Disappointment. It's worse than watching an awful movie that you know is going to be bad. With
Hereafter, I had heard some mediocre things about it, and it didn't even end up getting a theatrical release here. But I thought that you couldn't really go wrong with a Clint Eastwood movie. For starters, this movie is quality stuff. It's not like there's really crappy direction or random things falling out of nowhere or boom mics visible everywhere. No, it's a quality film. Unfortunately, this movie goes wrong on so many other aspects. It claims to deal with death, which is, of course, a very sad thing. But does it ever deal with it? I didn't think so. This film was really just two hours of people thinking they have a special connection to the 'afterlife'.
So here's my plot summary, done with the help of MS Paint:
These three stories are all 'connected' by one thing: a fascination with the afterlife. But the problem is, other than that, these stories have as much in common as a bean, rabbit and book shelf. They run along together like we're watching three separate films at once, instead of amalgamating nicely. When they finally did come 'together' at the end, it just felt really weird. What was even more annoying was the fact that the film didn't really end. I'm sure it was meant to be ambiguous, but it didn't go about that the right way. To be honest, when the end of the film finally came around, I was just happy that it was over and I didn't really care much for the characters any more.
![]()
The characters themselves didn't really gel well with me, either. It was a tricky subject to tackle, sure. But instead of taking this with a gentle approach, the film was instead very melodramatic. Matt Damon's character, George, seemed very whiny. I also thought that Damon was miscast in the role - he just didn't seem very vulnerable at all. However, I did quite enjoy the scenes he had with Bryce Dallas Howard, because they had some really good chemistry and the way their relationship was done was pretty interesting. Other than that, I really didn't enjoy his character/performance at all. Cecile de France plays the French journalist who survives a tsunami, and she seems really whiny too. I think I may have missed something, but I really didn't get why she was so fascinated with the afterlife. I realise that she was survived a pretty traumatic experience, but I don't think there was really enough for me to make me believe in her plight to get the afterlife known. But the story I didn't like the most was the one about the twins. This one was generally forgotten in favour of the others, and therefore it lacked emotional resonance.
![]()
Hereafter has a very intriguing premise, but the results were anything but intriguing. It started out well, with a pretty impressive tsunami scene which was rightfully awarded an Oscar nomination for visual effects. Other than that, this film is basically Oscar-baiting gone terribly wrong. Good premise? Check. A few actual events? Check. An all star cast and an amazing director? Check. None of these could actually help Hereafter become worthy. It moves as slow as a snail, never bothers to surprise the audience and it feels like a car stuck in first gear. In short, I thought Hereafter was a terrible film. It's not one of the worst films I've seen, but it comes close. The film never really started, and it never really ended. Instead, there were three stories of people who I didn't understand, and just found whiny. Never did I think that Clint Eastwood could sink to something as melodramatic and as plodding as this? A few more drafts of the script and this could have been great, but otherwise, this was a forgettable experience.
THE VERDICT: Nothing really holds the film together, and it suffers from a plodding script that wastes it's good premise.
What I hoped for:
What I got:
