way home from school, 15 year-old Michael Berg is rescued by Hanna, a woman twice his age. Nearly a decade later, he re-encounters Hanna as she defends herself in a war-crime trial. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Reader torrent reviews
(ag) wrote: I love this movie. super funny and I could watch it ovef and over
(es) wrote: This is an absolutely horrible movie. It's mind-bogglingly bad. The problem with this film isn't the acting, the cast does well considering the circumstances. The big issue here is the budget, writing, and cinematography. This thing had a budget of $50,000 most of which must have gone to traveling expenses. Roger Corman did much better on lower budgets. One thing that makes no sense is the time period. When is this set? The wardrobe, weapons, vehicles...nothing matches. Natalie Stone's character starts off dressed like she belongs in the 1800s but she enters a bar where one of the bad guy's henchmen is dressed like a gangsta rapper. I'd like to see Sean Cameron Michael and Christopher Adamson in something better. I can't think of a single reason to recommend this movie to anyone. Best thing about it is the DVD cover. The movie itself isn't worth the time. In fact it's longer than it says here, and feels like it never ends. Mostly they walk around. There's some gunplay, which doesn't at all work. It's not worth it even for an Allan Quatermain completist like me. I'd say avoid it, but someone will actually want to see what's so bad about it....and suffer through this. It's NOT "so bad it's funny". It's just boring and pointless.
(nl) wrote: This movie was really dumb. It would be categorized as a horror flick, but wasn't really scary at all. Basically, a a couple is deeply, madly in love, then the husband dies in a car crash, and the woman decides to stay on living on their farm in South Africa. And then, while mourning, the woman says that she can't live without her husband, then so he comes back to haunt her--and get her pregnant. The movie is so dumb, and there are some really disturbing parts, like how the husband's spirit possesses the baby and then some erotic scenes ensue, between the wife and her baby... eew. Really dumb incongruous movie. There are so many loose ends, and the premise didn't sell. One other weird thing is that the husband/ghost was played by John Hannah of The Mummy Trilogy fame. I always imagined him as the bumbling Jonathan character from the Mummy movies and seeing him in several full-on nude love scenes was WEIRD.
(es) wrote: Meh..good enough. Terrific performances from Francis McDormand and Christian Bale, though.
(it) wrote: I feel like I was hit slowly by a train with this movie. Still debating if it was a worthwhile hit. The shot composition gave me time and time again a lovely treat to the eyes, and the overall visual element is presented in a very entertaining way for a three hour long movie.I love the cover to this film after watching this movie.
(fr) wrote: Self-indulgent reformation of the original crew that moves at a leaden pace; non-Trekkies could have hoped for a trimmed down version but unfortunately I saw the "special longer" version with 12 extra minutes added on from the theatrical release. Ilia ices relations quickly with male colleagues by quickly declaring her vow of celibacy in conversation.
(gb) wrote: The love-at-first-site affair between Cary Grant and Jean Arthur is, like in most movies of the time, quite absurd. Still, the story is fun to watch due to drama surrounding the fate of a number of young pilots who risk their lives to keep an air-male business alive in tiny town in Peru.
(fr) wrote: Critics' rating of this movie are so full of it. This movie is GREAT!
(de) wrote: I've never been a huge fan of war dramas, but "They Were Expendable" is an exception. This came out at the nose of the end of the war, and could have been much more groundbreaking had it been filmed a year earlier. Still, I can't imagine people not liking it at the time. Most war films in the '40's were more glamourous than realistic, and this is one that isn't for once. The two main characters played by Wayne and Montgomery were fictionalized, but were still based on real life Navy lieutenants. Masterful John Ford directs, and I think no one could have done this movie better. He makes this film a feast for the eyes and the ears. The Army actually aided Ford a lot on this movie, and the boats and torpedoes were actually real, as well as some of the supporting players. He gives you the full effect, every shot filmed in exciting, and the few action scenes are ones that you just wait for. Every explosion you see is unbelievable, because considering this movie is 66 years old, it shows that effects could in fact, be good. "They Were Expendable" is more a movie with eye candy, but is still a good film nothingless.