Hereafter

Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that ultimately weaves together several different storylines into one. We have a French reporter, played by the amazing Cécile De France, who nearly died during the tsunami in Thailand; Matt Damon, who connects with the dead through touch, bringing him closer to those who were significant to them; and finally, two boys, twins, who can take care of each other until one of them dies. The film has its strong moments, which Clint handles well, but it’s all a bit too naive and simplistic, and in the end, it turns into a beautiful fairy tale that can’t conclude any other way than with a happy ending. But don’t we deserve films where characters find a bit of their happiness? Don’t we deserve a little bit of unreality to uplift us when we need it? I feel this is exactly what Clint had in mind. The world around us is ugly, and death awaits us; we cannot avoid it, certainly not forever. So why not enjoy the life we have, why not hope for something better? At the end, there doesn’t have to be just a dark tunnel; there can be light. (2013-02-17)

Hereafter is certainly not a film for everyone (not that Clint Eastwood has made such films before). It is a quietly dramatic story full of emotion, it’s civil, human, comforting... Somehow it seems to me that the afterlife and contacting the other side is one of the very last things it’s concerned with. In fact, I'm tempted to compare it to Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, only with aliens swapped for the undead. There are a number of extremely impressive scenes of all kinds in the film (hiding from the social services, tasting food with blindfolds on, bypassing the media - the impostors, and of course the opening wave...) and each of the three stories manages to captivate and intrigue. The ending is absolutely beautiful. And I don't mind that it's a pure happy ending without any question marks. (2014-12-14)

An extremely interesting idea alone can't hold an entire film together. The impressive start is soon displaced by an unusually long and uninteresting story that, by Eastwood’s standards, teeters on the edge of massive kitsch. The attempt to incorporate as many fantasy elements into the plot as possible is understandable, because without them everyone would probably get bored. The performances are also top notch and save what they can, but none of this has the power to plug the huge hole of untapped potential that mars this otherwise very unconventional movie. (2012-06-30)

Clint Eastwood wants to say everything and despite the very restrained pace, he ultimately says barely half. And I don't remember a similar half-decayed idea in his modern era. I understand all the moods and all the plot lines fit together nicely, but I don't understand why a purely philosophical drama needs over two hours, in which nearly half of the running time is just slow dialogue. Hereafter has power in individual scenes (the introduction, the subway, and the cooking scene), but as a whole, unfortunately, it slips through the cracks. (2011-09-15)

Clint Eastwood has confirmed at least one thing once again, and that is that he can still make compelling stories whose main charm lies in the dense emotional power of a few individual moments (stealing a phone, for example). It's a purely conversational film (except for the opening action scene) whose strength lies not in its tightly and compactly constructed plot or in the deep profiling of its characters, but above all in Eastwood's approach, which I'm not afraid to describe with words like "mature" or "seasoned" and, above all, still relevant – in the sense that Clint still has something to say. It didn't tear me up nearly as much as Changeling, but it was an enjoyable two hours nonetheless.:) (2011-03-07)