Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online


Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Hereafter Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Hereafter - 25/1/2011 1:47:24 AM   
Empire Admin


Posts: 31471
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
hereafter - 28/1/2011 8:48:00 PM   


Posts: 90
Joined: 1/10/2005
this is prob the first film directed by clint that ive not felt like standing up and clapping at the end. dont get me wrong its not a bad film, just run of the mill.....

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
A B Y S M A L !!!!!!! - 29/1/2011 6:01:18 PM   
The kUrGaN


Posts: 47
Joined: 22/3/2006
OMG Mr Eastwood. What have you done? How can you even think that this film is passable as anything in the same universe as cinematic entertainment? Have you seriously lost the plot? And Mr Spielberg, .......well, words fail me sir.How can anyone say that Damon lifts this film? He is absolutely lifeless, boring, passionless and totally unmotivated by it. Awful!!!! He actually looks embarrased at how bad some of this is....its a crying shame Eastwood and Spielberg didn/t share it. The whole film is one teeth grindingly bad sugary cliche after another, with achingly bad, awkward acting thrown in for good measure ; in fact , the London scenes set back British acting to before the dawn of time, its that bad !! Sure the opening Tsunami scene is extremely harrowing and well done, but that's it. Leave the cinema hurredly after that point because its gonna hurt you and leave any respect you have for Eastwood and Spielberg in absolute tatters. They should hang their heads in shame. AVOID !!!!!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 3
It felt like a lifetime - 30/1/2011 4:57:23 PM   


Posts: 2
Joined: 4/4/2010
The tsunami was good even though the CG was a bit wishy washy. The acting was so wooden they couldv'e used that for the floating debris in the opening sequence.
The twins, just awful glad there was only one in the film. A mic was visible in one scene above a psycics head. A restuarant scene distracted me because an extra, lady, had a menu in her hand one shot, then she didnt then she did.
I thought did Clint really direct this film.
For once empire have got their stars right giving it 2.
Still not forgiven for giving Monsters 5.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 4
A big mess - 1/2/2011 3:44:27 PM   


Posts: 3
Joined: 10/10/2005
I'm with the reviewer who questions whether Clint really directed this... What the wha is going on in this film? ! It feels as though there might be a once-good story in there somewhere - however, it's so buried under multiple threads that really go nowhere, it just becomes a big mess of inconsequential nonsense.

The contrivances to get the characters where they need to be are just gobsmacking: making Damon's psychic a Dickens fan for seemingly no other reason than to give him an excuse to be in London when the boy and the Frenchwoman are there? Puh-lease.

Damon is good throughout, but even he can't disguise the fact that this is a stinker. And a long stinker at that. Several cinema-goers left before the end of the film in my cinema. I wish I had.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 5
RE: Hereafter - 1/2/2011 6:02:58 PM   


Posts: 357
Joined: 23/6/2006
Director: Clint Eastwood
Screenwriter: Peter Morgan
Starring: Matt Damon, Cecile de France, Bryce Dallas Howard, Frankie/Mason McLaren

A blue-collar American (Damon) tries to avoid the occupation he once had as a psychic who can communicate with the dead; a French journalist (de France) has a near-death experience which leads her to learn more about the hereafter; a London school boy (McLaren) loses his older twin brother and searches for guidance.

Although the idea of the afterlife somewhat echoes in Alejandro González Iñárritu’s far superior Biutiful with an extraordinary performance from Javier Bardem in the centre of it, Clint Eastwood’s latest (which came out exactly the same time) is all about that idea with a series of intertwining narratives to support it.

Despite having a long career as director, Eastwood has not explored the hereafter before, neither has screenwriter Peter Morgan, but they are both accomplished dramatists. Sadly, the film has so far a pretty poor critical success and possibly won’t be a box-office one, but one can’t deny that Hereafter has flashes of brilliance.

To how the film starts is an epic opening sequence in which the character of Marie, played by Cecile de France, is succumbed to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (presented in strong convincing CGI) and later survives. Once this breathtaking sequence is over, the film becomes a long discussion of the titular theme as told by three people separated from one another.

The film at its best is the story of former professional psychic George Lonnegan who cannot connect with anyone else except for his corrupt brother who shamefully tries to exploit his brother’s gift/curse for money. However, his encounter with Bryce Dallas Howard’s character leads him to hopefully a normal relationship with her. Although he is for the most part an action star to a mainstream audience, Matt Damon in his most dramatic knows how to play a down-to-earth man and despite his character having the ability to read from the dead, Damon doesn’t fall into melodrama.

Despite the previously mentioned tsunami sequence, the story starring de France is a self-centred journey in which her character explores the secrets of the hereafter, which sounds overwrought but the actress succeeds at bringing innocence to her side of the story, although a poster of her advertising BlackBerry doesn’t do her justice. Unfortunately, when the film focuses of the boy who tragically loses his twin, it goes into ridiculous directions, notably the various English psychics he visits that seem like total oddballs and thus the only true psychic is an American.

Peter Morgan’s script is the real problem because its ideas are too outlandish and could easily lead to sentimentality and first-class silliness. However, Clint Eastwood who is clearly a great filmmaker is able to downplay the ideas and gives the film a sense of reality, most notably the scenes with Damon and an always delightful Bryce Dallas Howard. One final point: I could have easily live without the cameo of Derek Jacobi reading Charles Dickens.

Although Hereafter is slow and somewhat overwrought in its screenwriting, Eastwood as director turns an outlandish premise into a decent and moving drama that works best when Damon and Howard being the centre.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 6
Dead Boring....... - 1/2/2011 9:41:07 PM   


Posts: 82
Joined: 5/10/2005
Have to agree with a lot of the comments on here about this Film, it was certainly not anywhere near as good as I thought it was going to be, and if it WAS directed by Clint Eastwood, its the worst one in his career.......

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 7
RE: Dead Boring....... - 2/2/2011 11:18:43 AM   


Posts: 15
Joined: 2/2/2011
good matt's movie.

(in reply to n13roy)
Post #: 8
RE: Dead Boring....... - 2/2/2011 7:17:15 PM   
Dr Lenera


Posts: 4184
Joined: 19/10/2005
The question of what happens after we die is one that will probably never be answered, but that hasn't stopped filmmakers from approaching it every now and again.  Personally I'm fascinated by the idea of life after death and am a sucker for any film that attempts, even obliquely, to give some kind of answer.  Clint Eastwood's latest film has been seen by some as a bit of a departure in subject matter for him, but I think that's a silly statement considering his films tackle a wide range of subjects and several decades before both High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider had supernatural elements.  Hereafter seems to have divided both audiences and critics and I had a rather strange experience watching it.   I really disliked it for about a third of the way, and found it rather boring and perhaps taking an eternity to get to wherever it seemed to be going, but as it went on I started to enjoy the film more and more, got sucked into its slow mood, got involved with its characters, and by the end was really quite affected by the damn thing.

Straight away I need to empathise that the film's pace isn't so much slow as positively arthritic.  The story of the young boy Marcus seems especially to take forever, but the movie was obviously intended to be this way, it's not automatically a flaw.  In many ways this is a less of a typical Hollywood movie and is closer to French Art House, something by Jacques Rivette or Robert Bresson, where we seem to be observing real life, where a conversation may go on for ten minutes rather than be cut short, where the way characters gesture is as important as anything they might do.  Now I'm generally not a fan of that kind of movie, nor films with tons of dialogue, I'd rather see something rather than be told about it, which is why many of my favourite directors such as Dario Argento and Alexandro Jodorowsky are ones who empathise the images over the script.   Nonetheless, maybe it was just the mood I was in or whatever, but I eventually got really involved with this movie, even though it doesn't much of the usual stuff you find in afterlife movies.  There are brief glimpses of an afterlife  [I almost laughed at first as it reminded me of the climax of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind when the Mother Ship opens up and we are dazzled by whiteness out of which people and then aliens appear!], but there are no ghosts, no jump scares, and not even any real suspense.  Yet, as the film meandered to its conclusion, I was hoping to God that the film's characters would get, if not answers, some kind of peace.  I got to really care for them, which means that, at least partially, this is a good movie.

This is then more a story of how people cope with death than an exploration of whether there is an afterlife or not, and somehow it manages to convey both loneliness [including that most strange but very relatable kind of loneliness- that of being alone whilst being surrounded by people]and anguish without ever going into melodrama.  Peter Morgan's script devotes equal times to the three stories and I will say that I found the Marcus/Jason story weak at times, as said before it takes forever to get anywhere and suffers badly from some poor acting by the twins playing them.  Eastwood went after unknowns but it backfired, especially during one atrocious scene where Jason is on the phone in a shop, I almost laughed because he sounded like a robot.  This story does though have a great and rather amusing section where Marcus goes to various supposed psychics and they are all charlatans.  The Marie story, which opens with the spectacular tsunami [great CG effects here] is possibly the most conventional and at one point jumps suddenly a few days, but still becomes very involving and conveys very well a sense of dislocation, a sense of things never being the same again.  My favourite story was that of George the psychic, I found his attempts to try and integrate more into society by going to the cookery class and starting a tentative friendship with a young woman Melanie so incredibly touching, and they culminate in one of the best acted scenes I've seen in ages, as George uncovers certain dark secret about her that he perhaps shouldn't have done-I hardly got to know Melanie, as played by Bryce Dallas Howard, but felt so sad for her. It's obvious that the three main characters are going to meet at some point, and two of the three stories kind of climax in possibly the most touching scene of 'contact' I've ever seen, yes I shed a few tears and don't care!

The performances are generally excellent, with Matt Damon doing a really great job of subtle acting here and giving you information about his character without actually seeming to do much at all.  The lovely Cecile De France finally has a role worthy of her amazing early turn in Haute Tension and in some ways it's the hardest role because it's the most conventional.  Eastwood, as is usual now, also provides the music and his melancholy themes help create the right mood though they are rather too obviously used at times and one of them sounded just like his theme from Unforgiven!  You probably want to know, does Hereafter give you any answers and I will say that it does attempt a couple but still leaves a lot of questions.  This has obviously fustrated many people but then life is like that and I reckon if the film had told us more it would have just as criticised.  Is Hereafter depressing?  Certainly, but it has the courage to give us a rather happy ending that will make any romantics in the audience smile [yet still seems to have annoyed people for being different to the tone of the rest of the film].  Hereafter will undoubtably fustrate and probably bore many, but if you have the patience it's quite rewarding, and although I probably wouldn't rush to see it again, it will stick with me for quite a while.  7/10


check out more of my reviews on

(in reply to undisputed3)
Post #: 9
RE: Dead Boring....... - 3/2/2011 7:09:54 PM  1 votes
evil bill

Posts: 6784
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
Hereafter opens with the deceptively peaceful scenes of a tropical paradise,where French reporter Marie DeLay (Cecile De France) is vacationing with her boss and lover, Didier (Thierry Neuvic). Just before the couple are set to return to Europe, they become victims of a deadly tsunami. Marie DeLay survives but her near death experience leaves her more than just shaken,she believes she has seen beyond the pale.This is one awesome piece of acting,and you really feel her pain and bewilderment,as she try's to cope with all that has happened.George and Frankie McLaren's work as the adorable Marcus and Jason,the British twins who must contend with their mother's drug abuse and, later, a tragedy that will tear them apart.Again first rate acting,with the viewer left to feel as if they are part of the story. Matt Damon's restrained performance of a man who has abandoned his psychic gift for a more simple and obscure life as a factory worker,is proof if proof was needed that he can act with the best,it could be his best role,i kid you not.
Clint Eastwood has once again delivered a movie that just will not sit in any one genre,his decision to leave Peter Morgan's script as a rough first draft is likely to cause some criticism, but this is arguably what makes it so effective as well.It's less about visuals,though the effects are excellent at the start,and more to do with how living characters deal with the aftereffects.Eastwood uses hand gestures,and real emotion in the characters expressions,to draw us into the story,which is about trying to find the meaning of life and death.His direction was brilliant, he never ceases to amaze me,he may never hit the highs of the giants of cinema,but always delivers a very watchable if a bit slow drama of the highest quality.. If your in the mood for a good supernatural drama,and don't mind a movie full of dialogue,with very few effects,and no explosions or scary moments,this is filmaking at it's best.8/10


"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 10
RE: Dead Boring....... - 8/2/2011 4:17:46 PM   
Qwerty Norris

Posts: 4015
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
Somewhere, there is a good film in here. Damon gives an impressive, understated performance throughout as a man weighed down by his "gift” and the scenes he shares with Bryce Dallas Howard are a small delight. Whilst the opening ten minutes expertly depict the sheer panic and confusion felt by people in relation to a specific real-life natural disaster.

It's just a shame then that virtually everything else is rubbish. Firstly the amount of product placement for Blackberry is extremely off-putting and the way they seem to be tied in to real life tragedies is actually quite insulting (I really doubt they were so widely available in their current form around the time of the 7/7 Attacks for example). Peter Morgan, a man whose done sterling work in the past with the likes of 'The Queen', 'Frost/Nixon' and 'the Damned United' devises a screenplay that really drops the ball here with a narrative structure that despite well-intended, feels hugely cumbersome and heavily contrived – displaying a high number of tedious sequences with clichés galore, awful dialogue and does its actors absolutely no favours in the process.  

This is particularly evident in the roles of Marcus and Jason played by the McLaren twins, who (and I'm not exaggerating here) are comfortably two of the worst actors (child or adult) that I've ever had the misfortune to see in a mainstream film and every time they open their mouths, unintentional comedy ensues.  This is something that 'Hereafter' could probably escape from if they weren't such significant roles but given they are involved in a third of the films running time and in essence provide Hereafter's emotional rawness – it's a monumental disaster. What was going through Clint's mind when he casted these two I'll never, ever know.

Whatever it was, there can be no hiding from the fact that Clint is on a bit of a downward spiral at the moment.  Here's hoping he'll address that slump in his J Edgar Hoover biopic due out next year.



Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 11
RE: Dead Boring....... - 17/2/2011 12:07:54 PM   


Posts: 42
Joined: 25/8/2007
Not boring, but not really exciting. The tsunami scene is terrific, and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up in the Underground scene. The rest is interesting rather than engaging, but to paraphrase The Who 'The kids are not alright'. I know its hard to get children to convince on screen, but compare these two to Haley Joel at the same age. Chalk and cheese.


If you can dodge traffic, you can dodge a ball

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 12
RE: Dead Boring....... - 17/2/2011 1:02:28 PM   
Qwerty Norris

Posts: 4015
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh


Not boring, but not really exciting. The tsunami scene is terrific, and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up in the Underground scene. The rest is interesting rather than engaging, but to paraphrase The Who 'The kids are not alright'. I know its hard to get children to convince on screen, but compare these two to Haley Joel at the same age. Chalk and cheese.

Technically speaking that was the Offspring, the kids were perfectly alright in the Who's mind....


Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to GCH)
Post #: 13
RE: Dead Boring....... - 18/2/2011 8:43:09 PM   


Posts: 42
Joined: 25/8/2007
I did say I was paraphrasing


If you can dodge traffic, you can dodge a ball

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 14
Clint screws up. - 17/7/2011 10:56:25 AM   


Posts: 21
Joined: 7/8/2010
Am i the only person to see the flagrant mistakes with this film? First of all, the tsunami scene. Overly graphic and insulting. How would any surviving tsunami victim feel like? This was a poor opening, and completely unnecessary.
Then, there was the whole "single-mum-druggie-living-in-a-shithole" scene in London, which seemed to imply that that was your typical London family. As the plot stumbled on it collapsed in a mess of nonsense and clichés.
In your book, Empire, two stars merits a "fair" label. It wasn't even fair. It was a lumpy mess of bad taste and bad acting, a story that was limper than a damp towel, and certainly nothing to be expected from Clint, who fucked up. Big time.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 15
RE: Clint screws up. - 13/9/2011 3:41:33 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2185
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: London
I have to say I thought the film was disappointing. I think the trailer jumbled it all together into a more satisfying whole than what the film produced. I thought by far the strongest element of the story was George Lonergan's tale, deftly played by Matt Damon. I really liked the scenes between Lonergan and Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) - very touching, tender and you could see how vulnerable they both were. I thought the whole thing with the French lady and the young boy were gratuitous. They should have been cut from the story and instead, the film should've just focused on Lonergan. I have to say I felt bored with the other parts and a little removed from the story. Great subject matter for Clint Eastwood to tackle and I must wonder. Having done "Gran Tourino"(vis-à-vis what happens to the protagonist) and now "Hereafter", I do think whether he's becoming more introspective and perhaps his final set of films will dwell more on mortality? As an extension of perhaps what he's thinking about seeing as he's reached old age.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 14/9/2011 1:06:07 AM >

(in reply to TheMovieAddict101)
Post #: 16
RE: Clint screws up. - 13/9/2011 6:13:09 PM   

Posts: 1548
Joined: 3/8/2011
I was shocked how poor this was.Stunned.By Clint??
The plot was all over the place,there was little to care about and Damon was like somone who knew he was about to fall off a cliff.
And the child actors make the Narnia kids Oscar-worthy.Easily the most cringe i've ever felt watching a film.
1 star.


Without love we are dead

Protect children from vile and obscene videos

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 17
Hereafter Review - 20/12/2011 11:59:50 AM   
the film man


Posts: 590
Joined: 13/10/2010
Despite a thought-provoking premise and Clint Eastwood's typical flair as director, Hereafter fails to generate much more compelling drama, straddling the line between poignant sentimentality and hokey tedium.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 18
RE: Hereafter Review - 22/6/2012 10:39:52 AM   
Vitamin F


Posts: 632
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Norn Ireland, so it is

Disappointing. Bloated, some terrible acting from most of the cast, dodgy CGI, a ridiculously non-conclusive ending, awfully inappropriate just all adds up to a badly directed film.

There is a good film in here somewhere, the premise and story strands are actually quite promising to start with, but it needed tighter direction and should have been condensed into 90 minutes.

(in reply to the film man)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Hereafter Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI