Azután

Don't be swayed by the negative critical response from individuals who didn't understand it, this is a great film. Eastwood deals with the autumn of his life, when one must unwillingly be confronted with the inevitability of death, and he does it the way he does it best: very sensitively and empathetically. It outlines Moody's view on death and life after life, but in a non-violent way, he does not impose his opinion and through the fate of three people marked by the loss of a loved one, or the life experience of clinical death, he sensitively tells his story. And I have to say, I've never been so pleased with Matt Damon's acting, his subdued performance as a mature man surprised and delighted me. (2011.03.03)

It’s clear that the high workload of recent years is not very good for Clint. The phenomenal Gran Torino and Changeling were followed by the average Invictus, and now comes the fail that is Hereafter. At first, it was touted as a mysterious thriller in the style of The Sixth Sense, which is obviously not true. Ideally (if it was good), Hereafter would be a sentimental reflection of life and death, but it’s so badly written – if you are expected to believe in the fate of predetermined events, those events shouldn’t feel like fucking forced coincidences. The performances are also weak, though that shouldn’t be a surprise given the shallow lines the actors have to utter is various WTF scenes. Only Damon comes out with his head held a little high. There are some moments where you can feel the potential of the material, but the whole was unable to arouse any intense emotions. This film is colder than a penguins butt, even though it really wants to be deep and sensitive. Even after the disappointed responses I was hoping for a decent time, but I’m very unpleasantly surprised at how weak this film turned out to be. PS: The tsunami was nice, but utterly pointless, really. (2011.03.03)

Clint Eastwood wants to say everything and despite the very restrained pace, he ultimately says barely half. And I don't remember a similar half-decayed idea in his modern era. I understand all the moods and all the plot lines fit together nicely, but I don't understand why a purely philosophical drama needs over two hours, in which nearly half of the running time is just slow dialogue stepping. Hereafter has power in individual scenes (the introduction, the subway, and cooking), but unfortunately, it slips through as a whole. (2011.09.15)

Just today an airplane carrying some Czech ice hockey players crashed in Russia. So Hereafter seemed to suit this sad day. Clint hasn’t got soft, just older and so he said to himself that he would film the requisite pensioner’s ruminations about death and throw it to an audience hungry for his movies. A stylish opening with a tidal wave (that ingenious scene must have swallowed most of the budget) turns into a conversational drama of three people whose destiny becomes (unexpectedly) entwined and everything ends up sort of ok. The picture is overflowing with excellent acting performances, just the screenplay is sometimes too blabbermouth. (2011.09.07)

This film can be seen in various ways. It's not an exciting story with manipulative facts, as we often witness in films of a similar type, nor is it a gripping masterpiece that keeps us glued to the screen. I understand that this may deter many modern viewers, but if you look at the director’s name, you’ll find Clint Eastwood. As has been customary in recent years, he takes his time as a filmmaker, and this piece is carried in a very slow, suggestive atmosphere with very natural performances from the leading actors. The thrilling sequences in the first minutes and the incredibly stylised romantic scenes in the final part of the film are surprising; Eastwood is a profound melancholic and romantic, otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to precisely highlight the right details at the exact second so ingeniously. Unfortunately, my impression is spoiled by the middle part, which moves forward perhaps too slowly, but mainly lacks points of interest, which the progression of the storyline is quite unexciting. Excellent beginning and ending. Eastwood, however, still has the skills, and Cécile De France is apparently an absolutely captivating personality. (2011.07.18)

Hereafter is certainly not a film for everyone (not that Clint Eastwood has made such films before). It is a quietly dramatic story full of emotion, it’s civil, human, comforting... Somehow it seems to me that the afterlife and contacting the other side is one of the very last things it’s concerned with. In fact, I'm tempted to compare it to Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, only with aliens swapped for the undead. There are a number of extremely impressive scenes of all kinds in the film (hiding from the social services, tasting food with blindfolds on, bypassing the media - the impostors, and of course the opening wave...) and each of the three stories manages to captivate and intrigue. The ending is absolutely beautiful. And I don't mind that it's a pure happy ending without any question marks. (2014.12.14)

An extremely interesting idea alone can't hold an entire film together. The impressive start is soon displaced by an unusually long and uninteresting story that, by Eastwood’s standards, teeters on the edge of massive kitsch. The attempt to incorporate as many fantasy elements into the plot as possible is understandable, because without them everyone would probably get bored. The performances are also top notch and save what they can, but none of this has the power to plug the huge hole of untapped potential that mars this otherwise very unconventional movie. (2012.06.30)

Clint Eastwood decided to shoot a film where he combines several different storylines into one in the end. We have the amazing Cécile De France playing a French reporter who almost died in the tsunami in Thailand, Matt Damon, who connects with the dead through human touch, those who were close to him, and finally two boys, twins, who can take care of each other until one of them dies. The film has its strong moments, which Clint handles brilliantly, but overall, it is a bit naive and simple, and in the end, it turns into a beautiful fairytale, which can't have any other ending than a happy one. But don't we deserve films where characters find a bit of their happiness? Don't we deserve a bit of unreality, something to uplift us when we need it? I feel like this is exactly what Clint had in mind. The world around us is cruel, death awaits us, we can't escape it, certainly not forever, so why not enjoy the life that is given to us, why not hope for something better. At the end, it doesn't have to be just a dark tunnel, there can be light. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/jumper-babel-kung-fu-divocina-miami.html (2013.02.17)

Clint Eastwood has confirmed at least one thing once again, and that is that he can still make compelling stories whose main charm lies in the dense emotional power of a few individual moments (stealing a phone, for example). It's a purely conversational film (except for the opening action scene) whose strength lies not in its tightly and compactly constructed plot or in the deep profiling of its characters, but above all in Eastwood's approach, which I'm not afraid to describe with words like "mature" or "seasoned" and, above all, still relevant – in the sense that Clint still has something to say. It didn't tear me up nearly as much as Changeling, but it was an enjoyable two hours nonetheless.:) (2011.03.07)