User Reviews

Apart from making me wonder if I am on the same planet as everyone else, the ludicrously low 6.3 average so far achieved here by James Kent's "The Aftermath" compels me to resort to a 10 in my scoring, as opposed to the 9 (or 9.5) I would otherwise have chosen. It also begs a question as to what on Earth people expect from a film!

To my rather seasoned eye, "The Aftermath" looks a bit like a film a Polish maker would make (on this subject) ... and hopefully it will be clear that that is a strong compliment to Mr Kent, and indeed to Ridley Scott who got behind this as one of the Producers.

To be fair, this movie scores hugely on its setting and story, and that means that plenty of the credit goes out to Rhidian Brook, whose book of the same title made a love story out of a real circumstance in the life of his grandfather and father - that's respectively Colonel Walter Brook and Anthony (or Kim?) Brook. In essence, Col. Brook became Governor of Pinneburg, close to a largely-ruined city of Hamburg, and elected to ignore orders about "fraternising" by sharing the mansion allotted to him with businessman owner Wilhelm Ladiges and his wife and children. It may perhaps be no coincidence that Brook's WW1 service (yes he fought then too ... as a Sergeant) was alongside Lawrence of Arabia...

The book and film story depart from this picture in a lot of ways (not least - and tellingly - in the way that the Ladiges-like Stefan Lubert - here played by Alexander Skarsgard - is no businessman, but an architect); but step back and think of the enormity from today's perspective of the basic idea - of a British Army guy running a whole section of a key German city, just like many, many of his counterparts were doing across a big chunk of Germany in the British Zone of Occupation. Some areas within that were assigned to the Poles and Belgians too. As we know, while they are no longer "Occupying" in any sense at all, there are still over 2000 British forces in Germany in 2019, and will be a few left even in 2020.

Obviously, it is stunning to think of all this from today's perspective, and an absolutely underexplored topic in film (though note some/many similarities with the great 1961 movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" - featuring Spencer Tracy as a judge sent to the American sector).

While Brook's book supplied the idea, and the core of truth in this film, it did not garner unstinting praise, e.g. for its quality of writing. So the film moves us forward - as the script is effective and erudite, while the romantic and other tensions are tangible, up to and including erotic content. Equally, the movie is capable of offering some amazing settings - the mansion itself, but also a "reconstruction" (as it were) of the ruins of Hamburg that the RAF (and to an extent USAF) had not so long previously (esp. in July 1943) turned into a firestorm. Britain sent 787 bombers in one night then, generating 150mph winds through a fire reaching 800°C that killed 40,000 (not least from carbon monoxide poisoning) and ruined almost everything.

How to possibly create a set that gives some impression of "the aftermath" of that? Well the film does remarkably well in this regard, and of course it is prepared to include elements of British guilt for what has happened, even as it notes the mostly merciful approach taken by the British Occupants, who nevertheless run checks to spot former Nazis (real-life Colonel Brook presided over tribunals of this profile).

Anyone watching "The Aftermath" will necessarily contemplate how merciful occupying Germans in London would have been, had that alternate reality happened. Since Warsaw and so many other cities offer examples (as does "The Rape of Berlin" in the case of the behaviour of the occupying Red Army, BTW), our answer to that question looks fairly secure, and any scenes here in which Brits restrain themselves from attacking and humiliating Germans bring a patriotic tear to my British eye, as they rightly should. We did it our way, and anyone who doubts that Brtish Forces could possibly have been decent and efficient in that context should look online at the summary (at least) of Barbara Marshall's "German Attitudes to British Military Government 1945-1947".

There we read: "From sullen acceptance of military defeat and occupation the mood of the German population changed to one of intense criticism of the British, culminating in the summer of 1947 in a series of widespread strikes. This development was to some extent to be expected: no authority would have been popular which had to run the country in a period of destruction [...] However, the British had actually made tremendous efforts to provide basic transport and facilities, an achievement which was rightly termed 'British genius for improvisation under stress'. Moreover, only a considerable subsidy of 80M pounds a year out of British taxpayers' money kept up even the limited food supplies which reached Germany [...] a burden which led directly to the introduction of bread rationing in Britain in July 1946 [...] The Germans never fully recognized the extent of the British contribution to Germany's survival..."

It's clear the makers of "The Aftermath" have read Marshall's paper, as they EXACTLY epitomise the above lines in the content and atmosphere of their film - and that's a skill in itself.

In detail, the movie sets Col. Lewis Morgan (as the counterpart of the real-life Brook) in a triangle with his wife Rachael (played by Keira Knightley with her usual skill) and Skarsgard's Stefan Lubert. The Morgans have lost their son to a German raid over Britain, while Lubert lost his wife to the Allied onslaught. Lubert's daughter (obviously more potentially pro-Nazi than he, having grown up with Hitler's brainwashing) is in a mess in general, and consorts with a young guy from the "88" - a group of staunch Hitlerites (the 8th letter of the alphabet is H, so HH for Heil Hitler) who do not accept the defeat and continue to harry British soldiers, sometimes murderously.

A love-lust interest develops in this context, but I shall say little more about that as it is the core of the film, and done well, and clearly thought-provoking. While Australian Jason Clarke as Morgan seems conceivably a little uncertain with his accent, the role is an extremely grateful one, which Clarke mainly does with aplomb. When the need arises, Morgan proves both brave and extremely competent as a battle-hardened soldier, weak in dealing with his marital relationship, ever dutiful, but also merciful and keen to recognise that the war is over and the peace must now begin. It's very moving how a single role can sum up an entire nation-rebuilding philosophy.

Apparently when the real-life Col. Brook went home, the Germans presented him with a book about rebuilt bridges (literally and figuratively of course) - and this is all the more pithy given that a bridge in German is eine Brücke.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, in Hamburg, a house belonging to a German architect is requisitioned by the British army to welcome a couple coming from London, whose husband is a colonel. This British couple recently lost their only son during a German bombing in London, while the German architect is the father of a fifteen-years-old daughter and is recently widowed following an Allied bombing. The German family is supposed to leave the house but the British colonel will affably offer them to stay, provided they occupy the attic. And then ...

Pros: the costumes, the cars, the interior decoration, the sets, the photography, ... This film is extremely refined and a visual treat. In addition, the actors play excellently. The final scene in which Lewis Morgan justifies his behavior as a 'failing' husband is particularly moving.

Cons: the almost laughable script. The story between Rachael and Stephen is literally incredible. In my humble opinion, this affair should have started after, and only after the piano scene between Rachael and Freda which is a true mother / daughter catharsis and that could have triggered a beginning of connivance between Rachael and Stephen. But, as it stands, it's a cinematographic failure because of a perfectible script. Very perfectible.

Certainly with every WWII film I review, I consistently state how saturated the genre is. Well, that's because it is. Every year we see four or five released, with many fairly formulaic. Whilst this bolsters a clichéd theme of betrayal and lust, it does however utilise its war-torn environment to encapsulate the struggles of both British forces and German civilians. After their arrival in the ruins of Hamburg, a British couple are forced to share a grand house with its previous owners who are German.

Acting as a microcosm for the conflict of interest against the two oppositions, the house is quickly divided into zones so that they don't interfere with each other. The colonel's absence only leads to his wife's longing for love, essentially turning enmity into passion. It's an interesting environment, and director Kent makes full use of each room to symbolise the loss of the luxurious lives that they once had. Both families have suffered from personal loss during the war, you're supposed to feel empathetic towards them, and occasionally you do. However due to Rachael mostly being portrayed as a selfish socialite, you somewhat feel distanced from her. It's a story about betrayal, yet her character's romance feels underdeveloped. The initial sexual tension was practically non-existent. It just happened. One moment she hates the Germans, the next in love with one. The change of pace made for a jarring transition, and that's without mentioning the several scenes of newly-discovered burnt bodies in Hamburg, acting as a heavy reminder that you are watching a war drama.

It all comes down to the screenplay which lacks that heft and meat to make these characters come to life. A dire shame as all three lead actors were exquisite. Knightley, in all her pouting glory, looked stunning and had one of the most beautiful scenes I've seen her act in. I genuinely felt raw vulnerability for her character as she breaks down whilst playing the piano. Both Clarke and Skarsgård supported her well and gave efficient performances. The costumes were delightful and Phipps' classical score was lovely to listen to, enhancing the grandeur of its central abode. Just the clichéd affair and its underdevelopment diminishes the central premise of this story. It's tasteful and occasionally exhumes steamy passion, which will quench the thirst for fans of the period drama sub-genre, but lacking that definable quality which will leave many wanting more. Watchable and enjoyable nonetheless.

In the bonus track of the DVD of "The Aftermath," director James Kent described his goal of evoking the "1945 cataclysmic episode in the twentieth century" in the horrors of the Second World War. The filmmaker wanted to recreate viscerally the devastation of a "war Armageddon." Without a doubt, he succeeded in his goals.

The bonus track of the DVD identified the film's true story, based upon a book of the same name, about an English military officer overseeing the very start of the rebuilding of Germany following the war. But the structure of the film drew upon more conventional approaches to World War II, especially the famous miniseries "War and Remembrance," which unfolds a romantic drama under the backdrop of the war.

The love triangle involves the British colonel Lewis Morgan, his wife Rachael, and a German architect, Stephen Lubert. Lewis and Rachael occupy Stephen's majestic home in the port city of Hamburg connected to the North Sea by the Elbe River. The film depicted the stunning contrast between the city of Hamburg reduced to rubble and the opulence of Stephen's mansion, Rachael's wardrobe, and the lavish celebrations that are thrown for the victors.

A subplot unfolds with the young Nazi soldiers of the 88th infantry. The double "8" stood for the eighth letter of the alphabet and represented the expression "Heil Hitler." A young man named Albert, who starts a relationship with Stephen's daughter Frieda, plots a terrorist attack on the British occupying forces.

It would be difficult to imagine a stronger contrast of characters than the stolid and reserved colonel and the architect with a refined aesthetic taste for Mies van de Rohe's Bauhaus style of the rejection of unnecessary adornment or the Austrian landscape painter Johann Joseph Eugene von Guérard. The cultured Stephen clearly appeals to Rachael, who sits at his piano and plays Debussy's "Clair de Lune" or the Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler torch song, "Stormy Weather."

It does not take long for the major background to be revealed that haunts the three characters. During the war, Rachel and Lewis lost their young son during the Nazi bombing of England. In turn, Stephen's wife died in the allied bombing of Hamburg. The stiff-upper-lipped Lewis has withdrawn from Rachael and obsessed on the war in order to cope with the loss of his son. Rachael and Stephen are drawn to each other with their shared grief.

While the film's ending may have been melodramatic, the exceptional cinematography and the powerful depiction of the traumatic civilian casualties during the war made "The Aftermath" a haunting and unforgettable film experience.

Effective drama of relationships tainted by loss, leading to passion and betrayal. I didn't care for Jason Clarke in the role of Lewis Morgan, he didn't appear to be a good match for wife Rachael, portrayed by Keira Knightley, who looked more stunning here than in other recent pictures I've seen her in. Which goes a long way to explain the affair between herself and German Stephen Lubert (Alexander Skarsgård). The post-war reconstruction scenes of Hamburg were credibly filmed, with holdovers from the defeated Nazi regime attempting to hang on by a thread. I would not have expected Rachael's reversal at the end of the story given all that went before, her marriage felt irreparable by that point. The finale forced Lubert to accept his fate much like Bogart in "Casablanca", only this time, with the guy on the train leaving the station.,

Set in post-WW2 occupied Germany, "The Aftermath" deals with the crumbling Morgan marriage: husband "Lewis" (Jason Clark), a British Army officer, and wife "Rachael" (Keira Knightley) have never recovered from their young son's death during the Blitz. As part of the occupation forces, Lewis and his wife move into a palatial mansion formerly owned by the deceased wife of German architect "Stephen Lubert" (Alexander Skarsgard). Lubert and his teenage daughter live in the attic while the Morgans live downstairs.

Lewis is often called away for occupational duties. So, that leaves Rachael in the house alone with the handsome Lubert. Of course(!) that leads to a torrid affair between the two. And it's so torrid that within a couple of weeks (?!?!) Rachael decides to abandon Lewis and take-up a new life with Lubert.

So, Rachael wants to destroy her marriage, her good name and reputation, and break the heart of a man she knows still loves her in order to take-up with a penniless guy whom she's known for about a month? Why? Because he's oh-so handsome and good in bed? Who writes this stuff?! If the intention was to portray Rachael as a thoroughly selfish and repugnant character then mission accomplished.

Keira Knightley dressed in 1940's outfits makes for nice eye-candy (it's why I watched this movie), but not even that can overcome my revulsion towards her character. The biggest reason I disliked this film was its attempts to try to make us sympathize with her loathsome behavior. No, what she did was wrong! And her very belated reconciliation to that fact was so abrupt that it wasn't believable in the slightest. It came across as tacked-on to make her actions a bit more palatable. (Looking like Keira Knightley or not, Lewis at film's end should have repeated Steve Martin's final line to Kathleen Turner from "The Man with Two Brains:" "Into the mud.....")

If you accept this is a predictable old fashioned story which apart from the brief nudity could have been a 1950s drama, its an okay watch. Also this isn't much of a war movie so much as a movie about an affair with a backdrop of war damaged Hamburg and grieving for lost loved ones. No exciting battles just a few terrorist like attacks due to the German resentment for occupying forces. The CGI destroyed Hamburg is alright. Liked the house where they stay too. Very stately and attractive. Kiera is alright and looks good in the dresses of the time. It's so obvious when she has a husband played by less attractive actor like Jason Clarke, there is going to be a romance with the German staying in the attic. Alexander Skarsgaard doesn't act or speak too German maybe that's good - a bad fake accent is worse than no accent. Liked the part where he told the British soldier not too bang on his piano. The main elements of the movie is about when they are going to do it and then whether they will be caught. The occupying forces seem to have lots of parties. In a way predictable is okay at least there wasn't an irritating tragic death.