Directed by:
Clint EastwoodScreenplay:
Peter MorganCinematography:
Tom SternComposer:
Clint EastwoodCast:
Matt Damon, Cécile de France, Marthe Keller, Mylène Jampanoï, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jay Mohr, Thierry Neuvic, George McLaren, Derek Jacobi, Lyndsey Marshal (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
Oscar winning director and on-screen legend Clint Eastwood brings this dramatic tale of death and how it effects three different people from three different parts of the world. The story focuses on George Lonegan (Matt Damon), an American factory worker who has a special connection to the afterlife and can communicate with the dead. Marie (Cécile De France), a French journalist who comes close to death when she is caught up in a Tsunami, and Marcus, an English school boy who is coping with the death of his twin brother, the closest person to him in the world. (Warner Bros. Home Entertainment)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (9)
This film can be seen in various ways. It's not an exciting story with manipulative facts, as we often witness in films of a similar type, nor is it a gripping masterpiece that keeps us glued to the screen. I understand that this may deter many modern viewers, but if you look at the director’s name, you’ll find Clint Eastwood. As has been customary in recent years, he takes his time as a filmmaker, and this piece is carried in a very slow, suggestive atmosphere with very natural performances from the leading actors. The thrilling sequences in the first minutes and the incredibly stylised romantic scenes in the final part of the film are surprising; Eastwood is a profound melancholic and romantic, otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to precisely highlight the right details at the exact second so ingeniously. Unfortunately, my impression is spoiled by the middle part, which moves forward perhaps too slowly, but mainly lacks points of interest, which the progression of the storyline is quite unexciting. Excellent beginning and ending. Eastwood, however, still has the skills, and Cécile De France is apparently an absolutely captivating personality.
()
Just today an airplane carrying some Czech ice hockey players crashed in Russia. So Hereafter seemed to suit this sad day. Clint hasn’t got soft, just older and so he said to himself that he would film the requisite pensioner’s ruminations about death and throw it to an audience hungry for his movies. A stylish opening with a tidal wave (that ingenious scene must have swallowed most of the budget) turns into a conversational drama of three people whose destiny becomes (unexpectedly) entwined and everything ends up sort of ok. The picture is overflowing with excellent acting performances, just the screenplay is sometimes too blabbermouth.
()
It’s clear that the high workload of recent years is not very good for Clint. The phenomenal Gran Torino and Changeling were followed by the average Invictus, and now comes the fail that is Hereafter. At first, it was touted as a mysterious thriller in the style of The Sixth Sense, which is obviously not true. Ideally (if it was good), Hereafter would be a sentimental reflection of life and death, but it’s so badly written – if you are expected to believe in the fate of predetermined events, those events shouldn’t feel like fucking forced coincidences. The performances are also weak, though that shouldn’t be a surprise given the shallow lines the actors have to utter is various WTF scenes. Only Damon comes out with his head held a little high. There are some moments where you can feel the potential of the material, but the whole was unable to arouse any intense emotions. This film is colder than a penguins butt, even though it really wants to be deep and sensitive. Even after the disappointed responses I was hoping for a decent time, but I’m very unpleasantly surprised at how weak this film turned out to be. PS: The tsunami was nice, but utterly pointless, really.
()
Clint Eastwood wants to say everything and despite the very restrained pace, he ultimately says barely half. And I don't remember a similar half-decayed idea in his modern era. I understand all the moods and all the plot lines fit together nicely, but I don't understand why a purely philosophical drama needs over two hours, in which nearly half of the running time is just slow dialogue. Hereafter has power in individual scenes (the introduction, the subway, and the cooking scene), but as a whole, unfortunately, it slips through the cracks.
()
Clint Eastwood has confirmed at least one thing once again, and that is that he can still make compelling stories whose main charm lies in the dense emotional power of a few individual moments (stealing a phone, for example). It's a purely conversational film (except for the opening action scene) whose strength lies not in its tightly and compactly constructed plot or in the deep profiling of its characters, but above all in Eastwood's approach, which I'm not afraid to describe with words like "mature" or "seasoned" and, above all, still relevant – in the sense that Clint still has something to say. It didn't tear me up nearly as much as Changeling, but it was an enjoyable two hours nonetheless.:)
()
Ads