A good movie, but the book must be better.

Rating: 7/10 (17 January 2009)

First off, let me start by saying I never read the book, or know it existed before seeing this movie. I will comment on the title at the end of the review.
The story of The Reader is a troubling but fascinating one. Even if you are very open-minded, the tough and sight of an intimate relationship between a 15-years-old boy and a 35 years-old woman may disturb you. I know it did for me. But this uneasy feeling is what is good about the movie: it makes you think.
The second part of the movie is more about the back-story of Kate Winslet character in World War II. And this is here that the movie shows its biggest flaw: you have a hard time understanding the underlying motivations of the characters. Not because their actions don't make sense, but because their motivations are so complex and out of the ordinary that you have a hard time deciphering them by seeing only faces. This is why I think the book must be better: in a book, you can inside the head of a character, which you can't do in a movie (Being John Malkovich aside) The actors must be praised for their performances nonetheless. Kate Winslet had a tough role and played it with brio. She highly deserve her Golden Globe, and probably even an Oscar. David Kross must also be praised because he had the toughest challenge of all: you're first English-speaking role, you're not even 18 and you must play in a sex scene with Kate Winslet? I know I wouldn't be able.
Ralph Fiennes, however, disappointed me. He seemed like a daydreamer, too soft-spoken, too slow. In contrast to his best-known role (Amon Goeth and Voldemort), he seemed extinguished.
All in all, a good movie, with some flaws due to the nature of the story. Go see the movie and, if you like it, seek the book, you maybe even more satisfied.