bullfrog-5

After seeing this film I was wondering what imdb viewers might think of this star studded production. And true to my previous experience, it's a bit off the mark in my opinion. Being sophisticated viewers who appreciate the myriad elements of filmmaking, I can't imagine why imdb voters granted Afterglow a 6.3. This would imply that this is a film worth seeing.

Even from a film historian/maven point of view, the release of this film doesn't seem to contribute much except to reiterate that the best of actors often appear in turkeys and that as long as receipts cover the cost of advertising it's better than leaving a film in the can. It also proves that good acting isn't enough to carry a film. Don't take my word for it; see this film and you'll think twice before trusting the imdb viewer poll again!

The question that comes to mind when viewing this film is whether the unusual imagery comes from the filmmaker or the novelist. The well known expression "A picture is worth a thousand words" might well be reversed in this case. Although other viewers have expressed how faithful the film is to the novel, we can all imagine how the scenes could have been portrayed.

Many ponder the meaning of this film and all cite the unusualness of this film. The truth is we need to go to the source. The novel of the same name is equally strange and has an equally obscure meaning. The conventional explanation is that it is "deep" (multi-layered meaning and import). So, my suggestion is - now that you've seen the film, try reading the book, or if you're not sure you want to see the film, try reading the book. If you can't trust the Nobel Prize Committee, who can you trust?

Günter Grass is the Nobel Prize Winner for Literature, 1999.

Unfortunately, great literature doesn't mean great film - not that I'm suggesting Die Blechtrommel is great literature. Also, for those who consider this a great film, they need to see a few more films. This said, Die B... is worth seeing.

The only reason one might want to see this film is to try and analyse why this is so much worse than the Dutch original.

Most copies such as Point of No Return (La Femme Nikita) with Bridget Fonda fail because they lack the freshness of the original. (The I've Seen It syndrome.) Yet, most versions of Beau Geste or The Three Musketeers are as enjoyable as their predecessors.

Changing the story or the ending should not affect the enjoyment of a mystery film. The point is that one should not be able to guess the ending. The plot, acting, development, lighting, action, etc. should not be predictable. The viewer should be kept in suspense until the very end. The real danger as in this case is that the film doesn't make much sense when the story and ending are changed. If you were to view both films (not knowing which came first), you would likely guess that the Dutch film was the copy since the story line etc. are so improved.

The original has its flaws, but seems absolutely brilliant compared to this.