Hereafter

I have respect for Clint Eastwood, both as an actor and a director. Hereafter is not quite among Eastwood's best, but I personally loved it and consider it one of the most underrated movies of 2010-2011. It is beautifully filmed and edited, and Eastwood once again shows what a great director he is. And also as a composer too, Eastwood writes the music here also and with the guitar and piano rhythms it is quite simple but very understated and effective, I found it more memorable than Changeling. The script is thoughtful as well and the characters are interesting enough. I have often heard and seen criticisms of Hereafter being too slow or the story being too ambiguous. I can understand, but I found the slow pace worked, this is a very quiet and reflective film, the pace conveyed this very well. The story is ambiguous, but complex, thought-provoking and moving also. Matt Damon is superb, as is Cecile De France. Bryce Dallas Howard also excels in one of her better performances. Overall, a great movie if not for all perhaps. 9/10 Bethany Cox

An emotional film (bring some hankies) exploring the love of children for their mother, the loss of a loved one, and the near-death experiences of the two main characters. The acting is superb, particularly the young McLaren brothers and Cecile DeFrance. I applaud Clint Eastwood for taking this risk and creating a solid piece with riveting emotions and a fantastic conclusion. The only leap of faith that must be taken is the belief that George (Matt Damon) truly has this gift/curse since it is the thread that weaves through all his relationships. This is truly an enjoyable movie and adds to my belief that the greatness of a film is not in the critic's eyes but in your own. This is the second sleeper movie of the week for me. The first one was RED...a great, entertaining movie.

Clint Eastwood decided to take a peak at what his vision of the other side looks like in Hereafter. This is probably the most speculated upon topic that mankind has, we all have our own ideas. At one time this was the purview of organized religion, but over the past century they've lost their monopoly.

Hereafter concerns three people, American psychic Matt Damon, French journalist Cecile De France, and British adolescent Frank/George McLaren who are twins and play the same role. One is looking for a sign from the afterlife, one gets one, and the third does not want to be getting any more of them.

It's kind of unusual for a film to start with a spectacular display of technical effects, but Hereafter features that as De France is caught in a tsunami where she was probably technically dead and then rescued. During that time she experiences some strange things and she's changed forever by it. She drops everything else to research into the topic.

Matt Damon is a good place to start, but this man wants nothing, but obscurity. He is a psychic who at one time made a living at it, but the demands and pressures put on him for his gift became unbearable. When he breaks down and gives an interview to someone at his brother's request, it all starts to come back so he flees to London, the home and workplace of Charles Dickens who as an author Damon thinks is tops. I could really relate to Damon's character, there are times that pressures make one long for obscurity, Damon initially finds it as a factory worker, but that blows up on him as the film shows.

Frank/George McLaren is a British kid, twins in fact and one of them is abruptly killed. As twins they were by nature close and it's like half of yourself no longer exists. He just wants some reassurance that his other half is fine somewhere on some plane of existence. I know that feeling too, a lot of it is losing someone and never having had a chance to say goodbye to them.

Though Hereafter got an Oscar for visual effects both for the tsunami and later for a London Subway bombing, Clint Eastwood gets some good performances out of his human cast members as well. The McLaren twins are quite touching in fact and come off as real kids.

Some might find Hereafter unsettling, but I liked it and go out and raid your Redbox to find it.

Life after death. Yes. The big question. Here 80 year old maverick Clint Eastwood present us with a cinematic feast without arriving to any final conclusion. How could he? The first quarter of the film is riveting, compelling, jaw dropping. Then, Matt Damon takes over. Let me be clear, I think he is a good, competent actor but I can't, ever, divorce myself from the actor and marry the character. I'm far too aware of his "acting" I have the feeling that Eastwood hires his actor and lets them to their own devices. Sometime that's a good thing but some others, like here and "Changeling" it is clear that more direction of actors was needed. Specially the children. Here as it was the case in "Changeling" the children seem kind of lost. Bryce Dallas Howard makes a bizarre contribution to the film. Unconvincing and down right annoying. And, I must say, I miss opening credits. I hope this fashion ends quickly. The appearance of Martha Keller took me out of the picture. I recognized the face but I couldn't put a name to it. The nagging thought distracted me away from the story. A problem that, with opening credits, could easily have been avoided. I'm rambling. I liked the film and Eastwood should be applauded. Still exploring, still taking risks. Well done!

Hereafter is a slow, quiet study on the effect that death and the dearly departed have on the living. 

It's not really a ghost story or even a very supernatural movie. The three main characters each have felt death's power in different ways in their life. George (Matt Damon), a man who can contact the deceased, has fled from his abilities because they keep him from having a normal life. Marie (Cecile de France) is a journalist who has a near-death experience during a tsunami, and becomes consumed with understanding what she saw. And in London, a young British boy is desperate to contact a lost family member one last time. 

The three separate stories do eventually connect, but that's not really where the value of Hereafter lies. I can see this film being a source of frustration for some viewers eager for a traditional conflict and resolution or character arc, but those things aren't really Eastwood's priority.The movie doesn't have much of a "point", other than how death is such an important part of all of our lives, even as it's also probably the most mysterious. 

I liked it, but I'm hesitant in recommending it. Slow-paced movies like these need the right audience. It's fairly different from Eastwood's other movies, and I wouldn't mind seeing him tackle something like this, again.