Download, Watch online Hereafter Movie.

14 May 2012

Life, death and transcendence

A tsunami rushes in on an island resort where Marie (Cécile De France) and Didier (Thierry Neuvic) are staying. Both survive, but Marie almost drowns and has a near-death experience, with ghostly light and indistinct figures...George Lonergan (Matt Damon), an apparently psychic American in San Francisco, is pushed into giving a reading for Christos (Richard Kind), a business associate of his brother Billy (Jay Mohr); George resents doing it, claiming that his "gift" is really a curse...in London, twin brothers Marcus and Jason (Frankie and George McLaren) struggle to help their drug-addict mother (Lyndsey Marshal) keep it together enough so that they don't get taken away by the social services - but fate has tragedy in store for them. Three stories, linked by death, gradually coming together, gradually influencing each other.The bulk of HEREAFTER is about coping; George copes with his unwanted abilities, feeling isolated from his brother and even from the attractive and interested young woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) that he meets at a cooking class. When she thrusts herself on him and pushes him into making dinner at his place with her, she finds out a bit of his guarded past, and the results aren't what either of them desire. Marie finds both her relationship with Didier and her job as a television journalist faltering, as she decides to write her dream book about a late French politician but can't forget her near-death experiences; and Marcus struggles with loss and even comprehension as a child who feels his life cut in two. Very gradually, all of them are drawn in similar directions, emotionally and eventually physically.Clint Eastwood's 31st film as director is, like a large percentage of his work, concerned with death. Strangely enough though this film marks an inversion or reworking of many of his previous concerns, in that death begins the film, is at the very heart of the lives of most of the main characters - and yet, ultimately, is less oppressive and less a tragedy or even endpoint than it is in most of his previous films. In almost every way, the film starts out in major keys and works its way towards the minor chords, from loudness to quiet, from tragedy to possibility. It's a film very much imbued with the literary and musical worlds - strands of opera impinge periodically on Eastwood's fine low-key score, and De France's character is a writer and journalist while Damon's is obsessed with Charles Dickens. Cinematically, it works out as a very un-dramatic drama, and even the coming together of the three plot strands seems inevitable and preordained as a literary device rather than the movie-thriller that the misleading advertising promises. The film is going to irk a lot of people because of its slow pacing, and its refusal to come to anything definite in regards to the questions posed throughout. And there are going to be people who are serious skeptics and cynics who won't like the hints of the extraordinary throughout the film - which remain, for the most part, just hints. But this is not a film trying to come up with any answers to life's ultimate questions - Eastwood and screenwriter Peter Morgan aren't interested in such simple pieties, and they are wise enough to know offering such bones for the audience wouldn't let their characters off the hook. These are people that have to live with the facts of death and what it means to those who survive - even knowing what comes afterward, if anything, wouldn't necessarily make the daily business of getting on with things any better. And all of them begin to realize this over the course of the film; if there's a definite message here, it's that while the conversation about death and it's meaning is a worthwhile one, it's this business of living and overcoming our dark obsessions with the afterlife that is important, and that makes our lives in the here and now worth anything.HEREAFTER is put together with Eastwood's habitual economy and grace; as has been said many times about his work, it's a film with nearly invisible direction. This might not always be a compliment, but in this case it very much is; apart from the big CGI tsunami at the beginning and a couple of other important scenes that I don't want to spoil, the camerawork is never ostentatious, never gets in the way of the characters or feelings, which are just about all the film is concerned with. The focus then is on the actors, and they do not disappoint. This is the best piece of large-ensemble acting that I've seen in a while and it may be the best cast Clint has ever put together. Bryce Dallas Howard is extraordinarily charming and winsome in an ultimately unfulfilled role; Cécile de France is luminous and conveys a careworn look that seems to age her a decade from her first scene to the rest of the film; the British cast members are all terrific and I'd especially like to cite Lyndsey Marshal for a small but powerfully moving portrayal of a woman on the brink. Matt Damon, though, is working on a level that echoes his director's work, disappearing into his role so completely that he had me completely feeling for him from the beginning. He is ultimately the engine that drives the resolution of the plot, and yet as a very passive and introverted character it's a challenge to make it believable that he would be able to push himself as he does in the last scenes in the film; somehow Damon conveys that inner power and specialness with an ordinary - deliberately ordinary - exterior in a way that is riveting. I've rarely seen an "average Joe" who is so compelling.And it's the reality imbued in these special-yet-ordinary characters that makes the last few scenes, aiming for a magic and transcendence that I'm not sure I've ever seen Clint Eastwood attempt - and that few directors in Hollywood today are capable of or interested in attemptin - work. If you weren't pulled in, put on the edge of your seat by this slow, somber but intense film, you'll probably find the ending stupid. If like me you really feel like all this contemplation of death, and the futility of really understanding it, has made the small fantasies and artifices in the film fade away and left you with some kind of higher truth - however indistinct, like Cécile's blurry deathly visions - you may well be enraptured, as I was.It's unfortunate that the trailer for this film seems to promise something like this summer's hit INCEPTION; and given that more people know Matt Damon for the "Bourne" films than anything else, a lot of people will be expecting a thriller, something with sci-fi or fantasy overtones, excitement, effects... They're not going to get it. If there's a model to compare HEREAFTER to, I'd suggest the last few films from the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, who like Clint Eastwood made his name with films dealing in violence and action, but ended his career on a quiet, reflective and humanistic note. It's a tribute to how great a filmmaker Eastwood has become that he can stand in such company. One of Eastwood's best films, and my favorite film of 2010 so far.

aschein81 14 May 2012

"Hereafter" is a tender, emotionally-charged, and thought-provoking exploration of death and humanity

"Death. There. That's the topic for your next film, students. There'sjust one rule - none of the characters can be named Freddy Krueger,Michael Myers, the Jigsaw Killer, or Jason Voorhees. Also, you are notallowed to have any ghosts in the film. Your final product is duebefore the end of the semester. Best of luck!" One could easily imagine the collective gasps from a group offilmmakers after being given this instruction. "Wait, you mean we can'tjust scare and disgust people with explicit gore, deafening sounds, andgratuitous nudity like we always do? Talk about a challenge." In Clint Eastwood's tender and extremely intriguing "Hereafter",Eastwood and his writer Peter Morgan attempt to tackle some of thechallenging human questions and issues surrounding death and thepossibility of an afterlife. The film follows the individual stories of3 different people living in different countries - a factory worker inSan Francisco who has some degree of psychic ability to connect withthe dead (Matt Damon), a French television journalist who survives anear-death experience(Cecile de France), and a London boy living withhis drug-addicted mother whose twin brother has died in a tragicaccident (Frankie McLaren). Bryce Dallas Howard also has a supportingrole as a woman Damon's character meets and dates for a short period oftime. One of the great strengths of this film is how low key and quiet it is,as well as how slow-paced the storytelling is. While viewing it, youstart to absorb yourself in the characters and their dilemmas and notfocus on any kind of plot developments or gimmicks, as the story inchesever so forward at a snail's pace. In fact, if someone asked you totell you what happens in the movie, you would have a very hard timeexplaining that to them, as the movie is entirely based on characters'dilemmas and grief, without following any kind of typical linear orformulaic plot. It is a film that values patience, character growth ,and audience members with developed attention spans. It is also a filmthat is very grounded in reality and focused on characters generallyacting in ways that make logical sense, rather than in ways the plotdictates how they act. It would have been very easy for an inferiordirector or writer to take this delicate topic and allow it to get toodetached from reality and into the lands of heebie jeebies and Ouijaboards. However, in the hands of Eastwood, this material alwaysconnects with you on a human level. This is essentially an art-housefilm that explores characters and life's challenges, with some veryexpensive special effects in the first 10 minutes of the film to teaseyou into thinking that it's a thriller. It is also important to notethat it is neither pro-religion nor anti-religion. It is simplypro-human, and doesn't pretend like it knows what happens beyond thegrave. Damon's character can only sense that a loved one is connectingwith him, but he doesn't mention if that loved one is with Jesus,Allah, etc. - because the film isn't a thesis on religion. It's acharacter study of human grief in different parts of the world and howall people can relate to the difficulties and sadness surrounding thisissue.One of the interesting ideas I thought about while watching this filmis how various individuals and groups in the world try to profiteconomically or politically in some way off of people because of theseunknown questions surrounding the idea of death. There are a couple ofextremely subtle and nuanced references to religion, most notablyChristianity and Islam, and how they try to compete with each other totry to "sell themselves to you" to join their side on the path tosalvation - as well as a couple of scenes involving very obvious "fake"psychics who are simply taking wild guesses in their readings, yetpeople are still lined up to pay them. We also see a couple ofinstances of authors trying to sell books to make money off of thistopic, as well as Matt Damon's character's brother (played by Jay Mohr)repeatedly try to convince George (Damon) to get back into the businessof psychic readings because of the potential cash flow involved. Ofcourse, we can't forget how the movie industry also tries to profit offof the intrigue and wonder surrounding this topic, as is evident of myticket stub to this movie, as well as the $30 popcorn… The acting all around is very strong. Matt Damon gives a very solidperformance in a very understated manner. His character, George, doesnot take pride in his abilities, and just wants to crawl back under therock of normalcy in his community. He doesn't try to come across assmarter or more heroic than any other character in the film. He isextremely modest, and even somewhat shy. He looks down at the groundoften and speaks very softly. Likewise, Cecile de France and FrankieMcLaren also add a high degree of restraint to their performances aswell. Supposedly Eastwood hired McLaren (and his twin brother) based onthe fact that they both didn't have any acting experience, as he wasworried that they would be trained in typical child acting, where manychild actors often come across as over-acting. The talented veterancomedian Richard Kind also gives an extremely touching, dramaticperformance in his lone couple of scenes near the beginning of thefilm.

nickmesafilms 02 May 2012

Hereafter (2010) - Tsunamis, Visions, and Mind Reading! Oh My!

Clint Eastwood takes on a movie about three different stories in"Hereafter". First off, Matt Damon is a mind reader that tries to takeback his curse. Secondly, another story involves a French woman who isstill shocked after the tsunami attack, which is the only cool visualeffect in the film. And finally, another story involves a boy trying tocontact his dead twin brother. First off, I thought the movie wassometimes cool with the tsunami, the performances, and even ClintEastwood's direction. But honestly when watching, "Hereafter" felt moreof a three-way plot drama, instead of a supernatural thriller. Though,the storyline is kind of unique, and its entertaining to watch. Themovie did feel comfortable to watch, but I would have been morecomfortable if there were more thrills to be seen in this movie.Anyways, the film had its cool moments, but can't handle the thrillsand chills, except for the cool tsunami scene. "Hereafter", in myreview, "excellent storyline, but nothing thrilling".

alexart-1 01 May 2012

Never Let Me Go

Hereafter is a different type of film from Clint Eastwood. It does nothave shoot outs, it does not take place in California, and it is nothard-boiled. What it is, however, is gentle and quiet, with some movingperformances and fairly good writing. Hereafter is often moving, evenif its script does become sappy at times. Its hard to remember thatgreat directors are the most versatile ones and Clint Eastwood simplyproves this by making a sad, Babel-esquire movie about trauma anddeath.Hereafter follows three stories about death. The first is about aFrench journalist, as played by the great Cecile de France, who nearlydies in a tsunami and rethinks her life afterwards. The second is abouta psychic (Matt Damon), who can actually communicate with the dead,although he chooses not to do so. He has quit his job as a psychic andwants to return to a normal life. The third is about a British boy wholoses his brother in a car accident and tries to overcome his death.The three stories intertwine, although it does take a long time for thestories to even start coming together.Peter Morgan's writing shines in this movie. Morgan, who previouslywrote The Queen, has written another good script, even if this one isnot as good as his other writing. Although the story feels a little"easy" in terms of its predictability and deus ex machina turns towardsthe end, it is still an interesting story and one worth watching.Morgan and Eastwood's ideas on death may not be for everybody,especially because the movie never deals with religion, butnevertheless, it is still an unusual and enthralling story.The acting from most of the main cast is very good as well. Cecile deFrance, a relatively unknown actress in the United States, outdoes therest of the cast in her sad but delicate performance. Matt Damon,probably the most well-known actor in the movie, is pretty good, but hewill never be able to have a performance as great as the one in GoodWill Hunting. Unfortunately, the performance of the British boy fallsshort. Played by both Frankie and George McLaren, the acting is sadlyemotionless, even during the saddest scenes, and feels fake. Althoughthe may just be children and one cannot expect much from child actors,there have been much more believable and better child performances.Clint Eastwood has made a good movie with Hereafter. It is not a greatmovie, per se, but it is an interesting one nonetheless and one that isworth watching simply for this reason. Hereafter is certainly not oneof Eastwood's best (in fact, it is probably one of his lesser goodones), but it is one of his must unusual ones and should be seen toshow that he can direct in many genres. Eastwood has directedthrillers, westerns, and sports dramas, but never a delicate dramaupheld by great performances. And for that reason, it should be seen,even by Eastwood fans who are sure that they will hate it. From a tourde force opening tsunami scene to a somewhat odd and disappointing, butquiet end, Hereafter is a unique movie from a person that one may notexpect to make this kind of film.Note: My rating would be a 7.5/10 (or 3/4) if I could give ithalf-stars.

mark 27 April 2012

feeling good movie!

whatever others says about this film. it makes you feel good when its end.Clint Eastwood has good sense of humor even a serious topic like this. there is no loud background music therefore you can focus on their dialogues and acting which is super. if you want to feel good then go to see Hereafter.

Steven B 26 April 2012

OMG Somebody just shoot me!

Okay, so I'm just a former grunt who doesn't get chick flicks but I do understand plots, content, and flow. This movie has none of these. It is slow tedious, and just plain BORING! One third in French subtitles (?!), one third in London, and, maybe one third in USA but based on the apartments I think the whole thing was shot in Europe it nonetheless ends up disjointed and ends up with some sort of artsey (silly) kiss that means diddly to most thinking people. If you are an insomniac and need the rest this movie is for you. If you want 2-3 minutes of great tsunami animation, then watch this then go out to the lobby and wait for your wife, date, or whomever. Qualifies as the worst movie of the decade.

24 April 2012

WHAT THE DICKENS WAS THIS?

The movie runs with a plot and two subplots. Our main character, Matt Damon is schizophrenic who doesn't take his medicine. He talks to dead people through psychic readings. He is also obsessed with Charles Dickens and his readings and advice seem to come from Dickens' novels. His first reading involves a man who has lost his wife. He is to remarry. This is similar to the "David Copperfield" book he listens to. His second reading involves a bad father/daughter relationship. Later we see "Little Dorrit" displayed in London. Dickens lived with his wife's sister, which at the time was classified as incest.His third reading involved twins, a tool which Dickens over frequently used in his books.One of the subplots involves a French news reporter who had an NDE in the opening tsunami scene. She believes her NDE was real because other people have a similar experience, ignoring all the science on brain functions during the NDE. She believes there is a media conspiracy against all this "scientific" data that points to an afterlife. The French tell her to go sell her story to the Americans.The third story involves a young boy in London who lost his twin brother and has a hard time coping with life. He leaves his foster home to find a real psychic.The acting was good and we knew at sometime these stories would somehow intersect. The problem was the movie made us wait way to long for it to happen, using valuable time building character in the most mundane ways. When the movie finally climaxes, when the three subplots come together, they don't come together with a bang, but rather a bust. The movie ends at the point it should start. The soundtrack was really bad. The movie is designed to make us believe there really is an afterlife, but religion does not enter into it.

mmille10-697-57647 24 April 2012

A good movie for those who have lost loved ones

This was an interesting movie to me, because it made the idea of beinga medium a human thing. I've seen movies in the past about characterswho were in touch with the spirit world. These abilities are usuallycast as a blessed thing to discover for the individual who gains them,but they are rejected by the wider society, because most people can'thandle the idea that humans are capable of extending beyond theirhabituated perceptions to a whole other existence, or it violates sometenet of their religion. The person with these abilities is typicallycast as a righteous martyr. Here, George Lonegan, an American, issomeone who gained the ability to get in touch with people who havedied, because of an operation he had years earlier. Right from thestart in the movie he shies away from using his ability. As the movieprogresses you realize why. It's not that the spirit world is scary (aswas the case in the movie "The Sixth Sense"). It's that George knowsfrom experience that it interferes with having a normal life. He issingle. He lives alone in his apartment, which he goes back to everynight after work. He feels a sense of alienation from his fellow humanbeings that he tries to get past, but he wears a "mask" to do it. Hepushes away his ability every chance he gets. He feels he has to hidehis true self in order to fit in and have a normal life, which is whathe desperately wants. It's been this way for years. No matter how hardhe tries to deny it, his ability keeps coming through, and it messes upthe life he wants. This aspect felt so familiar to me (though I am nota medium). I could really relate to it. Other people desperately seekGeorge out to communicate with their loved ones who have passed away.George says, "It's not a blessing. It's a curse!"He doesn't reject everybody who seeks him out, but who he chooses tohelp seems arbitrary. There's just something about the person or thesituation that convinces him to say, "Oh, all right. I'll do it justthis once." The one solace George has is he loves to read books byCharles Dickens. Passages from Dickens show up regularly in the movie,and they have an interesting relevance to the story.Another aspect to it I found intriguing is that George doesn't entirelyunderstand how this "medium thing" works, and that lends his charactermore credibility. He just communicates what he hears, even if itdoesn't make sense to him, though our natural human instinct (and his)is to try to understand our experience.Other threads are started in the movie. A French journalist, MarieLeLay, has a near death experience. She comes back from death, andwonders about her experience. In some ways it changes her. It doesn'tdominate her thoughts, but it's something in the back of her mind thatwon't go away. She becomes increasingly interested in the afterlife,but realizes this puts her in conflict with the beliefs of those sheworks with, and her boyfriend, all of whom are atheists. She pursuesanswers to her questions, and eventually changes her career in order toshare the fruits of her research.Another thread is a set of young twins in the UK who depend on eachother to survive. Their mother is a drunk, and is unable to supportthem. An accident happens and one of the twins dies. Social servicestakes the surviving child away, and gives him over to a foster family.He doesn't stay for long. He desperately searches for a medium who willput him in contact with his dead brother, but to no avail. Person afterperson lets him down, but he is undeterred.I won't reveal what comes next, as that would be too much of a spoiler,but it's sufficient to say that the conflict and suffering that eachcharacter experiences eventually leads to resolution.There were a couple things I liked about this movie. One is it givesthe audience time to get to know the characters on a personal level, tosee who they really are, one might even say as souls. It's been yearssince I've seen a movie like this. It was so nice. I also liked thatthere was no "wise one" with all the answers, just people feelinguncertain, insecure, isolated, with certain talents, capabilities, andneeds, groping for answers. All very human. What drives the charactersforward is they all have something that inspires them. If you'respiritually inclined, particularly if you have lost a loved one, Ithink you'll like this movie. It delivers a powerful and life-affirmingmessage to those who grieve. It may provide that much needed catharsisthat people need to move on with their lives. It definitely takes sidesin the debate about whether there is an afterlife, so I imagine thatmost atheists won't like it that much.

Warren 16 April 2012

Boring Movie... Save Your Money!

When I saw the previews I thought this movie was going to have a lot of action and have an intellectual sci-fi plot with good suspense like Inception. Boy, was the preview misleading. The entire movie was slow and boring. There did not seem to be much of a plot. It follows three characters whose lives are separate and inevitably cross. However, even when this happens its extremely anti-climatic. I highly recommend you skip this movie altogether. If you insist on seeing it at least wait until it is in redbox and you only have to spend $1 on it. It was disappointing and awful... really one of the worst I have ever seen. I cannot believe Matt Damon took this role.

15 April 2012

A very good film.

A beautiful, thoughtful, and sobering human drama. Cécile de France (High Tension) is simply wonderful. I was captivated whenever she was on the screen. Young actors Frankie and George McLaren give terrific performances as Marcus/Jason. I was also won over by Matt Damon and Bryce Dallas Howard. There's really no weak link here among the main players.It's no surprise audiences are mixed on the film. I have a feeling most are expecting a more eerie, supernatural thriller type of movie, ala The Sixth Sense. I personally prefer the more intimate picture Eastwood has crafted. It's all rather low-key, but this is a very "nice" film that I enjoyed a lot.

cindru2000 11 April 2012

Interesting to watch 90% of it, but then....

We're too cheap to regularly see movies at the theater. This one was anobvious one to wait for DVD release via Netflix. While I had high hopesthat this would've been on a plain with 'Inception,' 'The Sixth Sense'and the like, the ending was thoroughly hacked down 'to play in theallotted time.' Such editing was very apparent near the end when thehero, played by Matt Damon writes an exceedingly long letter as a meansof introducing himself to the heroine. However, we never ever have theleast idea of what his ramblings were ever about. Given that the moviemakes a point of showing us from afar the many pages, one would thinkwe would learn of the content.Only near the end did three very separate story lines begin to merge,with no more explanation for such a merge beyond the suggestion ofcoincidence. And while the movie attempts to give some insight into theafter life, we never know what that insight is as the movie wraps upwith a happy ending as hero and heroine meet up and appear to start aromantic relationship--but only apparently so, because that's where themovie ends.As I cut this review short, you'll experience the same sense ofincompletion you'd experience by watching 'Hereafter.'

Dennis Schwartz 10 April 2012

The climax was just as incredulous as Clint's unconvincing look at the hereafter.

09 April 2012

Hereafter

This review is from: Hereafter (DVD) One of my favorite current movies. Loved it ! As you get older you appreciate the idea of an after-life.

09 April 2012

Time for sleep

This review is from: Hereafter [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) At 70 years of age I have certainly have seen my share of movies. Often I am titillated by the advance publicity filmmakers spin about their latest and greatest form of entertainment."Hereafter" is a film that could really get our minds and imaginations hyped up. All of us would like to know about life after death even if it is fiction.....this is not the film that would do it. I must confess that this is the most boring film I have ever seen..I suffered through the dialog waiting some special effects or great revelation ..it didn't happen. It is a rare moment when I throw a DVD in the trash after viewing it. In this case I did, and broke it in half so that no one else would suffer through it either....Gee, with all the fancy special effects movie makers have at their disposal they could have done much better.

MonaMulberry 08 April 2012

Incredibly intense, subtle masterpiece.

Clint Eastwood has once again proved himself to be a formidabledirector. The style and structure of storytelling used in Hereafterwill not appeal to a large audience, but something tells me he knewthis all too well but honestly, didn't care and rightfully so. Becauselet's face it, he can afford it and it's certainly a privilege he hasearned. And with Hereafter, it seems that all Mr. Eastwood wants to dois share a story. A very beautiful one at that.Hereafter is divided into three story lines, spread over threedifferent countries. We have Matt Damon as a reluctant psychic in theUnited States, Cécile De France who plays a journalist in France and ayoung pair of twin brothers (Frankie and George McLaren) in England.All of these peoples' lives are in one way or another affected bydifferent aspects of death, whether that be a near-death experience orthe passing of someone very dear. Or, in Damons case, the ability toestablish a certain connection with those who are no longer with us.Eastwood has decided on a particularly art house-like approach, which,like I mentioned earlier, will certainly back off a large amount ofpotential viewers. However, I personally very much appreciate hisdecision. He has obviously chosen not to make this some big, hyped-upmonster movie about all things paranormal. Instead, Hereafter dealswith its subject with great integrity and subtlety. Although, despitesaid subtlety, it features a few moments which are, by contrast,incredibly intense and shocking (in a non-scary way). In fact, I wouldeven go so far as to say it is not for the faint of heart, but I meanthat mostly in an emotional sense, rather than a spectacular one. On aside note, I would actually not recommend this film to anyone who has,in any way, shape or form has been confronted with the 2004 tsunami, oreven the London terrorist attacks. It might be really confronting, sobe advised.I personally think the film's rating of 6.7 is a bit low, but on theother hand I do somewhat understand why this film has not received theappreciation it deserves. Simply put, not everyone (actually, manypeople) will not understand it. It is a small story, for a smallaudience. Also, anyone watching this because they think it's all aboutMatt Damon will be somewhat deceived. I fully understand why they puthis name and picture on the poster, since he is the only big name onthe payroll. But this is really not 'his' film, he just plays a part init. And he does it well, but the rest of the cast actually deserves agreat deal of credit, because they are quite simply phenomenal. And Imean *all* of them. Cécile de France is really impressive, she playsher part with great dignity and empathy. She truly carries every sceneshe's in, and she will definitely do her country proud. Personally, Iwas most affected (both story- and acting wise) by the 'London segment'of the film. The story of the two young brothers is absolutelyheartbreaking, and the McLaren boys do a superb job at translating thisonto the screen. Anyone who doesn't at least feel a shudder of emotionwhen watching their story unfold, well... honestly doesn't have a lotof heart. I refuse to give away any plot points at all, other than whatI already have. This is really the kind of story you just need tosurrender to in order to really appreciate it. The pacing demands somepatience, but if this is your kind of film it really won't be too muchtrouble and you will be greatly awarded.The way the story unfolds (the three-way structure, which doesn't cometogether until the very end), inevitably evokes comparison to 'Babel',but honestly, that one cost me a far greater deal of effort to sitthrough than Hereafter. But that is entirely personal of course, andthe structure is really the only similarity between the two; thestories are completely different. And I also think Hereafter isactually far more accessible than Babel, despite its subject matter.The stories are told with such tenderness that it didn't actuallybother me at all that they were three separate stories which, until theend, had nothing to do with each other. They all intrigued me in theirown personal way.Actually, I could go on and on...It's been a long time since a film has really touched my heart, butthis one has. I've been thinking about what rating I should give it,but honestly, I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't give thisfilm a 10. Hereafter is a film of true beauty, a real gem. Which,unfortunately, won't be understood by many people, but who knows...Perhaps someday, its time will come.

Jim Judy 07 April 2012

Sadly, after the gripping, engaging and emotionally charged roller coaster of an opening, the film ends up fairly lifeless and in the need of a defibrillator to bring it back. (Parental Review also Available)

suvopyne49 28 March 2012

Intriguing stuff - nice one by Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood's latest may not be able to create a lot of buzz aroundthe movie lovers corner.(Especially if you see some of the reviews inhere). But to me, the movie is quite good. It may not be one ofEastwood's best, but it do deserve a watch.The movie is Eastwood's version of trying to explore the 'Afterlife'.Some people may not like it but I think a director has his liberty ofimagination. It consists of three parallel stories about a Frenchjournalist, a reluctant psychic and a kid who recently lost his twinbrother. All of the three protagonists in the movie have encountered 'Death' insome time or other. Matt Damon plays the psychic, George, who is tiredof contacting with the dead relatives of his clients, Cecile De Franceis the French journalist who have experienced 'Death' or near deathwhen she was caught in a tsunami. But the story of the twins is mostenthralling. The movie drags itself sometimes, especially in some parts of bothDamon and Cecile's stories, with the help of some sub-plot andsub-characters. Also, the end is a bit predictable, but stilleventually one will like the way the 3 stories are intertwined. The performances are according to the stories, none of the actorsreally excel in their roles, but they have done justice to theircharacters. It's really the idea of life after death which grips theattention of the viewers. P.S. The opening scene with the tsunami is excellent, it was shownbetter than some of the disaster films. and there's a lot of Frenchtalking in the movie, so for that you will need subtitle.

tavm 28 March 2012

Clint Eastwood's Hereafter provides some interesting questions about how some uncontrollable events effect us

Just watched this Clint Eastwood-directed movie on a Netflix disc withmy parents this evening. It tells three stories that segue into eachother that initially seem unrelated. One is about French reporter Marie(Cecile De France) who survives a tsunami (how timely watching thisafter the recent events of Japan) in Thailand. The next is about apsychic (Matt Damon) who's tired of the overwhelming duty and tries tostop. And then there's the twin kid brothers' (Frankie and GeorgeMcLaren) experience in the streets of London...Eastwood takes his timein getting us to know these characters and letting some true-lifeevents take place in their proper time. There's quite some tragicundercurrent throughout the whole thing yet some hope near the end thatmay not be completely realistic but not entirely unbelievable. So onthat note, Hereafter is recommended.

Jim H 27 March 2012

Hereafter or D.O.A.

This is a somewhat complicated plot where differenct lives come together. It has a few moments but they are few and far between. Though I have found most of Eastwood's later works as some of his best of all time, this movie will not make that list! It falls flat in many ways to include character develpment and just an underveloped story! This is a renter at best!

moviexclusive 26 March 2012

Told with nuance, sensitivity and most of all generous empathy, Eastwood's supernatural drama about death and the afterlife is poignant and heartfelt

Death is not a particularly easy subject to talk about- because it isso real and yet so painful- nor is it a particularly easy topic to makea movie about- because it tends to be glossed over with maudlinsentimentality. But if there is a Hollywood filmmaker with both thecourage and the adroitness to handle such a delicate subject, you canbe sure that person is Clint Eastwood. Especially with his last decadeof films, Eastwood has emerged as a sure-handed, confident filmmakerwith a straightforward, no-frills style of directing.That style suits "Hereafter" perfectly, his supernatural drama aboutdeath written by British prestige screenwriter Peter Morgan ("TheQueen"). More than just death, Morgan also flirts with the afterlife,the 'hereafter' as the title suggests- basically, what happens afterdeath. Admittedly, this is an even trickier subject, as any discussionabout the afterlife inevitably ends up divided by religious beliefs.Eastwood and Morgan sidestep these potentially divisive issues,portraying instead the afterlife in the form of blurry figures againsta bright white light in the background.It isn't that far-fetched, since many real-life survivors of near-deathexperiences have reported the same sighting. This vision of theafterlife is the common thread running through three disparate storiesin Eastwood's film that is as interested in death and what comes after,as it is on how that affects the living. The former is the theme of thethird story, telling of the devastating effect that the death of ayoung boy Marcus' (George and Frankie McLaren) twin brother has on hislife with his drug-addled mother, and his subsequent preoccupation totalk to his deceased sibling.The other theme of death's effect on the living is brought out throughthe first two stories- one of how Cecile de France's French journalistMarie has a dramatic change of perspective in life after surviving apowerful tsunami while vacationing in Indonesia; and the other of howMatt Damon's psychic George deals with his gift of being able tocommunicate with the dead. As with any other Eastwood drama, viewersought to be patient because it is only within the last 20 minutes thatEastwood draws these stories together to a heartfelt conclusion, andthus abandoning the narrative rigidity of the earlier storytelling.Whereas filmmakers like Alejandro Inarritu might have opted for anon-linear approach in telling their story, Eastwood chooses to followthe same beat (Marie-George-Marcus) throughout the film. While thatmakes for an easier time following the various story threads, the filmcould certainly have benefited from a more fluid and less workmanlikerhythm. But Eastwood's storytelling strength lies in his warmth andsensitivity for both the story and its characters- and thanks to this,"Hereafter" is never less than compelling throughout.Each of the three stories will speak differently to different viewers-those who have lost a dear one will identify with Marcus' grief; thosewho have survived a near-death experience will identify with Marie'sstruggle; while those who have certain extraordinary abilities willidentify with George's plight. Of these, George's is probably the mostwell-developed and interesting, especially in illuminating howignorance may indeed be bliss when it comes to a knowledge of theunknown.This story also benefits from one of the best performances in the film,Damon delivering a understated yet intimately powerful portrayal of apsychic whose attempt at any semblance of a normal life or contact withpeople is all but futile thanks to his "gift". Not that the otheractors aren't good- Eastwood has always had a knack of coaxing the bestout of his actors, and the tender performances of de France and theMcLaren twins attest thoroughly to that.As expected of a film with the subject of death and the afterlife,"Hereafter" is likely to divide audiences, as it has done for critics.But kudos to Eastwood for deftly handling such a difficult and divisivesubject with carefulness, nuance and empathy, especially evident in howlife-affirming its conclusion turns out to be. It is a meditativeexperience that will make you think about death and lies after, just asit convinces you that life in the here and now should not be lived infear of the beyond, but an appreciation of its certainty.- www.moviexclusive.com