Recensioni degli utenti

Hereafter is a slow, quiet study on the effect that death and the dearly departed have on the living. 

It's not really a ghost story or even a very supernatural movie. The three main characters each have felt death's power in different ways in their life. George (Matt Damon), a man who can contact the deceased, has fled from his abilities because they keep him from having a normal life. Marie (Cecile de France) is a journalist who has a near-death experience during a tsunami, and becomes consumed with understanding what she saw. And in London, a young British boy is desperate to contact a lost family member one last time. 

The three separate stories do eventually connect, but that's not really where the value of Hereafter lies. I can see this film being a source of frustration for some viewers eager for a traditional conflict and resolution or character arc, but those things aren't really Eastwood's priority.The movie doesn't have much of a "point", other than how death is such an important part of all of our lives, even as it's also probably the most mysterious. 

I liked it, but I'm hesitant in recommending it. Slow-paced movies like these need the right audience. It's fairly different from Eastwood's other movies, and I wouldn't mind seeing him tackle something like this, again.

The pacing of this film did not bother me. Of course, I am over 50, so I can actually sit still through a slower paced storyline that includes a number of different characters, without something blowing up, or someone getting undressed to keep my attention.

What did bother me, perhaps comes from a unique view from others reviewing the film. As one who has experienced an NDE, I was disappointed with both the flimsy, and undeveloped view of the female lead's experience, and the ambiguous way in which her story unfolded.

On one hand, we have a character whose NDE was so life-altering, as to divert her from her primary job as a political reporter, into someone who writes a book extolling the difficulty in revealing the truth in the modern media world about the validity of the NDE experience. The dust jacket on her book, as well as casual references to her research, talk about all of the expert testimony that support the overwhelming facts about NDE experiences, and the correlation between science and the afterlife. And then…the movie tells us nothing.

The script (or perhaps what was left after Eastwood edited the script) simply glosses over anything substantial in the way of research, except to talk about a Nobel laureate who was ridiculed after revealing his research. One line...out of over two and a half hours of script.

The question to me, is why start the conversation, if you aren't going to offer even a small slice of the answers? The research is voluminous. Those of us who have experienced an NDE know that it is far more than a chemical reaction to the body starting to shut down. Much more.

But, all we are left with in this movie, is a lead character who doesn't want to acknowledge his gift, even in the face of those around him who believe in a "hereafter," more than he does.

Anyone who has experienced an NDE will find this movie sadly unfulfilling. But perhaps, it will bring many more of us to admit to what happened, and start a much more meaningful dialogue about the facts.

As a few of the younger reviewers mentioned, a vast majority of the audience was over 50. No doubt many of those there were looking for answers about the "aferlife," for one reason or another.

It would have been a great chance to tell the world something substantial. But in the end the movie was a nice idea, with slow execution...and painfully unfulfilling.

This film tells the story of three people who have different degrees of experiences with death.

The subplot about the kid is particularly heart wrenching. I find the story gripping. Just as expected, Clint Eastwood delivers yet another thought provoking and emotional film again.

Life after death. Yes. The big question. Here 80 year old maverick Clint Eastwood present us with a cinematic feast without arriving to any final conclusion. How could he? The first quarter of the film is riveting, compelling, jaw dropping. Then, Matt Damon takes over. Let me be clear, I think he is a good, competent actor but I can't, ever, divorce myself from the actor and marry the character. I'm far too aware of his "acting" I have the feeling that Eastwood hires his actor and lets them to their own devices. Sometime that's a good thing but some others, like here and "Changeling" it is clear that more direction of actors was needed. Specially the children. Here as it was the case in "Changeling" the children seem kind of lost. Bryce Dallas Howard makes a bizarre contribution to the film. Unconvincing and down right annoying. And, I must say, I miss opening credits. I hope this fashion ends quickly. The appearance of Martha Keller took me out of the picture. I recognized the face but I couldn't put a name to it. The nagging thought distracted me away from the story. A problem that, with opening credits, could easily have been avoided. I'm rambling. I liked the film and Eastwood should be applauded. Still exploring, still taking risks. Well done!

After what I consider one of most amazing tsunami sequences in a film ever and a near-death experience, one might be inclined to think other spectacular scenes would follow. Such is not the case. Hereafter is a rather intimate drama following 3 parallel stories involving death. We don't spend really any time in the afterlife except the short glimpses near the start. It might be better called "Here and now". You have the famous French journalist involved in the tsunami (parts actually in French), the psychic with real powers who doesn't want to do it anymore (Matt Damon) and twins who suffer a tragedy. So, I would have liked seeing the "afterlife" explored or explained, but I was disappointed there. The near-death experience angle, scientific or spiritual, was also basically overlooked, another disappointment. What Dreams May Come or Flatliners, this film definitely isn't.

The movie had a few nice moments (such as the visit of the different "psychics"), but overall it felt disjointed, and the 3-way structure made the stories less developed and compelling. In fact, the story with the French was the one I cared the least for (despite having French as my first language) and the story arc with the twins was undermined somewhat by their limited acting ability (very inexpressive most of the time). The story arc with Matt Damon, I enjoyed the most and would have almost preferred if the film had focused exclusively on him. I could definitely relate to his performance of a good, very lonely man who was hurt by life. The highlights to me were whenever the redhead woman (played wonderfully by Bryce Dallas Howard) was interacting with him. Even though not much usually happened, it was riveting and I rooted for them. In fact, I would definitely pair them up in another romantic movie. I wasn't particularly moved where I should have been moved except for a thing involving Bryce's character. I didn't hate watching Hereafter, but I wasn't particularly impressed either (except for the tsunami scene). For such a rich subject, it could have been done much better even while evacuating most of the fantastical element, like here.

Rating: 6 out of 10 (good)

French TV journalist Marie Lelay (Cécile de France) is vacationing in Thailand with her producer boyfriend Didier (Thierry Neuvic). They survive the 2004 tsunami. She has a near-death experience which haunts her. She struggles to cope and leaves her job to write a book. In San Francisco, George Lonegan (Matt Damon) was once a professional psychic. He meets Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) at a cooking class. Marcus and Jason are 12 year old twins from London. Their mother is addicted and Jason gets killed. Marcus is sent into foster care.

The opening tsunami sequence is harrowing. However, the three storyline structure drains away much of the tension. I try to follow all three stories equally but I can't really get into the kids story. I also start to lose interest in the French story after a compelling start. Matt Damon has some good interactions with Bryce Dallas Howard. She does the big acting. There are some very compelling individual scenes. However, these stories need more connections. Director Clint Eastwood doesn't have the style or the edge to bring real interest into this movie. His matter of fact style leaves me cold and detached from the material.

I have respect for Clint Eastwood, both as an actor and a director. Hereafter is not quite among Eastwood's best, but I personally loved it and consider it one of the most underrated movies of 2010-2011. It is beautifully filmed and edited, and Eastwood once again shows what a great director he is. And also as a composer too, Eastwood writes the music here also and with the guitar and piano rhythms it is quite simple but very understated and effective, I found it more memorable than Changeling. The script is thoughtful as well and the characters are interesting enough. I have often heard and seen criticisms of Hereafter being too slow or the story being too ambiguous. I can understand, but I found the slow pace worked, this is a very quiet and reflective film, the pace conveyed this very well. The story is ambiguous, but complex, thought-provoking and moving also. Matt Damon is superb, as is Cecile De France. Bryce Dallas Howard also excels in one of her better performances. Overall, a great movie if not for all perhaps. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Death is not a particularly easy subject to talk about- because it is so real and yet so painful- nor is it a particularly easy topic to make a movie about- because it tends to be glossed over with maudlin sentimentality. But if there is a Hollywood filmmaker with both the courage and the adroitness to handle such a delicate subject, you can be sure that person is Clint Eastwood. Especially with his last decade of films, Eastwood has emerged as a sure-handed, confident filmmaker with a straightforward, no-frills style of directing.

That style suits "Hereafter" perfectly, his supernatural drama about death written by British prestige screenwriter Peter Morgan ("The Queen"). More than just death, Morgan also flirts with the afterlife, the 'hereafter' as the title suggests- basically, what happens after death. Admittedly, this is an even trickier subject, as any discussion about the afterlife inevitably ends up divided by religious beliefs. Eastwood and Morgan sidestep these potentially divisive issues, portraying instead the afterlife in the form of blurry figures against a bright white light in the background.

It isn't that far-fetched, since many real-life survivors of near-death experiences have reported the same sighting. This vision of the afterlife is the common thread running through three disparate stories in Eastwood's film that is as interested in death and what comes after, as it is on how that affects the living. The former is the theme of the third story, telling of the devastating effect that the death of a young boy Marcus' (George and Frankie McLaren) twin brother has on his life with his drug-addled mother, and his subsequent preoccupation to talk to his deceased sibling.

The other theme of death's effect on the living is brought out through the first two stories- one of how Cecile de France's French journalist Marie has a dramatic change of perspective in life after surviving a powerful tsunami while vacationing in Indonesia; and the other of how Matt Damon's psychic George deals with his gift of being able to communicate with the dead. As with any other Eastwood drama, viewers ought to be patient because it is only within the last 20 minutes that Eastwood draws these stories together to a heartfelt conclusion, and thus abandoning the narrative rigidity of the earlier storytelling.

Whereas filmmakers like Alejandro Inarritu might have opted for a non-linear approach in telling their story, Eastwood chooses to follow the same beat (Marie-George-Marcus) throughout the film. While that makes for an easier time following the various story threads, the film could certainly have benefited from a more fluid and less workmanlike rhythm. But Eastwood's storytelling strength lies in his warmth and sensitivity for both the story and its characters- and thanks to this, "Hereafter" is never less than compelling throughout.

Each of the three stories will speak differently to different viewers- those who have lost a dear one will identify with Marcus' grief; those who have survived a near-death experience will identify with Marie's struggle; while those who have certain extraordinary abilities will identify with George's plight. Of these, George's is probably the most well-developed and interesting, especially in illuminating how ignorance may indeed be bliss when it comes to a knowledge of the unknown.

This story also benefits from one of the best performances in the film, Damon delivering a understated yet intimately powerful portrayal of a psychic whose attempt at any semblance of a normal life or contact with people is all but futile thanks to his "gift". Not that the other actors aren't good- Eastwood has always had a knack of coaxing the best out of his actors, and the tender performances of de France and the McLaren twins attest thoroughly to that.

As expected of a film with the subject of death and the afterlife, "Hereafter" is likely to divide audiences, as it has done for critics. But kudos to Eastwood for deftly handling such a difficult and divisive subject with carefulness, nuance and empathy, especially evident in how life-affirming its conclusion turns out to be. It is a meditative experience that will make you think about death and lies after, just as it convinces you that life in the here and now should not be lived in fear of the beyond, but an appreciation of its certainty.

• www.moviexclusive.com

This drama is about three lonely people each living in different countries whose lives become indelibly connected in an unforseeable, yet touching way. The story centers on Matt Damon, an American, who apparently has the psychic ability of contacting the recently departed, however, he believes that this "gift" is a "curse" because it renders him a social outcast. There is also a French woman who has a near death experience and a troubled British boy grieving over the loss of a loved one.

I am not a firm believer in a hereafter life or psychic abilities, and what is great about this movie is that it addresses these issues in an intelligent way without asking the audience to debate their existence. Instead, it focuses on the characters and how these issues affect their lives. There is nothing cheap or gimmicky about this movie. It simply tells a touching story without being overly sentimental. Clint Eastwood delivers a great picture and Matt Damon an excellent performance. The round-out cast deserves a big-hand as well. Keep in mind that this is a character drama and, like cooking a good sauce, takes its time to develop a richness. So if you're the type of person who only responds to immediate sensory gratification, this movie might not be for you.

Hereafter is a film that I would have never thought would be directed by Eastwood, not because he's not interested in great stories, but because of the nature of the story itself.

Hereafter is a three-way approach to death and focuses on how three different characters experience it. The first is the French journalist Marie Lelay, who survives a tsunami, but hast a near death experience and sees the other side, an experience that leads to a career path. The second is an English boy who loses his eldest twin in a accident, shuts down and tries to find a medium to speak to him. Finally, the American worker recently made redundant George Lonegan is a serious medium since childhood; however, he considers his gift a curse because he connects with dead people every time he touches a person, something that impedes her having a normal relationship. Their stories are presented separately until the three characters end connecting and their stories intersecting and becoming one.

Hereafter is a film that does not dwell on controversy, or perhaps it does by departing from the existence of the afterlife. However, it is not dogmatic about what the afterlife is, it focuses mostly on how different people experience, see, imagine or think death and what lies beyond.

The acting is solid and convincing, subtle but believable. Viewers come to empathize with the three characters, get to know them well, and develop a relationship with them.

The narrative is certainly not innovative or original, but it works well because the character's stories and experiences are quite different. Certainly, the first 40 minutes are painfully slow because, until a certain point, the stories seem not to be leading anywhere. That is what I liked the least in the film. On the positive side, those minutes are the foundation of our understanding of the three characters. Yet, because the story spent so much time there, the last part of the movie, which is the most interesting, are hurried.

I loved the music, most of it composed by Eastwood himself.

I really enjoyed this emotive and touching story. And the ending was really sweet.

Clint Eastwood likes to make his films slow paced and this can be annoying at times. In my opinion Sands of Iwo Jima was boring and Grand Torino was overly sentimental but with Hereafter he was the right man for the job. The pacing is perfect with the story unfolding in just the right way, eliciting just the right emotions at just the right time (the opening scene is genuinely terrifying) and giving us enough time to think and absorb without ever boring us.

As for Matt Damon, this is a masterpiece. There are so many depths and subtleties to this role and Mr Damon gets it all. George Lonegan is a creepy haunted loner with poor social skills, not in spite of but *because* he's a big hearted person who cares too much. And Damon *gets* that, and shows it, you can see it in every frame of the movie, even when he's not moving a muscle. I know this movie won't be for everyone but this performance is one of the greats, a real tour de force of subtlety.

Lastly, the writing, the story is something not seen often enough these days, a thoughtful movie about a complex and emotive subject that doesn't treat the audience like idiots. There are a lot of questions unanswered here, and that's alright, there should be. This movie isn't about answers or some kind of payoff, it's about guiding the viewer through the story's of three people with very interesting perspectives so that we can all feel our way though it together. I love that the writers trust us to do that and don't try to force feed us a "message" or a moral.

A great thoughtful film about a difficult subject that will leave you feeling good, as long as you're not expecting to be spoon fed.

Approaching eighty, it is only fair that Clint Eastwood has become preoccupied with matters like death and afterlife, and in Hereafter, the veteran filmmaker gives these matters a thorough and devoted examination. The film presents three separate plot threads, all of which are constantly interesting, if not totally absorbing: (1) a French journalist and TV personality (Cécile de France) has a near-death experience following a tsunami, loses focus on her job, and feels drawn to the subject of afterlife; (2) a retired psychic (Matt Damon) tries to lead a normal life, but his talent keeps getting in the way; (3) a young British boy dies in a traffic accident, and his identical twin becomes obsessed with getting in touch with him.

As expected, these three lives are ultimately intertwined, and Eastwood does it all neatly and delicately. The film has an aptly open-minded and inquiring attitude towards its subject material, but if you feel that it doesn't quite blow your mind away, it's because Eastwood's direction is a little bit too meek and agreeable and the plot lacks a little bit of edge. The acting is fine, however, especially by Damon and de France, and the ending has a fitting poetic quality.

With a scatter-shot screenplay that weaves from disaster film to mystical drama, social satire to romantic comedy and back again, Hereafter found a lucky fate with Easwood at the helm.

Screenwriter Morgan seems generally ill-fitted for the material. The overt contemporary setting (involving both the 2004 Tsunami and 2005 London Tube bombings) clashes with unrealistic clichés of heroine-addled mothers with sensitive latch-key twins, an ambitious then broken career woman sleeping with her callous producer, the burdened mystic and his opportunistic brother. As death and the dead strike them, Morgan writes with an emphasis on ambiguity as to whether their beliefs in the afterlife are a truth of the film's reality, or a combination of illnesses, dreams, hopes and hallucinations.

Thus, it's a credit to the actors, mostly graceful cinematography and Eastwood's (whose own score goes a long way) choices that the moody tone casts such a spell and the characters elicit real empathy in their plights (though some of the supporting performances, notably and somewhat understandably given Eastwood's one-take directing style, the young twins, are stiff and don't hold up to the captivating Damon and De France). Nice, if contrived, details by Morgan do offer some light diversions and help to fill out the film, e.g., the psychic's obsession with Dickens, a wink to a writer who often explored death, redemption and fate.

And yet, over and over, just at the moment where viewers would expect to be floored, most necessarily when the characters at last converge in a cathartic ending, a not-quite-believable special effect is implemented, the dialogue doesn't come through, or the acting falters, and the audience is instead left, at best, touched, or at worst, ponderous.

Which might partially be the point. But as it is, Eastwood's masterfully directed a non-believer's screenplay as a believer, and the finished work is left, like the dead of the film may be, in a beautiful, sprawling limbo.

Audiences going to this movie expecting another Sixth Sense need to be prepared for what they are about to see: a quiet, thoughtful, contemplative, melancholy drama about life and death. The movie offers no answers, does not suggest spiritual messages, yet deals heavily with the subject of grief while giving broad strokes rather than concrete details. There is a soft emotional undertone throughout the movie as we see the slow development of the plot, in Eastwood-like fashion.

The movie inches along at a deliberate and meditative-like pace as we see the incremental development of the 3 main characters: George Lonegan (Matt Damon), cursed with the ability to communicate with the dead, a boy in England who encounters death in his own family, and a French woman who dies and comes back to life, with occasional glimpses into her death experience, which is an all-knowing all-sensing state.

The highlights lie in the depth of the characters and not the special effects of the movie, although the visions/connections we see and the tsunami are certainly well done. Some nice comic relief moments are interspersed as well. We see Damon tormented and perplexed by his gift but all he desires is to lead a normal life, thus the catch-22 he faces. His character is guarded and protective, and we feel the pain of his desire to want to shed his Superman-like powers.

On the other hand the finale seems contrived, perhaps leaving the audience wanting more development. The script is weak and matter-of-fact and played a little too close to the line. During a good portion of the movie I sat in contemplative silence not really caring what happened to the characters, as the slowly-building plot line seemed to almost lead to nowhere, almost wondering "is this it?" I was not overly impressed with the London boy's acting, or the French gal's for that matter - a few of the supporting characters seemed much more believable, take for instance Damon's love interest in his cooking class.

Overall the tone of the film was somber and contemplative, thoughtful, and seemed to offer hope that we aren't alone and things always have a way of working out in the end. It's clear that all the main characters in the movie were looking for answers, and migrated in the direction their gut lead them. Some of the scenes couldn't end soon enough, and others had me at the edge of my seat reeling over what would happen next. A fairly predictable ending was lead up to by events that seemed to make sense in the context of the film.

I commend Eastwood for the variety of films he has been working on, and, while I don't believe this to be his finest work, it is certainly one of his (and the year's) most unique.

7/10 stars

Bit of a disappointment, to be honest.

'Hereafter' spends the majority of the 2hr (or so) run time building up the intrigue, but then proceeds to do hardly anything with it. As the credits rolled, I felt like I wanted more from this 2010 release. The three stories take too long to connect, even if each one is actually quite interesting.

I like the performances of Matt Damon and Cécile de France, while youngsters Frankie and George McLaren do well. Bryce Dallas Howard is also involved, she and Damon have good chemistry - it's not quite Damon and Emily Blunt in the phenomenal 'The Adjustment Bureau', a film that in fact caused a production delay for this film, but they come across nicely together onscreen. I also recognised George Costigan ('Line of Duty') and Mathew Baynton ('You, Me and the Apocalypse').

For how long it takes to connect and how little satisfaction the end product gives, I can't help but feel disappointed with this flick from Clint Eastwood; who worked alongside 'The Crown' creator Peter Morgan, interestingly.

On the way home from seeing this terrific movie, I stopped at a light, a few cars in front waiting to turn right. Around us, the sun had just set, a full white moon was high and the reflections of brake lights bounced off gas stations and car dealerships.

What an amazing world we live in. There is so much in the five miles between my house and the theater where I saw the movie that I could never experience it all. Moments arrive and disappear and the the people shift, move, appear and disappear.

I think most of us need some kind of assurance that it all goes on forever, that our open windows aren't just blacked over and sealed at death.

Clint Eastwood has made a quiet, reflective, thoughtful film on this condition, this need for forever. It's not a flashy paranormal probe of ghosts and goblins, spirits and such.

Taking three central lives we see our need for a hereafter from a French woman who has experienced something before being revived, from a twin boy who has lost his brother and from a lonely man who seems able to capture something from beyond this life. Or perhaps he just captures something from those who come to him.

Cecile De France is stunning as a television reporter who touches her own death and returns. Frankie (or is it George) McLaren is good as the young boy. And Matt Damon's restrained performance is a revelation.

Eastwood has the assured hand that allows long segments in French with English subtitles and a juncture with two disasters and such a touchy-feely subject, and yet it works. Quietly. Thoughtfully.

He also has the good sense to let us draw our own conclusions.

Making a film about the afterlife is a very tricky subject. And by tricky, i mean it's hard to do. There are so many elements that you must cover to maintain your audience interest, as well as relating to everyone's belief system, even if they are atheist. And so far, not too many films have succeeded in this field, with the exception of "What Dreams May Come".....but thats just me.

I will say this about Clint Eastwood as a director. He certainly knows how to pack a punch with both plot and character. However, this film falls just a bit short of his usual expectations. Not to say that the movie is bad by any means, i really enjoyed it, it just didn't have that overwhelming feeling that we find in most Eastwood pictures. And i mainly credit it to this.....

The movie takes sort of a "Traffic"/"Babel" approach with it's characters. Each one of them affected by death in different ways, and each of them confronting and coping with it. Now this does sound pretty dramatic, however, it leaves most of our characters, with the exception of Matt Damon, just starring out into space. Yes, i know they are depressed and deep in thought, but showing someone deep in thought can only be entertaining for so long. Yes, each character has a certain level of depth.....but at times, they would come off as a bit dull.

Secondly, and this is a big one.....if you are going to make a movie about the afterlife, your grand finale' has to be HUGE. I'm sorry but it's the truth. You need to give the audience a slight glimmer of hope, while giving most of your main characters a certain level of atonement. Thie film attempts to do that, but falls short because....well, it doesn't show you anything. You just hear Matt Damon talk about it. And correct me if i am wrong, but hearing someone talk about the afterlife is something you can find on any street corner. Yeah yeah, i still thought it was alright......but the climax didn't floor me like i wanted it to.

Bottom Line......even though i didn't think it was fantastic, the movie still deserves to be watched. Eastwood seems to have this certain touch that draws you in, no matter what the material is. And that is a luxury that very few directors have. But don't expect to be WOW!'ed.

For some bizarre reason, marketers opted to make Clint Eastwood's latest work look like a rejected script to an M. Night Syamalon movie in its trailers. What with its catastrophic events and plot centric imagery, you'd think Eastwood had made a disaster movie rather than what the reality turns out to be. This is a much more thoughtful film about death that examines how living characters deal with the aftereffects. Matt Damon's character, Lonegan, is not a protagonist but one character in a larger ensemble piece. Naturally, it benefits marketing to try to isolate this certain aspect of the plot to make this look like a thriller, but it is a impressionist character piece by all means. Even the psychic aspect is played down, and never truly explained.

What that reality turns out to be is something akin to one of the time centric French minimalists like Chantal Akerman and Jacques Rivette. While it never of course becomes a four hour movie about household chores like Jeanne Dielman, it nevertheless is one of the most jarringly French art-house-like films to ever be released as a mainstream American film. Eastwood's decision to leave Peter Morgan's script as a rough first draft is likely part of what's drawing criticism, but this is arguably what makes it so effective as well. Narrative coherence is spurned in favor of genuine CINEMA, people behaving on-screen and showing the effects of great turmoil in every little nuance. Eastwood, known for stripping down rewrites to maintain a certain spontaneous quality in his films (and for shooting very few takes) saw something in this script that he knew wouldn't make it to the final draft. This is how it maintains such a minimal quality.

Of course, such methodology is in tune with French filmmakers like Bresson, a filmmaker who would likely be criticized today for his deadpan performances when what he's really doing is drawing attention to actions rather than performances. Eastwood puts a lot of stock in gesture: hands in particular. Hands are prominently shown whenever a character embraces, and they are also the method through which Lonegan is able to make contact with the afterlife. He tries to make connections through a cooking class, in which he must make use of his hands (and which inevitably leads him to touch the hands of others when he wants least to). There's also a generous use of exteriors, with the running theme of loneliness in crowded locations which anybody whose experienced such trauma (or even lesser traumas) can relate to. It sounds like Eastwood is employing the dreaded preference of "things" to "people," but in reality this is a perfect melding of characters to their environment.

None of this is the kind of post-Elia Kazan acting our country is used to, but each of the actors do a remarkable job in communicating in this way. Damon gives the finest performance of his career, and each of the supporting cast is remarkable as well in the way they REACT, rather than act. A jarring change for the star of Gran Torino, perhaps, but one which works for the material.

And that, I think, is why such mixed reactions come out of those who view this film. Eastwood is not making a heightened film about death, but an understated (despite its moments of sensationalism, which serve as counterpoint) exploration of how people deal with death. What makes it even more difficult is that, despite an optimistic conclusion, no definite resolution is ever reached. We never learn the nature behind Lonegan's abilities, we only get hints at how it may have come about. No religious agenda is preached, nor is religion rejected. Such open ended filmmaking is vastly beyond even limited releases, and is usually the kind of stuff found on the Criterion Collection decades after its completion. To have a release like this is astounding, but has likely doomed the film financially.

That would be a shame. In a year that has produced solid work ranging from Sorkin and Fincher's The Social Network, Martin Scorsese's woefully underrated Shutter Island, and the hype-driven juggernaut that was Inception, I think Hereafter ranks among the very best of the year. I would even go so far as to call it the first bonafide masterpiece of the decade. I suspect this places me at odds with many people, some of whom have tried to logically argue with me why this was an incompetent film (to them, I would explain that film is not meant to be dictated by plot logic, the most superficial aspect of filmmaking at best) but as this film goes to show, some things just can't be easily explained away.

Leave it to Clint Eastwood and Matt Damon to take a pretty weak premise and deliver the goods.

There's not a lot done in this movie that we haven't seen before in countless other films. Fortunately for us it is done very well and it is well worth revisiting.

This movie is a slice of life from a variety of perspectives, with a little clairvoyance thrown in for good measure. It speaks to loss, love, denial, loyalty, and betrayal.

It is solidly entertaining with just the right mixture of sadness and triumph for which we all yearn.

I can honestly say that if I had known what this movie was about, I probably would not have rented it. But now I know Clint Eastwood can take a worn out old shoe and make it look like new. I'm definitely a fan.

The best thing about this movie is that I got to see the trailer for True Grit. Hopefully True Grit will execute on the premise it presented. I think Eastwood decided to channel Robert Redford for this dreadful, slow, rambling mess of a movie. For the first half hour you feel like something is about to happen, but after another half hour you realize that it's just going to play out as an eventless exposition on death. Yawn, yawn, yawn. It's almost an insult that the movie wraps up sensibly, given that nothing is ever at stake in the film, and the characters, though well-drawn, don't have anything of any importance to accomplish. I get the feeling that the people who rated this highly either: 1) have recently experienced a death, or 2) are about to experience a death. Aside from them, there is no audience or reason for this junior-high school level term paper to evolve into a script or a movie. As a produced screenwriter, I read a lot of scripts. I read a lot of good scripts. The fact that Hollywood in general can't distinguish a good script from a rambling mess is why a larger percentage of entertainment dollars is going to video games and reality shows. Nothing scary in this movie. Nothing that rises to the level of real drama. No real thrills. No revelations or truths revealed in a new manner...$50 million to produce. What a waste of studio money.