Au-delà

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. (15/09/2011)

Don't be swayed by the negative critical response from individuals who didn't understand it, this is a great film. Eastwood deals with the autumn of his life, when one must unwillingly be confronted with the inevitability of death, and he does it the way he does it best: very sensitively and empathetically. It outlines Moody's view on death and life after life, but in a non-violent way, he does not impose his opinion and through the fate of three people marked by the loss of a loved one, or the life experience of clinical death, he sensitively tells his story. And I have to say, I've never been so pleased with Matt Damon's acting, his subdued performance as a mature man surprised and delighted me. (03/03/2011)

It’s clear that the high workload of recent years is not very good for Clint. The phenomenal Gran Torino and Changeling were followed by the average Invictus, and now comes the fail that is Hereafter. At first, it was touted as a mysterious thriller in the style of The Sixth Sense, which is obviously not true. Ideally (if it was good), Hereafter would be a sentimental reflection of life and death, but it’s so badly written – if you are expected to believe in the fate of predetermined events, those events shouldn’t feel like fucking forced coincidences. The performances are also weak, though that shouldn’t be a surprise given the shallow lines the actors have to utter is various WTF scenes. Only Damon comes out with his head held a little high. There are some moments where you can feel the potential of the material, but the whole was unable to arouse any intense emotions. This film is colder than a penguins butt, even though it really wants to be deep and sensitive. Even after the disappointed responses I was hoping for a decent time, but I’m very unpleasantly surprised at how weak this film turned out to be. PS: The tsunami was nice, but utterly pointless, really. (03/03/2011)

I had no idea what to expect going into Hereafter. The film didn’t get much buzz, and then suddenly, boom—it’s here. It’s a mix of drama with a touch of the supernatural, featuring a solid cast of both actors and actresses. I didn’t even read the plot summary; I just saw Clint Eastwood’s name attached and decided to dive in. What really surprised me right from the start was the massive tsunami scene. Clint really nailed it—releasing a movie that opens with a devastating tsunami right around the time Japan was recovering from a real one. Of course, there's no way he could’ve known that when filming, but the timing was uncanny. What’s even stranger is how little people seem to talk about this film. I mean, it's Clint Eastwood! Even the core concept is worth watching. As for the low ratings—seriously, why? It feels like an odd mix of bad luck or misunderstanding. I personally thought the film was solid, especially in how it weaves together three separate, intriguing stories. Each one grabs your attention in a different way—some more than others, which is probably the only reason I didn’t give it five stars. It’s definitely not as bad as it’s being made out to be. It’s just a unique kind of movie that might not sit well with everyone right away. (19/03/2011)

Just today an airplane carrying some Czech ice hockey players crashed in Russia. So Hereafter seemed to suit this sad day. Clint hasn’t got soft, just older and so he said to himself that he would film the requisite pensioner’s ruminations about death and throw it to an audience hungry for his movies. A stylish opening with a tidal wave (that ingenious scene must have swallowed most of the budget) turns into a conversational drama of three people whose destiny becomes (unexpectedly) entwined and everything ends up sort of ok. The picture is overflowing with excellent acting performances, just the screenplay is sometimes too blabbermouth. (07/09/2011)