Leofwine_draca HEREAFTER is an intriguing supernatural drama from acclaimed director Clint Eastwood. This film ties together three varying plot strands into a satisfying whole. As a film it's a slow-moving and largely subtle character drama, exploring the effects of death upon three diverse characters. The first is a French woman who survives the Boxing Day tsunami in the film's hair-raising opening sequence, which in five minutes outdoes the whole of THE IMPOSSIBLE. The second is Matt Damon as a psychic struggling with his abilities. The third is a London schoolboy whose brother is killed in a car accident.I always feel uneasy about Hollywood productions like these as all too often they veer into mawkishness and sentimentality but for the most part Eastwood avoids those pitfalls. Instead, HEREAFTER feels realistic throughout and the exemplary direction helps that. The acting is the film's strongest element and if not much really happens by the end, you're so caught up in the lives of the characters, as hard as they are, that you don't really mind. It's hard to believe that Spielberg, the man behind CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, could executive produce a film like this.

zkonedog By no means is Clint Eastwood a flashy director. As evidenced by films like "Gran Torino" & "Million Dollar Baby", Eastwood prefers gritty, emotional human drama over contrived drama any day of week. However, with "Hereafter", Eastwood fails to instill even the most basic amount of drama to make us care about the storyline and main characters in any meaningful way.For a basic plot summary, "Hereafter" splits its focus on three different, seemingly unrelated events involving a retired psychic (Matt Damon), a French journalist puzzling over a near-death experience (Cecile de France), and a young child desperate to speak to the "great beyond" (Frankie McLaren). Of course, those events turn out to be not quite as unrelated as they seem.While not a glaringly bad film by any means (Eastwood would never quite sink that low), this film fails to impress for two reasons:First, it doesn't develop the characters enough to make the audience truly care about them in the film's climax. Yes, we know things about their recent past and why they act like they do, but it just never feels as if the characters in this film are anything more than pawns in a bigger scheme. As such, it is tough to really "get into it" in the end.Also, when the film does discuss issues of the afterlife, it is far too brief and flirting to ever truly be meaningful. I am a bit disappointed by Eastwood in this regard, as he usually attacks such high-profile issues instead of shrinking from them.Unfortunately, then, "Hereafter" fails to captivate on any high level. It's nowhere in the league of "Baby" or "Torino", and doesn't even live up to its predecessor "Invictus".

Adithya Siva I had avoided this movie ever since I had come across it, probably for a year or so, going merely by the review aggregates of the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and IMDb, who had also lambasted this movie. A user had pointed out (going by the name of 'viewerindepth' from Egypt): "I can't believe I was gonna miss it because of bad reviews!" His statement was spot-on. Usually, a couple of movies that did not fare well with RT and Metacritic are relinquished on IMDb. ("Payback" for instance.) But not this. I desperately wonder why.I'm not gonna reveal ANYTHING whatsoever about this movie; but I will tell you this:I have been on an Eastwood movie watching frenzy for the past couple of weeks and I chose this movie as a last resort because I'd already had the DVD and could not get my hands on his "Blood Work" just yet. I have to admit, I was hooked from the first frame. The movie has a very unique screenplay that has to be seen to be understood. It has an ensemble cast, and although the movie does not delve into the complexities of the subject matter much, nevertheless, I'm sure 90% of the audience would understand what it tries to convey after watching it. I came across a couple of reviews which underlined Eastwood's pronto direction, and Damon's performance, but undermined the screenplay and pointed out that the movie just does not come to the point. I can understand why those set of people do not like it, or get it; the point of the movie is not of the in-your-face sorts, but is still magical if you're in for a Shakespearean treatment."Why Shakespearean?" you may ask. Because you'll understand and be able to endure what the movie wishes to put forth upon you only if you allow yourself to think outside the box, and make all the correct assumptions. Don't get me wrong; 'assumptions' was used in a totally metaphorical sense. That said, you will love this movie if you just let it play without asking too many questions, and immerse yourself into what it is trying to convey. You must definitely give it a watch; and if you do not get it, give it a watch again, because the movie is exceptional and has an 80-year-old Eastwood showing his badassery and command over directing, yet again.

Anssi Vartiainen Hereafter, directed by Clint Eastwood, tells about three separate people, all of them touched by death, and how they cope with their expanded view of life and afterlife. Like with all Eastwood films, it's done with a minimalistic budget, which means that it's very down to earth but in no way suffering from the fact that they didn't have a huge amount of money. There are special effects, but they're rather downplayed and only used when necessary.Personally I think the story has one character too many. Matt Damon and Cécile de France's characters are the ones you care about. They have the best scenes, the best character arcs and the most interesting events overall. Whereas the two London twins are simply not as interesting, even though the film seems to think that they are. The film would have flowed so much better with just these two story lines. And to the film's credit, most of the running time is spent on those two, and all the scenes dealing with them are great. Damon and de France are both charismatic, versatile actors and their individual struggles have great cohesion, making their eventual face-to-face meeting all the more meaningful.I also really like Eastwood's style in this film. It deals with the supernatural, with the idea of afterlife, souls existing beyond the death of their mortal vessel, but it deals with it with such style and grace. It's not hammered in, it's not showed down our throats. Rather it asks the question: "What if?"Not a perfect film by any means. The London twins are rather aggravating, the story doesn't flow quite as smoothly as it should and in the end it doesn't say anything about the afterlife we haven't already heard. But, it's entertaining, it's crafted well and in the end it has something to tell you about the human condition and about our time here on this good Earth. Recommended.