Danzig in the 1920s/1930s. Oskar Matzerath, son of a local dealer, is a most unusual boy. Equipped with full intellect right from his birth he decides at his third birthday not to grow up as he sees the crazy world around him at the eve of World War II.

This is very much a fantasy film. IMDb says it is a war drama, which is true enough, being set in the place and time that it is. But this is less about the war and more about Oskar, which I think makes it a fantasy film. His imagination is incredible, or perhaps more incredible is the idea that none of this is his imagination at all. His ability to alter the world around him is quite interesting.

The idea of a tin drum as a symbol of protest makes sense. It becomes even more interesting when put in the hands of a small child, protesting against life itself. Such an action is unheard of.

This is a terrible movie masquerading as "high art". So many have seen the film and reveled in its symbolism and greatness, but there really is NO symbolism--just a main character that makes absolutely no sense and the rest of the film that is filled with sick and depraved images. The film COULD have been allegorical--perhaps with little Oskar willing himself to stop growing as a result of his not wanting to cope with the rise of Fascism--but it didn't. It could have been totally weird and surreal--but it was only surreal in small aspects and completely sick and uninteresting throughout. It could have been poignant and really stood for something--but what could have been touching often was not. This is a fine example of a film that has won many awards that probably only got them because it was weird and the people on the committee thought there must be some deeper significance--but there wasn't. Seeing people throw up, eels crawling in an out of cow's head, 3 year-olds (or who look and act and think like 3 year-olds) trying to perform sex acts on a 16 year-old, suicide, a woman eating whole uncooked fish (head, guts, scales and all) and a child having sex with a midget are NOT my ideas of either entertainment or symbolism. This is just a sick mess that is designed only to offend and assault your senses. I do not mind a disturbing film wheh there is a point to it--this is just pointlessness in the guise of something profound. A terrible, terrible, terrible film.

This film should NOT be viewed by kids or even adults for that matter.

"Die Blechtrommel" or "The Tin Drum" is a German movie from over 35 years ago that managed to win an Academy Award in the Foreign Language Feature category as well as winning the Palme d'Or in Cannes. I cannot really see why though. I watched the director's cut of this film and it runs for almost 2 hours and 45 minutes. Certainly sometimes a case of quantity over quality here. David Bennent was actually a good choice for the main character as his face was truly memorable, his bright blue eyes (that were lenses though). However, the solid acting by him and established actors like Adorf, Winkler, Olbrychski and the young Katharina Thalbach was not enough to turn it into something gigantically good as the awards attention implies. It seems critics agree because the reception is not too favorable overall, still positive obviously, but compared to other films that took home similar honors definitely a bit on the sub-par side. A few more words about the cast: Adorf was already almost 50 here and they did fine in making him look younger early on. His dying scene is also pretty memorable, not because of the shots, but because of what he swallows before that. And also how the same icon is one that they have babies play with earlier in the film as if it was something really harmless. The irony is fairly priceless that moment. Winkler I am usually not a big fan of because she rarely seems as authentic as they want audiences to believe, but is often a bit on the over-the-top and ham side (also on other occasions where she worked with Schlöndorff),but like I said, here she is okay and it may be among her best career performances overall. Then again, some of the stuff she did does not require huge range, like when she keeps stuffing all the fish inside her and generally how she runs around and cheat. It is not a challenging performance. Maybe, especially when it comes to all the grown-up folks, not the most challenging movie in terms of acting. Thalbach may have had a more difficult time in the second half and it is funny how she looks exactly like her kids and grandkids now in the 21st century. But actually really stunning. She was also in her mid-20s when this was made, so almost a decade older than her character. And one I need to mention 100% is Bennent. Yes, again. His character is not only the center of the film, but really the heart and soul. It is no story about a kind boy struck by the cruelties of Nazi Germany and the war that destroyed his character or so. He is pretty feisty and knows exactly what he wants. And he does what he has to. Take all the scenes in which he won#t give away his beloved drum or of course when he starts to scream, which was featured very prominently in the first half, but only there and in the second not really. My ears are grateful. And one I should also not forget is Charles Aznavour. His role is not too big, but he is sort of almost the only likable character here. He may let the boy get away and the child sees what his mother does, which was maybe not the best move from him, but other than that he is kind and gentle. The other protagonists are not. There are so many films about resistance fighters in Germany from this dark era, but this is nothing the Matzeraths are. They are devout Nazis for the most part. And they pay for it in the end, especially Adorf's character. So a different take on the subject here and a good one.

Occasional scenes with soldiers or speeches by Hitler and other Nazi officials are not enough to make a film a convincing political/war movie. The focus is somewhere else than that, probably like it was in the novel. And apart from that, the stories were simply really more absurd than authentic, but sometimes even in a good way. This goes for the main character's mother having several men at the same time or at the depiction of pedophilia later on, which wasn't even shown as something bad here. Maybe the reason is because this film is so strictly against Hitler, his politics and World War II, so pedophilia something bad that even the Nazis despised was not depicted as really evil for that reason here. Or of course the logical response that the boy was indeed the same age as the girl. Is it the film's worst aspect? Up to you to decide. Very subjective what to think of all that. The storyline that the boy stopped growing because he decided to do so? Does it make sense that he did not want to be like adults in this world? Maybe. But don't all kids would like to stay young at some point? Why can't they do it? Nonsense or an exaggerated truth? The inclusion of dwarf people that apparently made the same decision was also closely connected to this plot. Pay attention to how the boy absolutely stays silent and does not scream although he easily could have ruined the lead dwarf's stage show with all the glass on the table there. Also pay attention to how it is really unusual that Nazi audiences would enjoy a show by such "unfulfilled" creatures in reality. Back to the basics: I am not sure to what extent this film is based on Nobel Prize winner Günter Grass' work and how close Schlöndorff stayed to the original. But I can say that it's a bit of everything, but maybe not enough of anything: family movie, war movie, political thriller and as consequence I am not sure if it is a good choice for people wanting to see it for the historic context. Maybe it could be considered fantasy. But if you hear about a fantasy movie set in Germany during the first half of the 20th century, you knew you're in for something that is guilty pleasure material to some extent too. This description really does not fit either somehow. Still here and there it is somewhat fascinatingg and that is why I recommendit cautiously, but I still feel that it is one of the weaker Foreign Language Film winners in Oscar history, at least taking those into account that I have seen. Admittedly there's still worse ones like the reccent winner from Hungary set during the same era. Also they could have kept this easily at around 120 minutes without losing too much of the film's value. I would not say it dragged gigantically, but still it was maybe a bit too long for its own good, although running time is also always a challenge when adaptaing a book (that was released 20 years earlier by the way) and a pretty famous one at that. But I guess they wanted to go for bloated here for whatever reason. Oh and one final thing: I like sherbet or effervescent powder whatever you may want to call it, but the way it was handled here was just gross I think. But to still end the review on a positive note, I want to say that I can understand the boy, also in the 21 century now many decades after the film is set. It's impossible to stop the body from aging, but not too difficult to really stay young in the mind. I encourage you to take this approach. They may laugh at you because you're different. You laugh at them because they are all alike. Go for it! By the way, the bis music scene was pretty cool too. But sadly there are as many moments that are not that good such as Oscar's "romance" with the considerably older chubby woman. That is all now. Without Bennent, it really would not be worth seeing I suppose (you see all his power on the imdb poster here too) and also I feel that the film would be considerably more forgotten nowadays without the Oscar win. It's not a movie that ranges between good and great, but between mediocre and good with the occasionally weak moment even. Schlöndorff has never been on the same level for me like Herzog, Wenders, Fassbinder... the other defining Germany directors from this era. Kinda surprising that he is the one who got the Oscar and everybody else did not. If you want to see what for, then you can check out this film. It is not bad admittedly, but I just cannot be enthusiastic about it whatsoever, even if I like it more now I guess than after the first (or second) time I saw it.