Hereafter

What's much more fascinating and enriching is Eastwood's Olympian vision, the sympathetic and all-encompassing understanding of the pain and grandeur of life on earth.

Damon's portrayal is perfectly understated yet powerful. It's also sneaky; you don't realize how invested you've become in it until the final act, when the characters' stories merge in what seems like too much of a rushed coincidence.

The movie will divide some Eastwood fans, conquer others. The naysayers will be grateful that, from this healthy, workaholic actor-director, there is always the promise of a good movie - if not here, then hereafter.

Hereafter is a consistently identifiable Clint Eastwood movie only in the sense that the prolific filmmaker shows that he still has the ability to confound our expectations of him.

When an 80-year-old director turns his attention to death, you hope for some insight, or gravitas, or even whimsy or anger. Hereafter has none of that.

It isn't a lack of realism or philosophical consistency that rankles most, though, but rather the anticlimactic story and uninteresting characters that make this Hereafter not very sweet at all.

It doesn't help that Eastwood's laconic style is as torpid as it was in such misfires as "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" and "Changeling."

Solid work as always from Clint Eastwood. Hereafter is a great and heartfelt story. And very real about a topic that is as quoted in the film a topic of which is not to be discussed seriously. I like the way the stories are woven together, with a firm hand. The CGI used with the tsunami-scenes are incredibly well done. Exciting as well as close to realistic. All the actors does a great job, even the little kid playing two roles, mainly due to Eastwoods way with all the actors I presume. Great storytelling, and much undervalued and underrated by many, this little gem.

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.

The film starts with three random stories from the different parts of the world. They were directly connected to death. Slowly and steadily, and obviously they are destined to meet together. Film was slow and steady, like other Eastwood films. But, the problem was the three random stories scattered around and wandering aimlessly affected the viewing experience of the audience. Very predictable from the beginning, yet a lot of questions left unanswered.

This had mixed review but because Robert Ebert of Chicago sun times gave it a 100 i had to check it out. After watching the movie i can now honestly say that i can no longer rely on Ebert s reviews. This movie had so so much potential. Matt Damon is a great actor and that can be seen in this movie. I don't know what when wrong. There are 3 stories where one of them should have been erased from the movie and then surely the movie could be edited enough to create a worthy story. If you want to know how a beautiful shot and great acted movie can be so bad , then watch it, if you want a good movie, then , with some regret, please give this a miss. Sorry Damon, but you need to choose your director and producer better and not rely on what, was possibly, a great script. And shame on you Egbert for being so so wrong.

There was something indescribably off about this movie. I still can't put my finger on it. Music? Script ? Acting? I'm as curious about the subject as anyone else (Don't let anyone tell you that they aren't interested at all about what happens. They are just trying to be cool.) but in the end Clint comes very short of ever engaging and convincing you about this story. I knew I was Here as I watched this movie attempting to be a film, but I just couldn't wait until After!! I gave it a 3 because of the Tsunami scene (for effects, not carnage) and Cecile De France was real easy to look at.