chucknorrisfacts

(2012-04-22 22:15:57)

I wish I had been psychic, so I would've known this movie would suck...

"Hereafter" was a major disappointment for me. It's not that I thoughtthe movie would be the best I'd ever seen or anything like that, butcoming from such high-caliber talent as Matt Damon and Clint Eastwood,I guess I just expected more.It's pretty boring. It's not that I have to have high speed chases,shootouts and explosions to entertain me all the time, either. I likethose movies on occasion, but I also like movies that take a while totell their story. I call them "slow burners". Think of a firecrackerwith a really long wick. It might take a while for the wick to burn allthe way down to the firework, but once it does it explodes and isincredibly impressive."Hereafter" had an a long wick, so to speak, but once it had burneddown to the firework, it was a dud.I really think it was tricky marketing to put Matt Damon front andcenter on the movie poster. Sure, he's the main character, I guess, buthe gets very little screen time in proportion to every one else itseems.There were a few times I thought the movie was going to go off in amore interesting direction but it always backed away from it andcontinued on it's boring course.In short, I'd say avoid this movie unless you need help falling asleepat night. It's that boring! Sure, there are a couple of emotionalscenes but there's just not enough there to really make the whole moviework.

(2012-04-22 12:24:17)

Oh, come on, people...

First off, you have that totally useless subplot with Cecile De France (that CAN'T be her real name...?). You could cut the entire subplot out and not lose a thing. Her character is totally lame and unlikable (and so is that douche she's dating in the film) and worst of all, the subplot is boring as hell. She just spends time thinking about her magical escape from death in the opening tsunami scene, which should have been looped continuously for two hours, as it would have been better than the B/S we got.Then you have Matt Damon's subplot, which plays like a really bad episode of Ghost Whisperer. Seriously he should have won a razzie, his performance here is so bad it's beyond surrealism. He is basically this psychic who can talk to dead people, and he meets this messed up hot chick in an Italian Cooking school, a subplot within a subplot that is soon left to die. I really can't remember what happened in this subplot, it was so damned uninteresting.The ONLY interesting story was the British kid. I'll admit this movie was a bit of a nostalgic rush for me (which may be why it gets one star as opposed to 0) because a week before I watched this movie, I was in London and Paris for vacation. But this was an interesting substory, as he loses his twin brother, lives with a drug-addled mother, and has trouble adjusting to life with a new family. I'll admit there were a few humorous scenes and his search to talk to his brother was interesting and had me wanting to know more. Actually the movie could have been this and it would have worked a solid 3/5 off the bat.And then the ending where it all comes together is just LAME!!!! If I am going to sit through a movie with 3 subplots with only one being even remotely interesting, I want a satisfactory conclusion. And don't get me started on the Romatic Comedy puke-fest of an ending. It brought back painful memories of "The Tourist".I really love Clint, but this film was just an embarassment on every level. This came from the same Clint Eastwood who gave us the amazing "Gran Torino", bear in mind. I don't even think replacing Matt Damon with Jennifer Love Hewitt would have saved the film.

(2012-04-14 12:07:48)

Very slow building story.

This review is from: Hereafter (DVD) I was disappointed with this movie. I love Matt Damon and was intrigued by the subject matter, but the story was so disjointed and slow to build, it was difficult to keep watching.

Jules Brenner

(2012-04-13 18:03:57)

Let me pull out my crystal ball: "Hereafter" is intriguing in a lot of ways, but not a "Million Dollar Baby."

Schuyler Pulford

(2012-04-05 23:28:52)

American Audience is Shallow

I have seen the movie and I have read the ave Joe/Jane reviews listed on this page. Folks this is not a big action thriller or about a hero and the thrills you have become addicted to. This film is about life and what comes next and the connections we make here and the POSSIBILITIES that may or may not come after this life. Expand your brain and open your mind to other experiences. The director left the ending to the individual to make up his/her mind. You were so predisposition to expect “action” you failed to understand the simplicity of this film. Sooner than later we will all face the “music”.

Lana

(2012-04-05 11:03:42)

Do Not Watch

This was the worst movie ever. There is no plot, no action and had a horrible ending. This movie could have been done in 30 mins. It dragged on so long, we had to stay for the ending then it was so disappointing. The trailer for this has nothing to do with the movie.

(2012-03-27 16:33:56)

Half of a movie

After watching the trailer, I saw this movie with high hopes, but was let down after the first scene. It became immediately apparent that they spend half their budget to recreate an unrealistic-looking tsunami just so they could grab people's attentions with the trailer, and that's not necessarily my biggest complaint. Rather, Hereafter sets a premise, but does not follow through with much character development, and has no ending. It is merely half of a movie -- one that could have been something like a Lifetime channel original, but does not even make it that far.

(2012-03-27 04:39:51)

Good interweaving of stories, little payoff

Not that there has to be a clear-cut resolution for everything, but I would have liked a bit more of the story told explicitly, especially since there are high emotional stakes for the three main characters: Matt Damon, the reluctant psychic who can communicate with the dead; a young English boy who wants to talk to his dead twin brother; and a French woman who survives a tsunami while on vacation. All three come together towards the end in England, yet there does not seem to be any kind of payoff overall.Good performances, however, make it good enough to watch.

Peter Bradshaw

(2012-03-25 13:56:58)

Could it be that Peter Morgan's clout gave him the right to dredge up from his desk drawer some terrible old script? Maybe. Either way, it's one to forget for all concerned.

Don Barrett

(2012-03-25 00:20:22)

The most compelling, engrossing and challenging film in years

I have never shilled for anything I didn't make. Last night withoutknowing much about the content of the film, I went to see Hereafter. Iwas blown away. If there isn't a lot of envy and resentment in theAcademy, then this film has the chance to garner ten Oscar nominations.First, Clint Eastwood gives his best directing performance in aremarkable career with the most intellectually challenging materialsince Schindler's List. Second - acting - Matt Damon give a shatteringperformance of a man at war with himself. Some would say blessed, hesaid cursed by what he could do. Best supporting the two little twinskept me, a rather jaded observer kept me crying for the last hour ofthe picture, continuously. Then there were the special effects - theTsunami was the most frightening effect sequence I have ever seen onfilm. For ten minutes you experience what it would have been like to becaught in coastal Indonesia when the walls of water roar inland. Thenthere was the city of eternal night - I won't go further. Lastly, allthe usual craft positions deserve a nomination. Producers FrankMarshall and Kathleen Kennedy have a shot at best picture.Having said all this, the film is the most intellectually demanding inyears. You have to go into it with healthy skepticism but give into thefilm making, and the intertwining of three story threads that do cometogether in Act III. If you'll agree to do this, you will come outemotionally drained and maybe changed. I recently wrote a book about anexperience I had in 2007, (A Day Without a Yesterday ISBN: 978-1-4512-7052-5) in which I technically died three times but was brought back bydoctors and paramedics. I wrote a chapter in the book about what Iremember. I saw that chapter on the screen although neither I or thefilm makers know each and I knew thing about the content of the film.Something like that does get your attention.

Aaron Cutler

(2012-03-19 16:15:15)

Clint Eastwood's Hereafter is a bad movie, even an awful one.

Laura Clifford

(2012-03-19 06:16:14)

Eastwood has pondered both mortality and spirituality before and far more successfully.

(2012-03-10 08:33:27)

Nothing groundbreaking but still interesting.

Good movie that deals with clairvoyance, near death experiences and three different stories that end up coming together. The cinematography is fantastic as well as a few intense action/disaster scenes. I would say out of all the Clint Eastwood directed movies this one is probably the least impressive but still decent and worth seeing. It still surpasses most of the mediocre films these days.

belzski

(2012-03-09 12:38:23)

The only thing that differentiates this movie from two boring hours sitting in church is that I paid $9.00 for a somewhat comfy movie theater seat...

This is not at all what I expected from a movie by Clint Eastwood thathad Matt Damon. Based on the synopsis of the movie, I knew that itwasn't action packed, but I expected it to be entertaining enough forme to not walk out of the movie every fifteen minutes to check theclock. If it hadn't been for my girlfriend wanting to see the movie, Iwould have quickly demanded my money back and I would have gone to adifferent flick.The movie drags on for over two hours without ever really goinganywhere and the only people I can imagine that liked this movie arereligious zealots and people that are so afraid of death that they haveto cling to the hope that there is an afterlife. Whether there is one or not, this movie poorly attempts to make thecase for one and it even goes as far as to highlight the apparentprejudice that believers who claim to have seen the "white light"experience when they tell their stories. Based on the movie, I wouldassume a person might be able to find Clint Eastwood at the nextpsychic reading hosted by John Edwards or some other "beyond the grave"communicator. I hope that this review helps other individuals that either don'tbelieve in an afterlife or that would rather go to church on Sundaythan pay $9.00 for two hours of boredom at the movies.

Jim Schembri

(2012-03-09 12:49:06)

Now powering through his 80s, Clint Eastwood is doing the best, most thoughtful work of his career.

HappyHour79

(2012-03-08 19:00:16)

Wow!

I can't believe this is getting any good reviews. I think the idea wasgood but that's where it ends. It was very predictable, and the twohours felt like two days. I kept thinking it was going to get betterand by the time I realized it wasn't, I was already to invested to walkout. The worst part about it is that I can't stop thinking about howbad it was. It was bad enough to make me write my first review. If youare going to a movie, make sure it isn't this one. Any and every othermovie is better. Everyone that gave this a good rating should beashamed of themselves for tricking people into seeing this thing. Verydisappointing.

lewiskendell

(2012-03-06 04:33:54)

Death and Clint Eastwood

Hereafter is a slow, quiet study on the effect that death and thedearly departed have on the living. It's not really a ghost story or even a very supernatural movie. Thethree main characters each have felt death's power in different ways intheir life. George (Matt Damon), a man who can contact the deceased,has fled from his abilities because they keep him from having a normallife. Marie (Cecile de France) is a journalist who has a near-deathexperience during a tsunami, and becomes consumed with understandingwhat she saw. And in London, a young British boy is desperate tocontact a lost family member one last time. The three separate stories do eventually connect, but that's not reallywhere the value of Hereafter lies. I can see this film being a sourceof frustration for some viewers eager for a traditional conflict andresolution or character arc, but those things aren't really Eastwood'spriority.The movie doesn't have much of a "point", other than how deathis such an important part of all of our lives, even as it's alsoprobably the most mysterious. I liked it, but I'm hesitant in recommending it. Slow-paced movies likethese need the right audience. It's fairly different from Eastwood'sother movies, and I wouldn't mind seeing him tackle something likethis, again.   

Jim Lane

(2012-03-05 13:42:05)

... at once comforting and unsettling -- both in the best possible way.

Dustin and Leslie

(2012-03-04 09:28:04)

BORING!

I like Matt Damon, but this movie sucked! Boring. Two hours of my life I'll never get back. I just kept waiting for it to end, then when it finally did, I thought 'was that it?'. Very slow boring storyline with no action, no romance, no comedy. Blah. What a waste of time and money.

george.schmidt

(2012-03-03 16:59:41)

Soulful search by Eastwood et al; truly moving!

HEREAFTER (2010) *** ½ Matt Damon, Cecile De France, Frankie McLaren,George McLaren, Jay Mohr, Richard Kind, Lyndsey Marshal, ThierryNeuvic, Bryce Dallas Howard, Steve Schirripa, Jenifer Lewis, DerekJacobi (cameo as himself). Surprisingly affective drama from filmmakerClint Eastwood (truly stretching himself as an auteur and kudos to myboy Clint!) in this deep thought piece/character story intertwiningthree linear story lines involving a French television journalist (thebeguiling De France), a miraculous survivor of a tsunami (built todevastating, you-can-hear-a-pin-drop shock in the clammy inducingopener); a British identical twin (McLaren) whose sibling is killed inan accident; and a reluctant psychic (Damon in a low-key terrificperformance) whose demons he tries in vein to keep at arm's length –all in search of the afterlife and what happens to us (and morespecifically what doesn't to those left behind dealing with life ingeneral). Absorbing and modulated paced with an intriguing screenplayby Peter Morgan; a truly moving film – in a word: soulful.