hughman55
This film opens with a harrowing recreation of the Tsunami that devastated Indonesia in 2004. Then for the next hour and forty-five minutes it just circles the drain. What bothered me most though was the bastardization of Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto (second movement) used as a motif for the boy's story. The intro is a note for note copy/plagerism of this famous composition; then an altered Rachmaninov melody wanders around aimlessly until the boy's scene is over, which ultimately ends up nowhere; much like the rest of this film. On second thought, good match Clint!
ElMaruecan82
On the surface, "Hereafter" is as much about the afterlife as "Ghost", "Flatliners" or "The Sixth Sense" but it's a Clint Eastwood movie so its approach to its central theme is less in the realm of supernatural spectacle than meditative contemplation. Yet for all its commendable pretension to be a meaningful existential drama, the film delivers less than the aforementioned movies... but it still got praises!I actually read some positive critics, and I was surprised by Roger Ebert's reception ... surprised to a limit, because it was a few months before "The Tree of Life" came out and became one of his ultimate favorite movies, so my guess is that it takes one's soul approaching its own mortality (Ebert or Eastwood) to reach a capability to embrace the material. I'm questioning my mortality all right but maybe I'm young enough to miss the film's beauty or alive enough to spot some flaws. "Hereafter" consists of three stories told separately. The first involves Cecile de France as Marie, a French survivor of the Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in 2004. The second story is about Marcus (Frankie/George McLaren), an English preteen who loses his twin brother and tries to "contact" him. And the third protagonist is George, Matt Damon as a medium who can see your dead relatives through simple hand contact. His psychic abilities resulting from a childhood's concussion have poisoned his life and made him reject the one thing making him special, like Chris Walken in "The Dead Zone".
To be fair, all these stories had strong potentials when taken separately, the problem is that they cancel each other. Marie lived a near-death experience and while she can share her experience with friends or family members capable of empathy, we only see her handling her post-traumatic experience with her colleagues and her detached lover played by Thierry Neuvic. So naturally, she encounters misunderstanding and is awkwardly surprised about the hostility. The way I see it, either she's going through an emotional phase... and then shouldn't be surprised about the lack of enthusiasm from people whose relationships are strictly professional, or she believes in her story in a more opportunistic fashion. Either ways, there's something rather confusing about her motivation. When she decides to write a book, it's handled as an end rather than a mean, she doesn't even talk with people who lived similar experiences, she only takes some notes from a doctor who worked at palliative care and just in time before the movie closes, she gets invited to the book fair. I get that the film is more interested in the 'living' matters and won't try to make a philosophical statement about her vision of the afterlife, but it wasn't really effective in turning Marie into some sort of whistleblower or heroic crusader. Marcus' story had the most enthralling premise but some shadow of mystery would have fitted it better. Marcus can't talk to his deceased brother Jason "obviously" but we know there's one person who can help him so it's a matter of time before the two stories tie together. There's nothing wrong with predictability but there's something slightly disappointing when the viewer is one step ahead of the characters, when he knows where it's all heading to. We know Marcus will easily slip through his foster parents' attention, we know all the attempts to reach his brother will fail, and when they did, I was really cringing at how phony some mediums were... for a movie meant to feel real.Now, regarding George, the film makes us believe in an afterlife or at least an existing frontier between life and death, which is well rendered in the opening sequences (although one can interpret them as hallucinatory visions). For all we know, maybe George only reads in people's minds. But there's no doubt that he's got a gift and he considers it a curse. Still, the film is unconsciously manipulative in the treatment of George when it's not the result of pure lazy screenwriting. For instance, everything we should learn about him is given to us on the nose by his brother at the most convenient time, but the reason we give credit to George's predicament is because it ruins a promising relationship with Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard).Seriously, what were the odds of having a love at first sight with a woman who had a troubled past, and involving a dead person at that? Why wouldn't George help a woman to talk to her deceased son if it can bring some comfort, especially since he accepted to help the kid? Everything seems driven by the evolving requirement of the plot but never leaves much to empathize with or simply understand, the script turns the universal theme of the afterlife or its intellectual or emotional quest to a McGuffin leading to a sappy sentimental conclusion.There was room for some daring take on the subject, like Peter Weir's "Fearless", and God knows that Clint Eastwood is an expert when it comes to make meaningful and poignant movies but his stories have always dealt with active characters, who fulfilled some achievements. In "Hereafter", the areas of achievement are left unclear or unrevealed so that even the best scenes are drowned in a sort of existential bouillabaisse and one of rather bland taste.If the film was a spectacular as its opening, as powerful as that moment where Melanie burst into tears, the ending could have been an emotional knockout. But the film deals with contrived coincidences, and each good scene is the result of a set-up made of lackluster uninspired moments so unworthy of Eastwood; even when it's slow, it's not Eastwood slow, it's so slow it made me mentally contemplate so many possible visions of an afterlife I almost reached the nirvana of boredom.
brooksrob1
I just saw this movie available on one of my cable channel streams...I hadn't heard of it...Aren't those so often the most profound movies? :)... I Often wonder if a divine kismet exposes us to these one by one and in the perfect time...But, that's an idea for another movie of this genre...If you loved "What dreams may come" or "Ink" or Cloud Atlas et al. You should enjoy this; perhaps not as much as I did but...I have a strong fondness for Eastwood, Matt Damon and My boy Jay Mohr's...:)...I love how Clint paces a movie, they're always a deliberate pace and I see his crotchety face saying in that gravely confident voice; "I'm getting there, hold your damn pants on"...:)... Clint likes to use subtlety sparingly but tastefully, so as you barely know it's there...I gave it a nine because I recognized the intrusive "refugee"/"immigrant? message, as well as the annoying fake terrorism agenda so prevalent in 2010. That sort of thing saddens me and cheapens a beautiful message and movie...Shame on you producers! But, that was such a small part that It can be overlooked...Great movie, watch it when you're feeling open minded and not distracted...
tree1957
i should have given this a 10, may still do it. this movie was so interesting. i don't go to theaters, or pay for premium cable channels, so often see movies for the first time years after their release. this was stunning, even on a regular big-screen television. i have always been curious about past life experiences and what is on the other side. Edgar Cayce crossed those lines from the time he was a little tiny boy. i have tried to let go of that curiosity but am so drawn by it.i don't even care that the three major character's lives came together to connect in a most unlikely way, because if one starts at the end and follows their respective stories backward, all coming from death/near-death experiences is a long-shot reach no matter how you look at it, but who cares? it made for a tremendous story. taking a lot of dramatic license paid off. for every genuinely psychic person out there, i think the movie got it right that most psychics are mere wannabe's.this is a great movie!
