Depois de Partir

Agree with other reviewers on the lead character casting... another actor would have made the film amazing... the way it is...I watched it on Prime video, would've been annoyed if I had payed for the cinema.

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.

this is a well produced movie, with an interesting story. it is developing quite slowly and i like the somewhat 'open' ending.

essentially, a movie of appreciation of life, love, forgiveness and letting go. mr.malkovich plays a good part, making up for the somewhat pale performance of the lead actor. this is probably the weakest point of this production - the lack of an outstanding lead. apart from that - great production, i especially liked the smooth camera work.

it really needs very little to be a big movie, and while i cannot say i was thrilled watching it, i did watch with interest. i understand the book, that the movie is based on is quiet good, hopefully it has more depth and makes for more significant lead personage

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.

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.