Typically known for his methodical pacing and intimate scope, director Clint Eastwood begins his latest effort, “Hereafter,” with a terrifying action sequence. French journalist Marie (Cecile de France) is caught in a devastating tsunami. She dies, experiences something extraordinary, then is miraculously revived.
Don’t fret. Eastwood hasn’t totally abandoned his filmmaking style. The rest of “Hereafter” is an intimate character study of three people struggling to make sense of what happens after death.
Sadly, only one of these storylines carries any dramatic significance, and Eastwood, alongside writer Peter Morgan (“The Queen”) fumbles a climax that tries too hard to seam the three stories together.
The film splits time between three seemingly unrelated characters. Shortly after her near-death experience, Marie struggles to adjust with normal life. In London, 12-year-old Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren) deals with the loss of his twin brother in a car accident. And in the most interesting storyline, American psychic George (Matt Damon) tries to hide from his paranormal abilities by taking a job in a factory.
Movies strictly about “death” often slip into sloppy melodrama. Eastwood, it seems, tries so hard to avoid this that the film never finds an emotional center. Two-thirds of the film is devoted to characters privately ruminating about the afterlife. Only George the Psychic has a story that externalizes the struggle.
Damon is reliably good in the role, playing a man who doesn’t want to hear ghosts whisper unfinished business to bereaved relatives. Is George really communicating with the dead, or is he tapping into a living survivor’s perception of the dead? Discuss!
The most engaging moments of George’s story involve a budding relationship with a friendly classmate in his cooking class (the dead don’t communicate via salad). As the plucky love interest, Bryce Dallas Howard breathes life into the humdrum proceedings, and her chemistry with Damon sparks. Pity George’s “gift” makes even the most natural relationships messy.
It’s these George-at-Cooking-Class scenes that make you wish “Hereafter” didn’t even bother with the lonely kid and the born-again journalist. The final act tries to bring the three storylines together, but the result is tidy and unconvincing. Even worse, Eastwood fails to take the central premise to a revelatory or insightful conclusion.
“Hereafter” is never a bad film, as Eastwood’s skill behind the camera is too good to ever churn out a clunker. But it’s also only one-third of an interesting movie and Eastwood’s first in a while to be immediately forgettable.
Grade: C+
Sad. I thought “Hereafter” was one of the best films of the year. It’s not quite as good as some of the REALLY good Clint Eastwood movies of the last 10 years, but it was better than “Invictus.” And I certainly thought it was better than some of the more acclaimed movies this year.
I didn’t think much of “Invictus” last year either, but that film at least felt a bit more focused. This one seems incomplete. You are definitely not alone. “Hereafter” has some big supporters, but other than the performances of Matt Damon and Bryce Dallas Howard, I ‘m not with you on this one.
I’ll have to see how it holds up once I see it again, but, yeah, I didn’t do in expecting much due to the mostly lukewarm reception it got…But I was thoroughly impressed with it. By the way, I need to get your email address from you. I assume you have a different one than the press one now.