A beautiful, yet flawed curiosity

Rating: 6/10 (30 January 2009)

THE READER is a film that is going to perplex many audiences. The reason for this is that is has many of the ingredients that make a film great, and many will see the film as a great success because of these. But unfortunately, the film also misses the mark in a few areas and many film goers will not be able to look pass them. I was stuck in between these views... that is why it has taken almost two days for me to get this review out.
What really struck me off the bat was how great the film looks. Roger Deakins always works wonders behind the camera, but there was something about the look of this film that was just so lush and captivating. There's no doubt that it's Oscar nomination for cinematography is completely justified. Next, direction. Daldry, with just two other films under his belt has gained quite the reputation (with 3 Oscar nominations under his belt), and that is because he has a great sense of realism and the ability to make the audience feel apart of his character's world. Those abilities are put to great effect in THE READER. There is not a moment that doesn't feel completely authentic. Also adding the the sense of immersion are a wealth of very fine performances, by heavy-weights (Winslet, Fiennes) and relatively unknowns. I'm pretty sure that Kate Winslet will take home the Best Actress Oscar this year, but I feel that it is NOT her finest performance and there were better performances from other female leads (Melissa Leo in FROZEN RIVER and Sally Hawkins who failed to obtain Oscar recognition for HAPPY GO LUCKY).
While the film has it's undeniable strong points, THE READER also has some unforgivable flaws that damper the film as a whole. Frankly, it's one of the colder films of recent memory. For such an intimate portrait of these characters, I was shocked at how little I cared about any of them. Even Winslett, the heart of the picture, I had little feeling or sympathy for. For a drama of this caliber, the lack of emotional connection was beyond disappointing. But perhaps the biggest flaw was how generic it all felt. Throughout, I was just constantly reminded of different, and often better, films. I don't know why, but there was so much familiar with the plot and the setting that I couldn't help but be reminded of such films. I know it has been stated to the point of insanity, but THE READER is the definition of Oscar Bait (especially in the case of Winslett, who will once again prove excessive nudity = Oscars). What also didn't help matters was that after a strong start, the film just seemed to get more tedious and boring as it proceeded, to which I began to car less and less (The film at just over two hours rushes through it's plot, sometimes leaving the viewer confused and in a state of "why do I even care." The film does build to a strong third act though).
I may sound like I'm ragging on the film, but I'm most definitely not. It's just that in the time after my viewing of it, the flaws have seem to become more apparent then before; and that's always frustrating.
For all it's stunning cinematography and visual grandeur, there's an uneasy sense of "I've seen this all before;" For all of the films great performances, I wondered why I didn't care about their characters more; For it's strong direction, I wondered why the film couldn't flow at a more comprehensive pace.
This brings me to the conclusion that in THE READER, most every positive aspect comes with a negative one. This is a shame because the talent on display could have given light to a great film. Instead, the final product is more of a deeply flawed curiosity that some will love and some will hate. A few however will be stuck in the middle like I am. I find that worse than the two extremes.