Hereafter (2010)

The pacing of this film did not bother me. Of course, I am over 50, so I can actually sit still through a slower paced storyline that includes a number of different characters, without something blowing up, or someone getting undressed to keep my attention.

What did bother me, perhaps comes from a unique view from others reviewing the film. As one who has experienced an NDE, I was disappointed with both the flimsy, and undeveloped view of the female lead's experience, and the ambiguous way in which her story unfolded.

On one hand, we have a character whose NDE was so life-altering, as to divert her from her primary job as a political reporter, into someone who writes a book extolling the difficulty in revealing the truth in the modern media world about the validity of the NDE experience. The dust jacket on her book, as well as casual references to her research, talk about all of the expert testimony that support the overwhelming facts about NDE experiences, and the correlation between science and the afterlife. And thenÂ…the movie tells us nothing.

The script (or perhaps what was left after Eastwood edited the script) simply glosses over anything substantial in the way of research, except to talk about a Nobel laureate who was ridiculed after revealing his research. One line...out of over two and a half hours of script.

The question to me, is why start the conversation, if you aren't going to offer even a small slice of the answers? The research is voluminous. Those of us who have experienced an NDE know that it is far more than a chemical reaction to the body starting to shut down. Much more.

But, all we are left with in this movie, is a lead character who doesn't want to acknowledge his gift, even in the face of those around him who believe in a "hereafter," more than he does.

Anyone who has experienced an NDE will find this movie sadly unfulfilling. But perhaps, it will bring many more of us to admit to what happened, and start a much more meaningful dialogue about the facts.

As a few of the younger reviewers mentioned, a vast majority of the audience was over 50. No doubt many of those there were looking for answers about the "aferlife," for one reason or another.

It would have been a great chance to tell the world something substantial. But in the end the movie was a nice idea, with slow execution...and painfully unfulfilling.

Fmovies: Clint Eastwood has once again proved himself to be a formidable director. The style and structure of storytelling used in Hereafter will not appeal to a large audience, but something tells me he knew this all too well but honestly, didn't care and rightfully so. Because let's face it, he can afford it and it's certainly a privilege he has earned. And with Hereafter, it seems that all Mr. Eastwood wants to do is share a story. A very beautiful one at that.

Hereafter is divided into three story lines, spread over three different countries. We have Matt Damon as a reluctant psychic in the United States, Cécile De France who plays a journalist in France and a young pair of twin brothers (Frankie and George McLaren) in England. All of these peoples' lives are in one way or another affected by different aspects of death, whether that be a near-death experience or the passing of someone very dear. Or, in Damons case, the ability to establish 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 of potential viewers. However, I personally very much appreciate his decision. He has obviously chosen not to make this some big, hyped-up monster movie about all things paranormal. Instead, Hereafter deals with its subject with great integrity and subtlety. Although, despite said subtlety, it features a few moments which are, by contrast, incredibly intense and shocking (in a non-scary way). In fact, I would even go so far as to say it is not for the faint of heart, but I mean that mostly in an emotional sense, rather than a spectacular one. On a side note, I would actually not recommend this film to anyone who has, in any way, shape or form been confronted with the 2004 tsunami, or even the London terrorist attacks. It might be really confronting, so be advised.

I personally think the film's rating of 6.7 is a bit low, but on the other hand I do somewhat understand why this film has not received the appreciation it deserves. Simply put, not everyone (actually, many people) will not understand it. It is a small story, for a small audience. Also, anyone watching this because they think it's all about Matt Damon will be somewhat deceived. I fully understand why they put his name and picture on the poster, since he is the only big name on the payroll. But this is really not 'his' film, he just plays a part in it. And he does it well, but the rest of the cast actually deserves a great deal of credit, because they are quite simply phenomenal. And I mean *all* of them. Cécile de France is really impressive, she plays her part with great dignity and empathy. She truly carries every scene she's in, and she will definitely do her country proud. Personally, I was most affected (both story- and acting wise) by the 'London segment' of the film. The story of the two young brothers is absolutely heartbreaking, and the McLaren boys do a superb job at translating this onto the screen. Anyone who doesn't at least feel a shudder of emotion when watching their story unfold, well... honestly doesn't have a lot of heart. I refuse to give away any plot points at all, other than what I already have. This is really the kind of story you just need to surrender to in order to really appreciate it. The pacing demands some patience, but if this is your kind of film it really won't be too much trouble and you will be greatly rewarded.

The way the story unfo

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.

Hereafter fmovies. The viewer doesn't know quite what to expect when sitting down to watch "Hereafter". I went in thinking it would be something a bit spooky, or mind-bending like "Inception". What I experienced was even more fascinating - and thought provoking - leading me to ask more questions than I would have answers.

"Hereafter" presents you with fascinating characters - literally from the first few minutes of the film, you find yourself both riveted and squirming to look away. Scenes from a vicious tsunami that takes the lives of hundreds of thousands leaves the viewer feeling shocked and empty -- but what follows in the aftermath is what is truly astounding.

The acting in this movie is absolutely superb. From Matt Damon's portrayal of George - a man who has abandoned his psychic gift (or what he considers to be a curse) for a more simple and obscure life as a factory worker... to Cecile De France's talented portrayal of Marie, a French journalist who experiences a tragedy of such enormity you wonder how she will ever get back to living a 'normal' life... to young George and Frankie McLaren's work as the adorable Marcus and Jason - British twins who must contend with their mother's drug abuse and, later, a tragedy that will tear them apart - the viewer is left to feel as if they are literally part of the story. You rally for the characters - and yearn to see how their fate will unfold. The intersection of all of their lives is what is so fascinating.

While I went into "Hereafter" expecting something a bit obscure and mind-bending, I was pleasantly surprised to see that this film is a drama that delves into not only the topic of life after death - but life itself. Clint Eastwood does an amazing job at giving us a look into the peace and mystery that awaits us on the other side... but also the joy and beauty of what is right in front of us.

"Hereafter" was a pleasant surprise. While some questions remain at the end of the film, I feel it is a perfect ending to a film about a topic as mysterious as life after death. At one point in the film, Thierry Neuvic's character, Didier, makes the comment that if there were life after death, it would have been proved by now. By the end of the film, you realize that the most wonderful and amazing events in life cannot necessarily be proved - but with enough faith and through fate - everything lines up exactly as it should.

For some bizarre reason, marketers opted to make Clint Eastwood's latest work look like a rejected script to an M. Night Syamalon movie in its trailers. What with its catastrophic events and plot centric imagery, you'd think Eastwood had made a disaster movie rather than what the reality turns out to be. This is a much more thoughtful film about death that examines how living characters deal with the aftereffects. Matt Damon's character, Lonegan, is not a protagonist but one character in a larger ensemble piece. Naturally, it benefits marketing to try to isolate this certain aspect of the plot to make this look like a thriller, but it is a impressionist character piece by all means. Even the psychic aspect is played down, and never truly explained.

What that reality turns out to be is something akin to one of the time centric French minimalists like Chantal Akerman and Jacques Rivette. While it never of course becomes a four hour movie about household chores like Jeanne Dielman, it nevertheless is one of the most jarringly French art-house-like films to ever be released as a mainstream American film. Eastwood's decision to leave Peter Morgan's script as a rough first draft is likely part of what's drawing criticism, but this is arguably what makes it so effective as well. Narrative coherence is spurned in favor of genuine CINEMA, people behaving on-screen and showing the effects of great turmoil in every little nuance. Eastwood, known for stripping down rewrites to maintain a certain spontaneous quality in his films (and for shooting very few takes) saw something in this script that he knew wouldn't make it to the final draft. This is how it maintains such a minimal quality.

Of course, such methodology is in tune with French filmmakers like Bresson, a filmmaker who would likely be criticized today for his deadpan performances when what he's really doing is drawing attention to actions rather than performances. Eastwood puts a lot of stock in gesture: hands in particular. Hands are prominently shown whenever a character embraces, and they are also the method through which Lonegan is able to make contact with the afterlife. He tries to make connections through a cooking class, in which he must make use of his hands (and which inevitably leads him to touch the hands of others when he wants least to). There's also a generous use of exteriors, with the running theme of loneliness in crowded locations which anybody whose experienced such trauma (or even lesser traumas) can relate to. It sounds like Eastwood is employing the dreaded preference of "things" to "people," but in reality this is a perfect melding of characters to their environment.

None of this is the kind of post-Elia Kazan acting our country is used to, but each of the actors do a remarkable job in communicating in this way. Damon gives the finest performance of his career, and each of the supporting cast is remarkable as well in the way they REACT, rather than act. A jarring change for the star of Gran Torino, perhaps, but one which works for the material.

And that, I think, is why such mixed reactions come out of those who view this film. Eastwood is not making a heightened film about death, but an understated (despite its moments of sensationalism, which serve as counterpoint) exploration of how people deal with death. What makes it even more difficult is that, despite an optimistic conclusion, no definite resolution is ever reached. We never learn the nature behind Lonegan's abil

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.