Afterwards

Interesting idea. The charm of Malkovich. And the delicate silhouette of Romain Duris. A movie as old question. About life, love and essence of every day.About death and expectations. About truth and believes. The taller is not very inspired. The words are dust, the nuances are broken mirrors, the lights are only grills of evening.It is a good movie but the taste is not sensational. All is known and the first expectation dies in short time.Nothing is fake, ugly or boring. But the pieces of others movies makes a rusty picture. All seems reheated food. Good intentions are contours of truism. The end is twilight of a promise. A great promise. But it is not very bad; every reminder is a lesson. About the story, evenings , life and hope.

Sometimes the promotional department of a film causes people to not view a film because it is misrepresented by the graphics on the poster, the DVD cover, or the trailer. Such is the case with AFTERWARDS - a lovely exploration of the concept of death and dying philosophy that has nothing to do with the image of John Malkovich holding a smoking gun! And that is a shame: this is a film that has a lot to say and provides a lot to think about thanks to the writing, directing and acting. The story is adapted from the novel "Et Après..." by Guillaume Musso by Michel Spinosa and writer/director Gilles Bourdos. It is a complex story that thankfully due to the talent of the cast and director is able to carry the audience into a place perhaps not considered or discovered before. It is a thinking person's film and a rewarding one.

The film opens in an idyllic setting of a lake of water lilies where we observe a little French boy Nathan and an English speaking girl Claire gently admiring swans(interesting to note that swans are traditionally or mythically associated with death). The girl slips on the dock, is trapped, and sends the boy to find her parents. The boy runs to the highway where he becomes the victim of a tragic hit and run accident. The film then jumps ahead about twenty years and we discover Nathan (Romain Duris) as a successful New York lawyer living alone after his marriage to Claire (Evangeline Lilly) has ended after the crib death of their son, leaving Claire to manage alone in New Mexico with the couple's surviving daughter: Nathan cannot cope with the fact that he feels responsible for the son's death by not responding to his cries. A strange doctor, Dr. Kay (John Malkovich) appears in Nathan's life claiming that he is able to sense death before it happens: he works in a hospital for the terminally ill, among them is one young lad Jeremy (Reece Thompson) with cardiac carcinoma who is struggling with his incipient dying. Dr. Kay is not malevolent, he is simply a 'Messenger' - one given the ability to visualize a bright white halo around a person who is soon to die. Nathan will not consider the veracity of this obtuse thought until Dr. Kay suggests he visit an old friend Anna (Pascale Bussières) who now works in a diner, living with her Russian father and her son. Nathan is curious, meets Anna, and upon visiting her home witnesses the death of Anna's father. Nathan contacts Dr. Kay, hostile that Dr Kay had suggested Anna was to die but instead lost her father, and Dr Kay reassures Nathan of the process: soon Anna dies also. At this point Dr Kay shares Nathan's history: Nathan did not die in the hit and run accident many years ago and was attended by Dr Kay who then knew that Nathan was also a Messenger. How Nathan turns his life around to flee to New Mexico and join Claire is the transformation of the film.

This is a delicate story told with sincerity and lack of sensationalism. It is a journey into the philosophy of what happens to us as we die. Nathan explains this to is daughter as death being like a ship that sails to the horizon and disappears to our eyes, yet the ship sails on beyond our scope of vision into another unknown space. Director Gilles Bourdos handles the pacing of this visually stunning film with such grace that it becomes a gentle work, allowing the finest acting yet seen from Malkovich, and reminds us of just how fine an actor Romain Duris has become. This is also a lovely introduction of Evangeline Lilly, an actress with tremendous screen presence and acting ability. Forget the trailer and the ugly cover of this DVD and allow yourself to enjoy this mesmerizingly beautiful film.

Grady Harp

In New York, the French Nathan (Romain Duris) is a successful lawyer divorced from Claire (Evangeline Lilly) and with a little daughter. One day, he meets the mysterious head of the department of the Saint Louis Clinic Dr. Kay (John Malkovich) in his office and the man shows that he knows details of his life. Dr. Kay discloses that he can foretell people's death and he proves to Nathan that he is not a fraud. Nathan is assigned by Dr. Kay to give comfort to those that will die soon. Further, he discovers that his fate is also to be a Messenger.

"Afterwards" is a low-paced drama with a beautiful cinematography about people that has the ability to know when people will die. The unexpected scene in the beginning is very impressive but the screenplay is confused, using many flashbacks but without explanation of the whole scenario. Nevertheless, it discloses in a sensitive way the life and tragedies of the tough lawyer Nathan. John Malkovich is excellent as usual; the gorgeous Evangeline Lilly has also a good performance; but Romain Duris is miscast since he is absolutely non-charismatic with his arrogant expression. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Depois de Partir" ("After the Departure")

Nathan Del Amico (Romain Duris) is a hard-driving successful New York corporate lawyer. He is approached by mysterious doctor Joseph Kay (John Malkovich) who claims to see people about to die with a bright white light. He warns Nathan to put his life in order. He dates waitress Anna (Pascale Bussières). There are constant flashbacks of Nathan with his wife Claire (Evangeline Lilly) and their two kids.

These are New York characters but half of them have french accents. I don't care about Nathan. He's cold, angry, and unappealing. He's a horrible lead. As for the story, it has no dramatic movements at all and it's not compelling. Dr. Kay is not much better. Malkovich decides to play the character reserved. There is no tension. There is a supernatural aspect but it doesn't do enough with it. This thing moves slowly.

The movie overall was... ooookay. Performance was almost realistic, but I couldn't relate to the main character, though I don't think it's the actor's fault, it's just bad directing. I mean, seriously awful directing. It almost has nothing to do with the book. Honestly if I hadn't read it, i wouldn't have seen the movie.

It is completely different from the book. Of course, the book is always better, but this is just too different. First of all, the clinic that is run by Dr. Kay ( Gudrich in the book ) is supposed to be a nice place, that does not look like a clinic at all. It is supposed to be an almost happy place, if that's possible. I don't think Duris should've been chosen for the role * though he did play it well considering the movie*, because Nathan is supposed to be a completely different personality.

Secondly, the relationship between Nathan and Claire has not been shown consistently.

The whole movie had this dull, tiresome atmosphere and nothing's ever happening. They've shown everything in a different light.

In the book, there are ACTUALLY reasons, excuses for characters actions and all of the characters have an emotional depth that the movie just does not show.

All in all, this is a movie probably worth watching if you haven't read the book, because it does have some life-is-worth-living motives and it actually can make you appreciate it more, but if you, on the other hand HAVE read the book, I'm begging you not to watch the movie, it will just ruin it for you.