Afterwards

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.

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.

The man and the voice of John Malkovich have carried forward from 'Burn after Reading' to this movie but this, unlike that movie, is a pure drama thriller and not a comedy. The beginning and the end take a bit of thinking about and thank goodness for DVD and the chance to play it a couple of times to try and understand it.

There was a period three quarters through the film when I felt the film definitely dragged, Nathan visiting his divorced wife Claire in wherever it was and his reluctance to fly home back to New York,but part from that, the film entertained and provided lots of interest.

Malkovich plays a Doctor who is a messenger with the vision to foresee the death of someone with a glowing white light. Dr Kay (Malkovich) first encounters Nathan the lawyer as a child and it is later in life when he sets out on a mission to deliver the message to him literally.

Of course, things don't pan out quite what you might expect but this is a fine drama, plenty of suspense, nice scenes and you get what you pay for. You shouldn't be disappointed.

Just love that eerie voice of Malkovich, so unique! Just imagine if Anthony Hopkins possessed it for Hannibal!

When somebody makes a movie about death which suggests survival and features a medical specialist in a lead, you expect something serious. But this film's purported profundity is only mock-profundity, and no deep thought has gone into this at all. It is just a 'deathsploitation film'. After all, everybody is interested in death, just as they are interested in sex, so why not exploit the genre? You offer the audience a little hope on a platter, cover heavily with a dark and mysterious sauce, and serve. Somebody thought of getting John Malkovich to look eerie and as if he were possessed of arcane knowledge. That was supposed to get everybody going. Malkovich is always good, but he does need a bit of direction now and then, if only to know which way to look and why. But this film is chiefly ruined by the French actor Romain Duris, who plays Nathan, the central character. The reason why he ruins it is that he has two speech impediments as an actor. First of all, his accent is so unreasonably thick and impenetrable that with the best will in the world, one cannot make out much of what he is supposed to be saying in English. (Some serious speech coaching could have cured this!) But even worse than that is his infuriating habit of speaking all of his lines in a deathly whisper. This means that about half of his lines are frankly inaudible, no matter what the sound man tries to do to enhance them. This affectation has spread like a virus amongst certain vain male actors, who all genuinely believe that if they lower their voices to the point where you have to lean forward and strain to hear them at all, they are so much sexier and more fascinating. ('It sucks them in,' I have heard some of them say about the audiences who cannot hear them properly.) Just because Marlon Brando got away with it does not mean that anybody else can. In any case, with Brando it was not an affectation. Having met and talked with him, I can assure everybody that he had an astonishingly weak voice and did not talk like that just to call attention to himself, as so many actors imagine. I have stood right next to him and had to lean forward to strain to hear him despite the fact that he was trying earnestly to make himself understood. (We were discussing the American Indians, a mutual passion we had.) So when people like Duris think they are being Brando, they have got it all wrong! Therefore, however good or bad the film was to be, casting an unrestrained whisperer in the lead automatically condemned this film to failure. A film in which the lead actor cannot be heard might as well not be made. John Malkovich has never made the mistake of failing to articulate every word he has ever spoken in a film, as he is a serious professional. Duris should have his vain little beard shaved off in public, made to recant, and then be publicly spanked by his mother as a bad, bad boy. After all, somebody had to invest money in this thing, and he ruined it. The film is based upon a novel by Guillaume Musso entitled 'Et Après ..' Who knows whether it was good or not? The director co-scripted the film. He is Gilles Bourdos. I have not seen his two previous features. But I should say that his script was unfocused and ineffective and he failed to control Duris, so he struck out, despite the fact that there is nothing particularly wrong with his direction in general. This was a French production made in English in America. There really should be many more of those, and every time one fails like this, it sets back all the others.

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")