Written by: Peter Morgan
Produced by: Clint Eastwood, Kathleen Kennedy, and Robert Lorenz
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements including disturbing disaster and accident images, and for brief strong language
129 mins
U.S. Release Date: October 22, 2010
Clint Eastwood is responsible for bringing some of Hollywood’s biggest films to the movie-going public for the last 50+ years. From The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and Dirty Harry to Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby, Eastwood has excelled in nearly every endeavor he has put himself into in terms of filmmaking. The man has credits in acting, directing, composing, producing, writing, and camera operating, and is still pumping out major films at age 80. Mr. Eastwood’s latest project, Hereafter, is about peoples’ experiences with death and the “other side”, and how those experiences bring them together. With Eastwood getting old and approaching the twilight of his life, is nostalgia and sentimentality bleeding too deeply into his work, or will the execution of this subject matter resonate with viewers?
Hereafter follows the stories of three people, separated by thousands of miles, who are all experiencing a strange connection to the afterlife; the “other side”. George (Matt Damon) is a blue-collar worker from the U.S. who has a special talent, connecting living people with loved ones from the afterlife. He shuns the talent, though he used to use it as his primary source of income, because it constantly exposes his mind to too many depressing and difficult situations.
Marie (Cécile De France) is a journalist from France that experiences a brush with the “other side” and it changes her worldview drastically. This change seems more like a curse than a blessing, as it isolates her from many of the close relationships in her life. Given her new insight from beyond, Marie starts to write a book about her experiences and visions.
Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren) is a small boy from London, who recently lost someone very close to him in an accident. He lives in a broken home with a druggie mother, so he must pursue his quest for answers on his own. With the help of the internet, Marcus searches for people with answers, and visits as many clairvoyants and psychics (a.k.a. “con men”) as he can. You probably see where this storyline is going.
Throughout the film, the storylines are woven together as each lead characters experience their interactions with the afterlife, and as they work to make sense of their new insights or questions. As the characters’ paths grow closer to intersecting, the film seems to be heading toward a big crescendo that will result in a revelation or message about the afterlife. But not really.
That is my basic problem with this film. Clint Eastwood knows how to make a film. He understands the main components that go into a successful project, from music to writing to directing, etc. Each of these characters has an engaging and compelling storyline, but as they intersect, nothing really happens. The truth is, almost no one knows or understands what happens after we die (there are, of course, people who have died and been revived who claim remembrance of the experiences they had in “the beyond” – I don’t deny the validity of that), and Eastwood continues the universally indefinite message with this film. His overarching message is really no message at all: “We’re all going to die, and we don’t know what happens when we get there.”
On the screenwriting front, if the film wasn’t telegraphing a major connection at the end that really never happens (I’m not spoiling anything here – you see some characters together in the trailer), it might have been a little more successful. All moviegoers can relate to the idea of death and lost loved ones, and the like. However, when Eastwood takes this broad topic, and narrows it down to an anticlimactic and personal storyline, the finale of Hereafter falls a bit flat.
Most of the acting performances are fairly well executed given the material provided. The problem with them, however, is not in the acting itself, but with the lack of screen time they each get. In such a limited amount of screen time, here is a inability to progress each character’s arch the way it demands.
If you love all of Clint Eastwood’s work, there’s nothing I’m going to say to stop you from seeing this movie. Not that it’s horrible or anything, but it is definitely lacking the substance it requires given the topic. If you are an Eastwood scholar of sorts, you might find particular interest in this film’s subject matter and how it relates to Eastwood’s personal life. Other than that, I might wait to watch this when it comes out on DVD.