Hereafter

😮😮❤️

source: Hereafter

I can't believe this is getting any good reviews. I think the idea was good but that's where it ends. It was very predictable, and the two hours felt like two days. I kept thinking it was going to get better and by the time I realized it wasn't, I was already to invested to walk out. The worst part about it is that I can't stop thinking about how bad it was. It was bad enough to make me write my first review. If you are going to a movie, make sure it isn't this one. Any and every other movie is better. Everyone that gave this a good rating should be ashamed of themselves for tricking people into seeing this thing. Very disappointing.

Loner psychic--able to make a heavenly connection to the deceased via a simple hand-grasp of the living (but always afraid of the emotional consequences)--eventually crosses paths with two people who may really need him: a pretty French reporter who recently survived a tsunami and a troubled British youngster desperate to communicate with his twin brother, who died in a car accident. Oddly sentimental picture to come from director Clint Eastwood, with corny emotional lifts more in common with the oeuvre of Steven Spielberg (who executive produced). Matt Damon is solid and competent in the lead, however the supporting cast regularly shows him up. Beautiful production doesn't rely on visual effects to juice the plotting (a blessing), yet the heart of the piece never quite comes through due to contrived scripting and a general air of familiarity. In the end, it's another boy-meets-girl story...one with grace but no real sense of style. **1/2 from ****

i can't believe i wasted 12 dollars on this piece of garbage film. hands down the worst movie of the year. so slow and pointless it almost makes me laugh thinking back on it. i'm sure i'm not the only one who wondered "where is this movie going!?" throughout the entirety of the film, only to be let down once you finally see the dull ending. i'm baffled as to how this worthless flick got a 7.6/10 rating on IMDb. and i'm as big of an eastwood fan as any. but that rating seriously blows my mind. to each his own, i guess. i give it a 1/10 because IMDb doesn't allow you to give 1/2 points.

As other's have said, the opening tsunami scene is the only good part of the entire movie. The rest was a drag along of three separate situations on track to collide, and when they do collide there is no explosion, not even a whisper, just a passing glance. Top this off with a horribly anticlimactic ending. This was just a poorly executed movie - plain and simple. So, why then does it get all these resoundingly positive reviews (which made me rent and see it in the first place)? Because the people giving this movie good reviews are either Clint Eastwood fanboys, or just NDE people that are so thrilled to get a movie about the subject of which they are so passionate that even a badly made movie like this one makes them a happy camper. If you don't fall into the mold of either of the reviewers listed above then opt for another movie. Was this movie terrible? No. However, it wasn't good either - you won't be in pain by watching this but simply feel like you wasted two hours of your life.

This movie was a waste of my time and money. I left the theater wishing for my money back. I can't believe people like this dribble. Let me recap what happened........ OK I'm done. Ya, nothing happened in this movie, absolutely nothing. The mood is sooo somber it's hard to stay awake. No background music, hardly any dialog and what dialog there is is awful. The movie makes no point, has no conclusion. A movies should have a beginning, middle and end? This has only a middle, with nothing to start it off and an end that doesn't really exist. I should have known I was in the wrong theater when I looked around and noticed the average age of the audience was older than Eastwood himself.

Almost totally lacks a psychic connection with the audience. The idea of cinema is to convey the experience to the viewer by visual and auditory means, and there have been films that somewhat succeed at this on the subject of life after death but this is really not one of them. If they had left out the young boy in the story and built up Marie's and George's characters it might have worked better. But what do we know about the afterlife, the hereafter? We even have an American Book of the Dead, but do we really have any reality on the death experience? I'm inclined to think after watching this movie that we don't, yet.

1) Matt Damon should stick to Jason Bourne. 2) Clint Eastwood should not ponder the Hereafter...ever again. 3) AMC Theaters have really comfortable seats for napping- and I got a good one. 4) The opening Tsunami scene should have been looped continuously for 2 hours rather than the b.s. that was shown. 5) Charles Dickens, when narrated by an old English gentleman, can put you to sleep ALMOST as quickly as this movie. 6) You can meet messed up hot chicks in Italian cooking classes. 7) When you die, you see a bunch of fuzzy figures- might be people, might be aliens, who knows? 8) Jay Mohr has absolutely hit the wall- aging has not been kind. 9) "Psychics" are still con-artists. 10) I should have gone and seen Jackass 3-D.

that's what this film,produced and directed by Clint Eastwood is about.it's the story of three people whose lives intersect through separate tragic events.the film doesn't give an opinion one way or another about whether the hereafter exists or not. the viewer has to draw their own conclusions.the acting is very good here.Matt Damon puts in a very understated performance as a reluctant psychic.actually the whole film is rather understated.the movie is very well paced and flows very smoothly from one scene to the next.it's a very dramatically compelling film that draws you in to the story.i really enjoyed it.for me,Hereafter is an 8/10