Hereafter release date October 22 2010 studio Paramount/DreamWorks director Clint Eastwood writer Peter Morgan starring Matt Damon, Cecile de France, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jay Mohr Official Score: Average User Rating: ADD A USER REVIEW 4 comments Posted By Mayday on October 24, 2010 @ 7:39 pm Log in to Reply ★★☆☆☆ This movie can be summed up in one word – mediocrity. Once again, Clint Eastwood has a promising story, and counter to the movies of his youth, refuses to be bold or daring or unpredictable in the least, insted being perfectly sage and predictable. And what we’re left with a soggy mess of a ho-hum borefest that goes absolutely nowhere. And thank Cthulhu Bryce Dallas Howard isn’t in the movie very long, because her character so intolerably unbelievable and annoying, she makes you want to reach out and bitchslap the shit out of her. If you’re into sappy, sentimental, empty dramas, enjoy. If you like real movies with solid stories and at least a modicum of activity, stay far away from this tripe. Posted By TheUsualSuspect on April 11, 2011 @ 8:03 am Log in to Reply ★★★☆☆ 3 stories about 3 different people who are touched in some way by death. A little boy loses his twin brother, a young French journalist drowns in a tsunami, to later be revived and finally a psychic who wants to leave that profession behind and try to live his life. I must admit, Hereafter did not entice me with it’s promotional trailers. I thought the film had an interesting premise, but what I saw as far as story telling was something that left me empty and wondering that the film would most likely be left with a hollow hole at the centre. I’m not even that big of a fan of Eastwood. The man makes good films, but I wouldn’t say I’m rushing to see his work. I don’t know why, but ever since Million Dollar Baby, a buddy of mine and myself have seen every Eastwood film that has come out since, in the theatres. Why? Because it’s Clint Eastwood. Despite not being that interested in the film, I gave it a chance thinking that it could end up surprising me. I was wrong, the film is exactly what I expected and maybe even less. This is a shame because it is an interesting and even thought provoking premise that was nice to see explored, but it wasn’t explored deep enough. Eastwood has always had a way with the camera, knowing what he needs and getting the shot, his films have a skillful elegance to them, and Hereafter is another example of a fine director at work. Unfortunately, it pails in comparison to his earlier works and for everything good about it, there are 3 things that are boring. The film tries to feel depressing, it’s about loss and death, but we never get that feeling with the film. I was never depressed or felt any kind of emotional connection to a group of people I’m suppose to be connecting with for the next two hours. This is the biggest problem. The characters are boring, uninteresting and flat. Damon is a saving grace, he gives George a haunted side that craves and requires companionship and isolation, all at once. His role is not enough to save a film that centres just as much screen time on two other characters that bring the flow and story of the film to a halt. That little boy cannot act and it hurt me to see him on the screen. His pleas for his brother to be okay and still alive hurt my ears. Monotone and emotionless. I get the fact that he doesn’t talk much and is shy, but there are little child actors who are able to pull this off. This one did not. There is a scene in which the little boy is about to board a subway, he is ‘saved’ when his hat flies off. We are to expect that it was his brother doing this and we are treated to the over done, trying to get my item off the ground while people walk by unknowingly kicking it around. I thought Eastwood was better than this? The story lines do not intertwine and connect until late in the film. I would have wanted and the film needed them to submerge together sooner. The entire films feels like it is going nowhere but in circles. There is a story, but no plot. We follow these people doing mundane things. For some reason, I expect to be in the minority here. The film comes off as trying to convey important messages of things we cannot understand and thus it becomes a tad bit pretentious. I hate using that word for films, but I’m using it here. The film ends with a connection I feel nothing towards and left me with a confused look. I contemplated what I had just seen, was it really brilliance and I simply missed it? Not in the least, the film tries to be more important than it actually is. I feel like I was turned off right from the beginning with the bogus CGI used in the tsunami. It left me feeling, well, dead inside. Hereafter is another forgettable film and right after the equally uninteresting and forgettable Invictus, I’m afraid Eastwood is trying too hard now. Both these films feel out of place for a director like Eastwood. He seems out of his element and it shows. Eastwood and Hereafter won’t be seeing any award shows this year. Posted By TheGonzoJoint on May 7, 2011 @ 10:01 pm Log in to Reply ★★★★☆ “Hereafter” is being marketed as some sort of “Sixth Sense”-esque paranormal drama, although I assure you, it is far from one of those. It’s a different venue for director Clint Eastwood, who is talented and skillful, and has made a film that matches the quality of the mass majority of his productions. This isn’t a masterpiece, and it’s not the best Eastwood directorial feature, but “Hereafter” is worth seeing in its own little ways, for its own little reasons. This film is not about ghosts, although the previews and various synopsis’ compel us to think otherwise. I personally believe that this film is about the afterlife itself, the possibility of such a thing, and the beliefs of individuals. The film feels realistic in how people view life after death, and I could imagine such a story playing out like this in reality. One moment, melodramatic; and another moment, smart. This movie will divide audiences and their opinions. Some have been calling it Clint Eastwood’s worst films since…I dunno. They say it is pretentious and messy. I say it’s whimsical and kind of beautiful; but on a light note. The film stars Matt Damon as a psychic who wants to give up on his job, and possibly his life. He no longer wants to do “readings” for people, although he tends to make exceptions from time-to-time. Each “reading” is a new sequence; well-done on Eastwood’s part, but never as memorable as they were intended to be. The story itself focuses on the perception of the afterlife, from the viewpoints of three people; a woman who survived a tsunami, a little boy who has lost his brother to a car collision, and the psychic himself. We know how the story is going to end, but the fun is how (and where) Eastwood intends on taking us along the way. I’m not the only one who thinks that “Hereafter” has flaws. My biggest bite, when it comes to this movie, is the ending; which came off to me as just plain disappointing. Sure, the film could have ended worse, but it could have ended better as well. Another thing: Matt Damon’s character starts a romantic interest with a woman played by Bryce Dallas Howard. This relationship isn’t depicted with much depth, and when the somewhat-forbidden-love-story ends, it just ends, and without the right amount of payoff. Now, on to the juicy (good) stuff. Watching “Hereafter” felt good. The film is always mellow, even at some of its most intense scenes, and has some solid emotional drama. Eastwood’s score is calm and soothing, setting the mood for his spiritual, somewhat religious fable. I won’t go in depth with all that, because I don’t want to upset anyone, and a part of me does not care at the moment, but those who can appreciate religious messages in the form of filmmaking-storytelling may want to check this movie out. Aside from that, the movie has good cinematography, and Eastwood’s direction makes sure that the experience is quite rich. The performances are good, drama is kind of a “50/50″ thing, since it often times stumbles and often times succeeds when it comes to what it is doing. However, there’s enough spectacle, entertainment, and beauty to “Hereafter” for me to recommend it, warts and all. And believe me, “Hereafter” has its share of warts, but if you are a rather forgiving viewer, then you may see something here that few others can. Posted By maynardmorrissey on June 2, 2011 @ 8:28 pm Log in to Reply ★★★☆☆ The Good: “Hereafter” is a beautiful-looking movie, very well filmed and photographed, with lots of nice colours and gorgeous settings. It has an interesting plot and it’s full of highly emotional scenes (the psychic and the red-haired girl, the drunken mother…), as well as highly shocking scenes (the Tsunami, the car hitting…); it has a well-chosen cast (Cécile De France, Matt Damon, Lyndsey Marshal, Bryce Dallas Howard) and a fitting score. The bad: The script is pretty lame, due to bad pacing, many tedious and boring scenes and a annoyingly predictable last third. The characters are dull and uninteresting, and it’s surprising how mediocre the performances from Damon and De France are. Overall: A good and enjoyable film, but unfortunately faaar from being as awesome as most other Eastwood films (f.e. “Absolute Power” or “A Perfect World”).