Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Ver The Catcher Was a Spy

The Catcher Was a Spy is a movie starring Paul Rudd, Pierfrancesco Favino, and Tom Wilkinson. A former major league baseball player, Moe Berg, goes undercover in World War II Europe for the Office of Strategic Services.

Genres
Drama, War, Biography
Director
Ben Lewin
Starring
Pierfrancesco Favino, Paul Rudd, Connie Nielsen, Tom Wilkinson

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Drama, War, Biography
Director Ben Lewin
Writer Robert Rodat, Nicholas Dawidoff
Stars Pierfrancesco Favino, Paul Rudd, Connie Nielsen, Tom Wilkinson
Country USA
Also Known As ザ・キャッチャー・ワズ・ア・スパイ, Υπεράνω πάσης υποψίας, Hvatač je bio špijun, El catcher espía
Runtime 1 h 38 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description A former major league baseball player, Moe Berg, goes undercover in World War II Europe for the Office of Strategic Services.

Top reviews

Friday, 03 Jul 2020 13:18

I remember watching this on television many years ago. Not all that fond of the film in fact. But I don't remember it being particularly good. The only reason I'm commenting on it now is that I was watching the same movie again last night and that makes it even more interesting. 'Catcher Was A Spy' follows the lives of 6 people during WWII. Major Ander Soto, nicknamed "The Catcher" was a 'strong' and tough man who commanded the rescue of 30 people from a German POW camp near Belmont, California. He was a well respected leader and had numerous decorations. I'm not going to tell you the story of his first encounter with the Germans, but I will say that one of the men in his command died in the battle. The 6 men, including Major Soto, form the nucleus of the cast. The last 6 weeks of their lives is the most horrific thing they'll ever experience. One by one they become the hunted, the hunted, the hunted, and eventually the hunted. The men are told that the only way they'll be safe is if they make the jump from ship to ship and get on one of the prisoners ships. When they do, the torture begins. The film is shot mostly in black and white, but you get the sense that it was filmed in color because of the great acting, especially that of Billy Crudup. 'Catcher Was A Spy' was good because of the sound, editing, and other technical aspects. However, I also think that the film needed a better script. It is a good story, but it could have been better. I give 'Catcher Was A Spy' a 8/10.
Friday, 03 Jul 2020 07:21

It's been around 20 years since director John Sayles wrote and directed this brilliantly hilarious, realistic, shocking story of the story of a war hero who got lost in an Asian jungles in Vietnam. The German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (Oscar winner Ralph Fiennes) is sent on a secret mission to South East Asia to find out why the Chinese Communist Party has abducted three of his young friends. When they're captured, they're taken to an unknown "city" and then to an unknown Chinese Communist base camp. The leader of the Chinese Communist Party is played by Wong Jing, who is an excellent choice for the role of leader. It turns out that all the leaders of the three young boys (we also learn that the leaders are men) are dead and their children are now being taken away from them by the Communists. When the young boys are found, they are told that their fathers are in the place being held and that their mother will be taken away as well. It turns out that these three boys are actually all of these Communist leaders! You might think that it's just another "fact" but it's not. The truth about the children being taken away is horrifying and scary. The director and the actor who plays the leader of the Communists is quite phenomenal in this film. It's a very accurate portrayal of the violence and oppression of the Communist Party in Vietnam. The other actors in the movie also do a terrific job with the tough situations they're put in. I've heard that John Sayles had to have a "special effects" supervisor for this film. John Schlesinger (of the War Games movies) does a great job with the special effects and the story. It's a film that's definitely not for the squeamish. It is an entertaining and a good movie and is worth seeing.
Monday, 22 Jun 2020 20:02

My personal opinion about this movie is that it was a great experience for me. I personally didn't know what to expect but I was very interested about what was going to happen. This movie kept me glued to my seat until the very end. I also learned a lot about WWII. I knew what was going on but I didn't know how it was going to turn out. I liked how this movie showed the different things the Germans did when they were captured. It was very interesting to know what was happening and how it was affecting all of the countries in the world. It was also interesting to learn more about how things worked in Germany after the war. It was very interesting to know that the communists were very fanatical about what they did in Germany but they were very brutal when it came to the Americans. I really enjoyed this movie because it was very entertaining to watch. I really enjoyed watching the different parts of the film because it gave me more information about what the story was about. I was surprised about how much the music was playing and how it really kept me engaged. The music was very cool and interesting. The only thing that I was really disappointed about was that it was so dark at the end of the movie. I didn't think that they were going to show more of the war and more of the time that the German soldiers were just trying to survive. It was boring and I couldn't really get into the movie. I really liked how they tried to show that the Americans were fighting for the good of the world but I wasn't sure how much they were fighting for. It really helped me understand what was going on with the American military and how much they were fighting for the good of the world. The movie really did give me a good look into what was going on at that time. I thought that this movie was very interesting to me and I would recommend it to anyone.
Thursday, 18 Jun 2020 10:05

As we all know, we are constantly bombarded with the sense that the military's action in Iraq is the only reason for the US to be in the first place. And just like in a number of movies that are just about defending the US from being attacked, the explanation in the movie is so thin, you can almost make it up as you go along. Here in Iraq, the media has been telling us a great deal about the soldiers (and their families), and the audiences has been told a great deal about their lives. But there is a slight problem with this story: It's not true. I saw this movie on a flight to Istanbul, and I was immediately surprised by the fact that I had not read any accounts from soldiers to support the movie. They were told to be just like ordinary people, without understanding the reality of their war. For all these years, the media has told us the only reason to be in Iraq was to defend the country, and only the American military wanted to kill a lot of Iraqis. So, it's hard to believe a lot of people like Chris Cornell, Ben Affleck, and others, who got into trouble in Iraq when they said they were not affiliated with the military. And so, the movie ends with an unbalanced portrayal of the actual events. It does not show the troops in a good light, and it does not show the soldiers in a bad light. I understand the movie's depiction of these events. But it does not explain the real reasons for their participation in the war, nor does it explain the big difference between soldiers, civilians, and other soldiers. If you want to understand the war in Iraq, you should see it with an open mind, not a military one.
Saturday, 13 Jun 2020 16:18

The Catcher Was a Spy is an impressive and impressive film that tells the true story of the famous German spy, "Steigl", who was a good man, and a man who saw the atrocities of World War II from a new and unique perspective. His wife, ""Greta"," was a "good woman", but had only her lust for men for that. "Steigl" did not like "Greta", and his "happy" life was to end soon. In 1943, while working at a secret location, "Steigl" was given an important assignment to infiltrate the Soviet Union and steal a German satellite satellite. He was very well prepared and trained to do this, but his fellow operatives, "Lt. "Oliver" "Stein", and "Sebastian" "Stein" did not want him to succeed. They were afraid that he would not return. So, they wrote him up. This was not an easy assignment. "Steigl" was suffering from memory loss, and did not remember much of what he did during his training. In fact, he only remembered that "Stein" had a wife, and a daughter. The German spies wanted to make a film about this important spy. They thought that "Stein" would see through this documentary. "Stein" did not care about this. He did not see it as a documentary, but as a movie. Then, he made a film about the spy's life and death. In the end, he lost his memory. He was forced to sign a document saying that he was not the real spy, and that he was not a spy. "Stein" was arrested and tried. He was sent to the Bunker, and at the end of his incarceration, he lost his memory. The film tells the story of the spy's life and death in a realistic way. "Stein" tells his own story of the terrible things that happened to him in the bunker. This is the same way the story of other Germans in the concentration camps was shown in "Mein Kampf". It is not just propaganda, but a film about the human condition, and what happens to people when they do not have a chance to live. "Stein" became a celebrity after his imprisonment, and was recognized as a hero by his fellow Germans. The film is a masterpiece, and is a very important movie about a very important subject. The movie does not glorify Nazism, but it is important, as a story about a man who suffered from memory loss, and the effect that this had on him. I can recommend this movie to everyone. This is a must see.
Tuesday, 09 Jun 2020 06:12

People sometimes wonder why there is such a divide between people who do and don't like war movies. But I can say that this movie deserves an honorable mention, because it definitely shows the differences of peoples in the world. One has to see this movie with an open mind, since it is not a simple war movie, but more about human reactions to war. I think the director did an excellent job in creating a point of view. This is a movie which allows us to see both sides of the war. The events were realistic, but the events were also exaggerated to fit the movie. I also want to mention the amazing acting skills of all of the actors. Just to mention a few actors, The Day after Tomorrow's Tim Roth, Mad Max's George Clooney, and Indiana Jones' Harrison Ford are the most powerful examples. The acting performances of these actors are so impressive that they deserve an Oscar nomination. However, the story of this movie is the most important part of it. I think that this movie did a pretty good job on it. There are some scenes that are very well executed. In particular, I liked the last scene between the pilot and the plane, because I felt like I was watching a long flashback to the end of World War II. But the movie did a pretty poor job on telling the true story, because they only use a few flashback scenes to tell the story, leaving out a lot of other scenes. The movie also does a poor job at describing what the war was really like, with few scenes that were enough to describe what happened. Also, they did a poor job with the background music, because it had not the right music to tell a story. In addition, I really hated the ending, which did not follow the events of the book very well. Overall, I think this movie is an outstanding war movie. It was very well acted, and the movie didn't make me feel bored, because I was not bored by the movie. I recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see a good war movie, and to those who are looking for a good war movie.
Sunday, 24 May 2020 07:34

How many times do you need to watch this movie? - And this one - three times - and I still can't get enough of it. Spielberg delivers again. The opening sequence - where an angry young man is chased into the French countryside by a band of fascists, and ends up sleeping in a cellar under the direction of a Nazi spy - is an excellent way to start the film. Then, after we have seen his first encounter with this Nazi, we hear again, for the first time, that he was an SS officer and was even recruited to the SS after he killed his own father. The scene that follows, when the young man gets out of the cellar and makes his way through the countryside, is the finest in the movie. I'm not saying that the rest of the movie is as good. It's not. But it is as good as it can be. The movie itself is a great film, but it doesn't seem to do justice to its subject matter. It's a wonderful subject, but as a movie it's not what it should be. It shouldn't be the subject of a movie. It should be an indictment of the Third Reich, a commentary on how it treats the German people, and a well-rounded character study. Instead, the movie is a biography of a man, not a biography of the Third Reich, which is quite a disservice. It is just the way it is. It's an interesting biography, and it is one of the best biopics I have ever seen. It's just a good movie. The reason I say that is that there are some inaccuracies. Most of the Nazis that appear in this movie are portrayed as having a weird color and look to them. This is one of the many reasons I do not consider the movie to be an indictment of the Third Reich. In fact, it's probably more of a condemnation of the Third Reich, in that the Nazis have been shown as barbarians. I believe the movie had a problem with that, but I can't really tell why. This movie, which comes from Hollywood, could have been much better. I recommend it for those who like historical movies, but it's a different kind of historical movie. I really like it, but I'm not going to watch it a third time.
Saturday, 18 Apr 2020 01:52

A great film about a great book. One of the most accurate WW2 films I've seen. Michael Caton-Jones, Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford, Tom Hanks, and Judi Dench, all starred in this film and the picture is based on a book of the same name by John Hersey. The book is based on a diary of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. The movie is a true account of his meeting with General Carl Spaatz who was the head of the entire German SS, and his letters back to his superiors. The director, Stanley Kubrick, took everything that he learned from reading the book and mixed it with his own documentary style. In the same way he used the movie version of Close Call as a basis to make a documentary. The movie is based on the memoirs of Dwight D. Eisenhower and his assistant, Steve Marshall, and is an adaptation of a book by its original author, John Hersey. So this film is based on the book of the same name and the book is based on the memoirs of Dwight D. Eisenhower. That's the case in every great movie. The same could be said about the film. The acting is great and the story, although not particularly a big part of the film, is a wonderful story and I liked how the movie emphasized the guilt that Dwight felt while writing his memoirs and then in the movie. I liked how the film was very realistic and didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. The only minor problem I had with this movie was the constant references to war and war atrocities, something I was expecting from a film about war. It wasn't a huge problem for me but it could have been a lot better. I could have used more focus on the actual war rather than always talking about war. This may be the reason why the movie didn't do so well at the box office, but I thought it was a good film and I recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it.


Write a review