Hereafter

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. (2011-09-08)

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)

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. (2011-09-16)

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)

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. (2011-03-04)