THE READER

rated R

ART--->**
HEART->*
MIND-->**
FUN--->1/2

Peter, a young boy (age 15 or 16) gets sick, and is cared for by Hannah, a woman twice his age. Away and on bed rest for three months, he can't stop thinking about her, so he returns to help out with some chores. She initiates a physical relationship with this minor child (that's called pedophilia or statutory rape, by the way) that lasts all summer, while he reads classic novels to her on every visit.

When Hannah abruptly moves out of her apartment, Peter is heartbroken. While attending law school several years later, Peter witnesses Hannah as a defendant in a trial. It turns out she is a former Nazi Germany SS guard with a role in the deaths of hundreds of people. Peter now questions everything in his life, struggling to reconcile his feelings for Hannah with the reality of her past.

In trying to give humanity to such a cold and disturbed person, Kate Winslet should, I guess, be nominated for Best Actress for her portrayal of Hannah Schmitz. But by no means should THE READER have edged out any other serious contender for Best Picture. It doesn't even function as a movie. It doesn't flow organically; its look and style are unremarkable. It is flat, pale, and lifeless.

One of the first images we see (with no lead-in whatsoever) is the full frame of a naked woman from behind. I suppose this was a way to shock the audience and start the numbing process for all the flesh that lies ahead. You see, the main characters are naked for almost a third of the film, although it seems like a lot more. And this is by no means a compliment, but it should be noted that the filmmakers give equal time to full-on male nudity as they do to female nudity.

Kate Winslet can look attractive, but here she is appropriately pale and creepy, her boobs showing up everywhere. Usually the frame is set above the chest so that you won't be distracted. But nudity in THE READER is so prevalent, I almost considered this an intentional challenge laid out by the filmmakers. You have to fight your normal, sinful inclination to look at their naughty bits so you can engage in what the characters are saying. The sex scenes are quite graphic, but without any real emotional connection. So in essence this film is a gross, yet really boring porno.

There is a failed attempt in the last act to champion the cause of literacy, and if that seems like a non sequiter, it is.

The only thing remotely engaging in the film is when Peter walks silently through one of the concentration camp bunkers. Endless piles of shoes on both sides of the somber walkway lead to those wretched execution showers and eventually to the ovens used for disposal of the bodies. These images are, and always should be effective on their own, and they add historical weight to a film that otherwise has nothing going for it.

The one bright spot in THE READER is the fantastic Lena Olin, who plays more than one role. She brings a life and vitality to the screen that is sorely lacking anywhere else. Unfortunately, there is nothing else notable or worth remembering about THE READER.

Having survived last year's Worst Oscars Ever, I didn't think it was possible for another movie to under perform the triple-threat of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and ATONEMENT. I was wrong.

THE READER is by far one of the worst movies ever made. Choking down this dry crust of bread will leave you feeling uncomfortable and meaningless. So why is it up for (of all things) Best Picture? Because these days the film that wins will be the one that pushes the moral boundary the furthest, regardless of its cinematic quality. Decent films haven't got a chance.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS.