Justin Chang

19 May 2012

An uneven but absorbing triptych of stories concerning the bonds between the living and the dead.

18 May 2012

Disappointing

I was so excited to watch this movie when I rented it. I have been waiting for a long time to see it on DVD so I sat down and watched it when I could. Sadly to say I was rather disappointment as I watched it. The only really exciting part of the film is the beginning with the tide of water shown in the trailer. The movie was slow moving and boring. I don't hate this movie but I don't like it either.I was excited to watch this movie because Matt Damon is a great actor and I love films by Clint Eastwood, for example Gran Torino. But this movie was a big disappointment for me.

Jeff Bayer

16 May 2012

Damon breathes some life in to this boring film, but he's only in one-third.

Cole Smithey

15 May 2012

"Hereafter" is Clint Eastwood's celebration of life in all its transitional forms, death included.

13 May 2012

Two+ hours wasted

Disconnected and implausible plot with horrible sound and subtitles. There were long scenes in which the dialogue was almost inaudible. The subtitles were so small as to be nearly unreadable AND white subtitles on a pale background......I found it generally boring with little satisfaction as each character's "situation" was resolved.Give me Gran Torino any day for a movie with plot and heart.

the_short_stuff01

13 May 2012

A nice change of pace

I rented this movie not really knowing what to expect. I have not seenany previews, was not aware of who did what (except Matt as his facewas plastered on the front), and only went on what the summary ofRedBox told me. I am glad that I rented this movie, and am putting iton my wish list to buy.Not to go into the story, as enough people have already done so and itwould be redundant, I have to say I was happy with the pace of themovie. A lot of people complained that it was slow, hard to focus...butI think the problem is we are so used to fast paced, action everywhere,dialogue heavy films (which I do sometimes enjoy) that we forget toappreciate the quieter films...the ones that don't necessarily have alot to say, or a lot of flash, but ultimately leave us thinking. The music was simple and not overdone. As a musician, I could go intogreat lengths on the themes, the tones, instrumentation...but theoverall summary is I loved it as it fit the character of the movie.While we do not know everything about the characters, I didn't feel Ineeded to in order to understand how "death" changed their lives. Whydo I need to know every aspect of their lives? Why do I need to knowmore details on the research? Knowing that extra piece or exact detaildoesn't change the fact that their lives were changed by "death" andwon't answer any looming questions; it'll probably just leave you withmore unanswered questions. If you are worried about the smallinformation like that, I think you are missing the film's message. Iloved how it ended with optimism and hope for the characters and how"death" brought them together (but not in a cheesywow-look-at-how-everything-works-out-in-the-end sort of fashion).I've just recently lost two close loved ones, and while this movie isnot intended to give fabricated answers, explain death, or push me tobelieve something, it reminded me that even when faced with death onehas to keep on living. Watch the movie with an open mind, and enjoyboth the subtle simplicity and complexity presented in the film.

Steve Crum

12 May 2012

Factoring in the on location filming in Paris and London, low key dialogue-speak, the multiple plot structure, and long takes, 'Hereafter' has a foreign film look and feel.

11 May 2012

Death and afterlife

Clint Eastwood is certainly one of the most iconic people on this planet. As a actor he has has had some memorable roles and lines, as an director he is in a class by himself. Most of his films that he has directed have repeat viewing value and some have become classics. At an age where most people could barely walk, to have such a prolific directorial flourish is simply amazing. His latest work ` Hereafter' is abut death, tragedy, the effect it has some people and their attempts to cope with it, thus continuing his obsession with death. Three divergent story lines across three different continents are merged together in a ending.Marie ( Cecile De France) survives a tsunami but finds that he life is falling around her. She is unable to cope with her relationships, her work and life when she returns home after this tragedy. George Lonegan ( Matt Damon) is a psychic who forsakes fame and riches he could have had as a psychic when he realizes that his gift is more like a curse and prefers to lives in near obscurity. Finally there are Marcus and Jason who are struggling with their mother's alcoholism and are struck with a life altering event.The segment of Marcus and Jason was the most touching, and warms your heart to feel this brotherly love. The other segments are fine and well acted. The Tsunami scene is the great and probably the most fast paced in the entire movie. A common grouse amongst the viewers of this movie is the slow pacing but I felt that was necessary and keeping up with the theme of the movie. The tone of the photography is extremely muted and brightens up only towards the end. The actors are great and Matt Damon slips effortlessly in to his role as a psychic, the kids Marcus and Jason are incredible as well. This may not be Eastwood's most accomplished work but also not his weakest either. Four stars.

Pamela Dickens

11 May 2012

Interesting concept, poor direction

Interesting concept, writing and acting.Surprisingly poor directing from Clint Eastwood. He should have reined in the self-absorbed lighting director and techs. There were too many contrasting dark-light faces, and there was too much lighting "art" to the point of distraction.I'm a foreign film buff, but I didn't like the dialogue switching between French and English. I don't think there was really a need for French conversation in this non-French film. The movie would have been more enjoyable to watch in either all-French or all-English.

bunji999

10 May 2012

In a Word - Sleepy

Hereafter is subtle and endearing. Matt Damon, who I enjoy as an actorgave another solid performance. The locales were beautiful and theeffects weren't overdone. The intersection of French, British, andAmerican cultures added some flare to the film.My main criticism is directed at the editing. I felt the pacing was tooslow. Too much time was spent developing characters and not advancingplot. The film could have been 30 minutes shorter and it wouldn't havelost a thing. The slow narrative made the film sleepy and even boringat times. I found myself fast forwarding through some of the film justto get on with it.I didn't receive a "payoff" from Hereafter. Because it had taken solong to reach it, by the time the film peaked and key charactersintersected, I was like, "Yeah, and, so what?" Please keep in mind, Iwasn't expecting anything going in. I viewed the film for what it was -an examination of people's link to death and what lies beyond. I justsimply feel that it took too long to make its points.To sum up, its a so-so movie. Matt Damon keeps it from being completelylifeless. (Its a shame we didn't see more of him in it) Not a badrental if you've got a Sunday afternoon to kill. Just have somethinghandy to do like your folding your laundry, because you'll needsomething to help keep you stay awake.

07 May 2012

IT CERTAINLY DID DRAG

A tale that focuses on life and death with no fulfilling answers as the end but I think that was intentional. Overall, this film was introspective but it dragged too much. I was able to handle about 40 minutes before turning it off. WHEN WATCHED: mid April 2011; MY GRADE: C to C plus.

T

06 May 2012

Seriously? WTF?

I went and saw this Saturday night and I've got to tell you... I think I would've enjoyed ripping my own eyes out more. You'll spend 2 hours thinking this movie is going to go somewhere and it doesn't! See something else, honestly.

peter-vandenhoeck

04 May 2012

disappointing plot

After promising start 3 story lines become rather boring to finallycome together in an unlikely again boring plot. Very nice Tsunami startin the french storyline (always nice to hear an other language thanEnglish in an American movie, with promising potential of a near deathexperience, but not really further exploit. UK Storyline of twinbrothers is responsible for the dramatic part of the movie but againafter interesting set up dilutes to would be tearjerker. And also theAmerican storyline starring Mat Damon which needs to bring everythingtogether has potential but is just boring in the end. Finallyeverything comes together in a very unlikely endgame, where everybodylives long and happy ever after. By far not Clint Eastwoods bettermovies.

04 May 2012

Borig Oscar bait that have some bright moment but who all in all can bore you to death!

Hereafter scream Oscar bait, every character you meet is tragic, the director was obviously afraid color would kill the viewer for all is somber and dull, and the story moves very, very, very slooooooooooowwwwwwwwly. Hereafter is three stories woven into one movie, one storyline follows a depressed former psychic who is trying to put his days as a professional medium behind him as he do not want to live with death anymore, however there are always pepole with sad stories showing up and asking for readings, the second story follows a news reporter who barely survived the Asian Tsunami and is haunted by her near death experience, the third storyline follows the young son of a drug addict who lost his twin brother in a car accident and who in turn becomes obsessed with death. Each of the main characters becomes involved with death in their own way and try to figure out more about the hereafter.Min main problem with this story is that it tries the wrench tears from you, however since every, single character in the movie is so tragic it get ridiculous other than sad, everyone had either suffered a great loss, has been raped, have lost their siblings, are drug addicts, are depressed or in other ways their lives suck, the movie stand and screams look at all this tragedy, give me tears and give me an Oscar! Fortunately the Oscars did not bite and neither did I.All in all this movie have a near concept, and under all the tears and grime and depression it haves some good moments, the problem with Hereafter is that it tries way, way to hard, also for a over two hours movie it get very boring as it is just way to slow. The concept of three pepole who have each been touched by death in their own ways who are seeking what lies beyond is interesting and is what made me buy the movie in the first place, however why do every single character have to be tragic, the stories of the three main ones drown in unnecessary emo drama and what would have been a great speculation on life after death turn into an uninspiring, depressive tear wrencher.

jaiharan0206

03 May 2012

Just the movie everyone would love

Well, I have seen Clint Eastwood movies but this is the one that wastotally different. Because he will either take something like action,crime, drama kind of thing or something related to it. But this one isabsolutely superb, bit of true and a must-must watch movie. Matt Damon especially, I will say that this is the best acting fromhim. Not only it was his best acting in this movie also the role heplayed can literally happen to someone, Not believable but true. A bestmovie I have seen from him since "The Departed".And coming down to Cecile De France. Well I must say that her actingwas good too. I mean it was in french but still it was her acting thatneeded which turned out to be pretty good.Last but not the least, the third main character in the movie, GeorgeMclaren. To bring out something like that in this movie with the helpof Eastwood of course is something amazing from this kid. His role isso true that it can happen to anyone when any of his close mate die. Socan say he acted real good.And finally to bring all the three characters meet together in the end,its the specialty of the macho Clint Eastwood. The one thing I want tosay is "You will love this movie totally".

j r

03 May 2012

terrible,disappointing not what it seems like on the tin.....

this movie was in my opinion crap omg i was expecting so much more itwas a boring drama,to say the least if your expecting any fantasy , asin psychic,s or ghostly story forget it, the only parts of this movieworth a watch are the 1st 10 Min's, and near the end ,a shocker theyshould,nt even of released this be lucky to sell a pirated DVD by theway 3 out of 10 is being generous to say the least waste of 2hours...... the acting is OK , the story is OK but ,this could of beinglike so much better they could of use the psychic ability of matt damonto make this movie far more appealing to a much wider range of audiencein all if you pay to go see this you will walk out wishing you,d wastedyour money on something less crap .

MyNeighborFanboy

01 May 2012

Here is a Film Before its Time...

For some bizarre reason, marketers opted to make Clint Eastwood'slatest work look like a rejected script to an M. Night Syamalon moviein its trailers. What with its catastrophic events and plot centricimagery, you'd think Eastwood had made a disaster movie rather thanwhat the reality turns out to be. This is a much more thoughtful filmabout death that examines how living characters deal with theaftereffects. Matt Damon's character, Lonegan, is not a protagonist butone character in a larger ensemble piece. Naturally, it benefitsmarketing to try to isolate this certain aspect of the plot to makethis look like a thriller, but it is a impressionist character piece byall means. Even the psychic aspect is played down, and never trulyexplained.What that reality turns out to be is something akin to one of the timecentric French minimalists like Chantal Akerman and Jacques Rivette.While it never of course becomes a four hour movie about householdchores like Jeanne Dielman, it nevertheless is one of the mostjarringly French art-house-like films to ever be released as amainstream American film. Eastwood's decision to leave Peter Morgan'sscript as a rough first draft is likely part of what's drawingcriticism, but this is arguably what makes it so effective as well.Narrative coherence is spurned in favor of genuine CINEMA, peoplebehaving on-screen and showing the effects of great turmoil in everylittle nuance. Eastwood, known for stripping down rewrites to maintaina certain spontaneous quality in his films (and for shooting very fewtakes) saw something in this script that he knew wouldn't make it tothe final draft. This is how it maintains such a minimal quality.Of course, such methodology is in tune with French filmmakers likeBresson, a filmmaker who would likely be criticized today for hisdeadpan performances when what he's really doing is drawing attentionto actions rather than performances. Eastwood puts a lot of stock ingesture: hands in particular. Hands are prominently shown whenever acharacter embraces, and they are also the method through which Loneganis able to make contact with the afterlife. He tries to makeconnections through a cooking class, in which he must make use of hishands (and which inevitably leads him to touch the hands of others whenhe wants least to). There's also a generous use of exteriors, with therunning theme of loneliness in crowded locations which anybody whoseexperienced such trauma (or even lesser traumas) can relate to. Itsounds like Eastwood is employing the dreaded preference of "things" to"people," but in reality this is a perfect melding of characters totheir environment.None of this is the kind of post-Elia Kazan acting our country is usedto, but each of the actors do a remarkable job in communicating in thisway. Damon gives the finest performance of his career, and each of thesupporting cast is remarkable as well in the way they REACT, ratherthan act. A jarring change for the star of Gran Torino, perhaps, butone which works for the material.And that, I think, is why such mixed reactions come out of those whoview this film. Eastwood is not making a heightened film about death,but an understated (despite its moments of sensationalism, which serveas counterpoint) exploration of how people deal with death. What makesit even more difficult is that, despite an optimistic conclusion, nodefinite resolution is ever reached. We never learn the nature behindLonegan's abilities, we only get hints at how it may have come about.No religious agenda is preached, nor is religion rejected. Such openended filmmaking is vastly beyond even limited releases, and is usuallythe kind of stuff found on the Criterion Collection decades after itscompletion. To have a release like this is astounding, but has likelydoomed the film financially.That would be a shame. In a year that has produced solid work rangingfrom Sorkin and Fincher's The Social Network, Martin Scorsese'swoefully underrated Shutter Island, and the hype-driven juggernaut thatwas Inception, I think Hereafter ranks among the very best of the year.I would even go so far as to call it the first bonafide masterpiece ofthe decade. I suspect this places me at odds with many people, some ofwhom have tried to logically argue with me why this was an incompetentfilm (to them, I would explain that film is not meant to be dictated byplot logic, the most superficial aspect of filmmaking at best) but asthis film goes to show, some things just can't be easily explainedaway.

gpulgar

01 May 2012

no hereafter here

If your hoping to "explore" the hereafter, look elsewhere. This movie'sdialog is freeze-dried. Every shot, every line is grotesque in itsapathetic disinterest in authenticity. We've heard all this dialogbefore and that makes us cringe hearing it heaped on us scene afterscene. We wait rolling our eyes hoping that the next scene will takethe movie where it should be going, but no such luck. Damon phones inthe same bad acting he is known for. All the French interiors areexcellent so we know that the director spent most of his time movingbouquets around instead of demanding a realistic script. When theordeal was over I wanted to throw a shoe at the closing credits. Andclearly whoever penned this lackluster underachievement has no interestwhatsoever in "the hereafter", as it is never explored in any way,period.

Erin Free

29 April 2012

An unusual but absolutely absorbing work which bravely tackles the big questions with thoughtfulness and real emotion.

29 April 2012

Superficial, often untelligible junk

What a disappointment! I don't care who starred or who directed, this film isunbelievably shallow. AND I wonder what other reviewers expected from Eastwoodand Damon, in order to praise it so highly? Like life, I know it's all aboutour individual expectations, no? The separate story lines, one in the UK, in France, and, of course, in the US are just too messy. By that I mean that it's too hard to follow each, when they're not carefully integrated into the whole. For example, do you enjoy endless dialog in French with subtitles? I do not. Or Brits with mumbled and often too heavily accented lines? Nope.And all of that is before the downright silly, but primary relationship, if you can call it that, between the hero and his dopey brother. Substance, Mr. Eastwood, substance is called for and usually you deliver that. Are you just too tired to make the effort anymore? I hope not.