Hereafter
Metascore
56 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 42
  2. Mixed: 21 out of 42
  3. Negative: 4 out of 42
view
per page
  1. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Mick LaSalle
    Oct 21, 2010
    100
    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.
  2. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    Oct 21, 2010
    100
    This is a film for intelligent people who are naturally curious about what happens when the shutters close.
  3. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Kenneth Turan
    Oct 21, 2010
    90
    This is quiet but potent filmmaking that believes nothing is more important than the story it has to tell.
  4. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: A.O. Scott
    Oct 21, 2010
    90
    One of the reasons that Hereafter works as well as it does - it has the power to haunt the skeptical, to mystify the credulous and to fascinate everyone in between.
  5. New Orleans Times-Picayune
    Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Oct 22, 2010
    88
    As a result, Hereafter isn't so deep that it will change the way many people think about the afterlife. But it is heartfelt and thoughtful and, in a way, comforting.
  6. Philadelphia Inquirer
    Reviewed by: Steven Rea
    Oct 21, 2010
    88
    Eastwood and Morgan's movie, with its epic natural disasters (and a terrifying, man-made one) is optimistic. Hokey, even. But it's beautiful, too.
  7. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Oct 21, 2010
    88
    It calmly examines death, grief and melancholy, packing an unexpectedly profound emotional gut-punch.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
6.1 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 112 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 63
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 63
  3. Negative: 18 out of 63
  1. NevermoreJones
    10
    To be fair, this is a lousy movie, but its more interesting as a subconscious message from Clint Eastwood stating that when you hit 80 years old, suddenly accepting things like psychics and spirits provide a psychological comfort. Sometimes watching the personal issues of a filmmaker translate onto the screen is an delightful experience that makes good art. This is just not one of those times. Sorry Clint, this is a sour and ironic note to go out on if its you final film.… Full Review »
  2. grandpajoe6191
    5
    The movie is definitely a well crafted one than its average. However, "Hereafter" doesn't give the strong impressions and profound air compared to Clint Eastwood's (the famous director who directed it) oscar winning movies.… Full Review »
  3. Shiira
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. Good George Lonegan; he has a good will, integrity and compassion, someone who is probably too honest to be a psychic. In a field, or rather, a pseudo-profession, loaded with charlatans and quacks eager to bilk their clients with fallacious readings, George is the rare exception; he's for real, as his website advertises, this forklift operator, this weirdo with the gift, can genuinely speak to the dead: not in tongues, not as another person, and not with the usual theatrics and accouterments one would associate with readings. The most fascinating aspect about George, and "Hereafter", is that we're not necessarily dealing with a Christian, or the Judeo-Christian concept of heaven. Look all you want, high and low, in the foggy landscape of the souls that the near-dead(Marie Lelay, a French reporter who survives a tsunami, played by Cecile de France), and the instrument for the dead(our hero) have seen, or have access to, because God, "our" God, so to speak, the western model, is not necessarily in the diegetical details. The third protagonist, the emotionally dead(Marcus, a young English lad who is left behind with a drug-addled mother after his identical twin gets hit by a car, played by Frankie McLaren), in this filmmaker's beautifully executed triptych of incidental stories, attends a Christian funeral that is quickly replaced by a Hindu one, as a way to democratize the world religions, both east and west. George might be an agnostic, or perhaps, polytheistic. He makes no claim on knowing where all those souls he divines ultimately ascend towards. For spiritual nourishment, he turns to Charles Dickens, not the bible, or any other religious text. Enigmatic and stony, the moviegoer knows one thing for sure, the man is tired. While the hunting in the hereafter was good, George quit, when being a creep finally took its toll. Played by Matt Damon, who achieved stardom back in 1997 portraying the same sort of damaged person in hiding, the blue collar savant of Gus Van Sant's "Good Will Hunting"(the janitor at MIT with a prodigious knack for mathematics and getting angry), differs from the wicked smaht maintenance worker in this key respect; he attitudinizes among the riffraff as a way of being alone, rather than to be part of a community(working-class Boston), a tribe. Both characters have best friends(in George's case, an older brother), nagging consciences at their disposal, the people knowledgeable enough to be horrified, by what they perceive to be as their buddy/brother's gross underachieving at dead end jobs. In "Good Will Hunting", Chuckie(Affleck) tells Will, "It'd be an insult if you're still here in twenty years," whereas Billy(Jay Mohr) reassures good George Lonegan that the chaos which surrounded their first go-around at the family business has been eliminated from the revamped organizational model. But math isn't a curse. George lives alone, eats alone, and sleeps alone, because unlike most psychics, the scam artists who tell people what they WANT to hear, the Victorian literature buff tells people what they NEED to hear. Against his better judgement, George relents and grants the woman he brings home from a non-credit course in Italian cuisine, Melanie(Bryce Dallas Howard), from Pittsburgh, a reading, and in the process, destroys, what he thinks, is his best and last chance for love. Partly out of anger, a momentary flare-up(shades of Will Hunting, perhaps), since Victoria prodded George to perform with such insistence, but mostly out of his inborn humaneness, the reluctant psychic transmits an apology from Melanie's father, who had apparently molested his daughter as a child. The fatalism of George's situation is unbearable; he's compelled to tell the truth, but the truth, as well all know, hurts, and as the words tumble out of his mouth, good George Lonegan knows the consequences from prior experiences in dealing with intimacy this potent. In all likelihood, she'll never talk to him again, but it's more important to him that the woman attains peace of mind...someday. And sure enough, Melanie is a no-show at the next class. Looking for answers, George ventures out on a literature-based pilgrimage to the U.K., where he visits a church of sorts, Charles Dickens' house, and with further extrapolation, a secularized miracle occurs, the reader of his audio-books, Derek Jacobi(read: priest), just happens to be making a public appearance at the London Book Fair. That's where the instrument for the dead converges with the near-dead and the emotionally dead, in which the trio of depressed strangers teach each other how to be alive again. It's not the holy ghost, but the ghost of Charles Dickens who looks over these sad, lonely people, and that's the subversive genius of "Hereafter". George Lonegan knows that life doesn't end after death, but he believes in "Little Dorrit" more than Jesus Christ.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »