User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 127 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 77 out of 127
  2. Negative: 26 out of 127

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 25, 2010
    3
    It was highly recommended by a friend. I was, to put it mildly, deeply disappointed. It simply goes nowhere--very, very slowly. The ending's the biggest yawn of all. If you've liked Eastwood's work up to now, don't ruin those good feelings by seeing this one.
  2. Oct 24, 2010
    2
    No complaints about the acting or really directing... this movie fails b/c it's a bad story. If you're like me and thought this movie might shed some interesting perspective on life and death than you ignored the bad reviews and went anyway. I'm going to do you a solid and tell you that there is nothing interesting about this movie. It's two hours of depressing scenes and no pay off at the end. Most movies take you on a roller coaster.. happy, sad, happy, sad, finally happy. This movies is sad, sad, sad, sad, and kind of not sad at the end. It's just not an enjoyable experience. Expand
  3. Oct 26, 2010
    0
    This movie is bad because of story not because of acting or directing. Kept looking at my clock wanting it to end it seemed really slow. Also with this story their was a lot more that could have been done but instead their where a lot of scenes that I considered not exactly important to the story.
  4. Nov 5, 2010
    2
    This is really the first Clint Eastwood movie I have taken a strong, strong disliking for. It's got an interesting enough premise, dealing with what happens after you die, but the execution and acting just never came together ot make anything that was believable or thought provoking. None of the three storylines quite work, though Damon does try his hardest as a lovesick psychic, but he's still just phoning this performance in. Especially painful to watch are the women, Cecil de France and Bryce Dallas Howard, who just kind of obnoxious props in the overall storyline, and lack any depth. The ending is contrived, the special effects lackluster, and I really hope Eastwood gets a chance to redeem himself after this mess. Expand
  5. Oct 24, 2010
    4
    The near death experience is what we the viewer suffer when we sit through this unthoughtful, boring, and needless film. This was not about the hereafter but I can't tell you what it was really trying to say. It follows the experiences of three people in a fashion that made you wish they were dead. You knew the ending after the first half hour but you just wished it was not going to end the way you thought. The backing sound track got worst as the movie reached a climax. This is a big time flop. Expand
  6. Nov 6, 2010
    3
    The film begins with some unimaginably bad special effects, and does not get much better from there. The plot is contrived and schmaltzy, but the actors do what they can with a script that was literally unfinished.
  7. Oct 26, 2010
    2
    Take a pillow to the theatre if you want to waste your time and money on this ssslllllooooowwwww motion movie, and the pillow is for sleeping not sitting on. About halfway through I asked my friend "when do you think the movie is going to start"?
  8. Nov 5, 2010
    1
    I heard this was a tear jerker. The only time I cried was when I paid $8 for nachos. A 4&1/2 star rating is ridiculous. I was boared for 2 hours and was very disappointed in Eastwood's direction. So much more could have been done with this topic.
  9. Nov 9, 2010
    3
    I'm surprised this movie hasn't gotten more bad reviews. The only part of the story I liked was the little boy who lost his twin brother. Every other character felt completely random, unnecessary, or was just horribly performed. The movie kept trying to force everything to fit together. My friend and I had to laugh at the whole movie to get through the boring stupidity.
  10. Oct 28, 2010
    3
    What a snoozer, I didn't care for the story line one bit, found myself looking at my watch to see how much more I must endure. I should have left after previews of coming attractions.
  11. Nov 7, 2010
    0
    I went to this movie on a whim. It lasted about 2.5 hours. I left not knowing what the point of the movie was at all. It felt as if there was no plot, no conflict, no nothing. I caught myself thinking of all the more interesting avenues the director/writers could have taken. I've seen a lot of movies, this is the new champion for being the least stimulating.
  12. Nov 10, 2010
    1
    The movie was very disappointing. I was expecting a really good paced drama, but it was boring. There were several people snoring in the theater, and the payoff never really does. Clint Eastwood wasn't really able to weave all the characters together in the end. The best part of the movie is the 1st 20 mintues.
  13. Mar 24, 2011
    0
    I turned it off after 55 minutes...wait, or did I fall asleep ? The beginning was pretty good, but that lasted for only about 5 minutes. From then on, it slooooooooowwwwwedddddd down. I felt like somebody being put under hypnosis, my eyelids getting heavy...
    Really depressing movie, no insights or fresh thoughts whatsoever. Plus, Matt Damon is getting fat.
  14. Apr 14, 2012
    4
    A very disappointing Eastwood film. It's interesting enough on first viewing, but immediately fades from memory. The main problem is that the movie builds up it's huge moment of inevitable catharsis and then doesn't really deliver. The Eastwood penned soundtrack is also quite dire.
  15. Jan 31, 2011
    4
    Somewhere, deep within Peter Morgan's screenplay for Hereafter is a good story about three lonely souls connected only by death. The problem, when you have to resort to a premise of "hey, what would it be like if there really was a genuine psychic out there?" to bind it together, is that a promising, meaningful human drama is reduced to the level of whimsical fantasy, but (thanks to its admittedly well-executed documentary style) with none of the wonder and joy that might otherwise entail. It's a shame that it falls to such a capricious tale to depict real world events such as the Boxing Day tsunami and, to a lesser extent, the 7/7 London bombings for the first time in mainstream cinema. On the plus side, this is probably as good a film about a real-life honest-to-goodness psychic as it's possibly to make. One wonders who Eastwood was able to assemble so much talent (himself included) around such patent nonsense. You'd be better of re-watching Ghost. Its sugary sentimentality all the better to suspend your disbelief. Expand
  16. Mar 20, 2011
    2
    I watched all of EC movies and i dont understand what happened here. Its so long and unnecessarily slow. Story is full of potential but dull performance and uninventive story progress is very disappointing...
  17. May 21, 2011
    3
    This had mixed review but because Robert Ebert of Chicago sun times gave it a 100 i had to check it out. After watching the movie i can now honestly say that i can no longer rely on Ebert s reviews. This movie had so so much potential. Matt Damon is a great actor and that can be seen in this movie. I don't know what when wrong. There are 3 stories where one of them should have been erased from the movie and then surely the movie could be edited enough to create a worthy story. If you want to know how a beautiful shot and great acted movie can be so bad , then watch it, if you want a good movie, then , with some regret, please give this a miss. Sorry Damon, but you need to choose your director and producer better and not rely on what, was possibly, a great script. And shame on you Egbert for being so so wrong. Expand
  18. Mar 26, 2011
    0
    The WORST movie I have seen in years. Too many subtitles, and English lack of personality. I actually wanted to shoot myself, instead of watching the rest of this movie.
    Love Clint Eastwood, Love Matt Damon, Love the English, hated this movie with a passion.
    It should be taken off the shelf for false advertising. You think Clint Eastwood, you think Matt Damon, you think good movie. Not
    in this case, not even close. Expand
  19. Mar 27, 2011
    3
    There was something indescribably off about this movie. I still can't put my finger on it. Music? Script ? Acting? I'm as curious about the subject as anyone else (Don't let anyone tell you that they aren't interested at all about what happens. They are just trying to be cool.) but in the end Clint comes very short of ever engaging and convincing you about this story. I knew I was Here as I watched this movie attempting to be a film, but I just couldn't wait until After!! I gave it a 3 because of the Tsunami scene (for effects, not carnage) and Cecile De France was real easy to look at. Expand
  20. Jul 17, 2011
    1
    After watching this movie I can only say the pace of it was painfully slow. If there was any editing there was very little. The movie did have moments but by the time you got there you really were losing interest and the value became moot. There were some great ideas but in the end they went nowhere. Maybe someone can make a film on this subject and at least take some type of stand instead of wallowing in indecision and having an ending which appeared as if the police came in and broke up the filming of the movie... Expand
  21. Feb 23, 2013
    2
    From Director Clint Eastwood comes the tale of three people's near death experiences, and the psychic who they turn to, to explain it all. Why do I keep watching movies directed by Eastwood? They are almost always much too long and a complete bore. This film, like many of his others, was supposed to have a hidden meaning, but I didn't get anything out of it. Eastwood is a legend and at this point can pretty much make anything he wants. Hereafter, even managed to get a decent cast, but the film itself is pure Seriously, if anyone but a world renowned, Academy Award winning Director decided to make something like this, they wouldn't get in the studio gate. Oh yes, it is really that bad. This is one film you can avoid like the plague! Expand
  22. Jan 10, 2013
    4
    The film begins with some unimaginably bad special effects, and does not get much better from there. The plot is contrived and forced. Overall the movie came across a total bore from start to finish.
Metascore
56

Mixed or average reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 42
  2. Negative: 4 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: William Thomas
    Jan 24, 2011
    40
    Slow, ponderous and as shallow as it thinks it is deep, lifted only by an impressive opening and fine work from Damon and Howard.
  2. Reviewed by: Joe Williams
    Oct 24, 2010
    50
    His (Eastwood) first boring film.
  3. 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.