User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 134 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 82 out of 134
  2. Negative: 27 out of 134
Watch On

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. Sep 23, 2011
    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.
  2. 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 endThe 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
  3. Mar 21, 2011
    5
    When you have 3 stories, none of which are particularly exciting on their own merit, it is hard to get them to become a great story especially since they are so loosely connected. Clint seems to be out of his depth here, quite shallow spiritually and incapable of delivering a complex scenario convincingly. Nevertheless, there are still masterful takes, like the opening tsunami scene.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 itsSomewhere, 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. Collapse
  6. Mar 9, 2011
    6
    To be honest, i find this movie rather boring yet interesting at the same time. The characters aren't interesting enough for you to actually be invested into them. All except the little boy who lost his twin (i can't even remember his name)
    It is interesting in a sense that you want to find out how these 3 characters meet in the end.
    Other than that, the stories about their lives aren't
    To be honest, i find this movie rather boring yet interesting at the same time. The characters aren't interesting enough for you to actually be invested into them. All except the little boy who lost his twin (i can't even remember his name)
    It is interesting in a sense that you want to find out how these 3 characters meet in the end.
    Other than that, the stories about their lives aren't interesting enough. You don't really see what compels them, only the reasons stated on the surface. You can of course dig deeper and make assumptions, but the long and weirdly placed cuts distracts you before you do so.
    Expand
  7. Mar 27, 2011
    6
    Clint Eastwood's movie doesn't suffer from bad acting or a poor score, even the idea of the story is interesting, but it is how it is presented that hinder this movie. For one, each character has somewhat interesting back stories, but overall just are not that interesting. I cared only slightly for one of the characters, that being the young kid. The movie constantly switches back andClint Eastwood's movie doesn't suffer from bad acting or a poor score, even the idea of the story is interesting, but it is how it is presented that hinder this movie. For one, each character has somewhat interesting back stories, but overall just are not that interesting. I cared only slightly for one of the characters, that being the young kid. The movie constantly switches back and forth in a three way rotation cycle, that makes the movie seem very, very slow. It is somewhat interesting how they come together in the end though. The only thing that makes this movie worth a good viewing is the message that is portrayed, and truly left me thinking. I did feel that Eastwood's emotions were portrayed very well. But I can only give it a 6/10. Expand
  8. Feb 24, 2012
    5
    I felt very disappointed with this movie. I was expecting great things with the cast/director however the whole movie left a little flat and disjointed. I didn't warm towards any of the characters with the exception of the kid and the ending was ridiculous.
  9. Dec 13, 2011
    6
    Although the film has great acting and many well done moments this cannot save the fact that the film has no resolution. For a movie that you would expect to find deep themes in it is suprisingly flat. The climax is weak and the stories did not fit together well. The film has no resolution to any of the stories. The film did not feel complete. There were also many loose ends that did notAlthough the film has great acting and many well done moments this cannot save the fact that the film has no resolution. For a movie that you would expect to find deep themes in it is suprisingly flat. The climax is weak and the stories did not fit together well. The film has no resolution to any of the stories. The film did not feel complete. There were also many loose ends that did not tie up at the end Expand
  10. Jul 1, 2011
    6
    A solid film. Damon saves it big time. In a way few high profile actors can, he makes you "forget" you are watching Matt Damon, and draws you into the character he is portraying. Worth a look for those who enjoy a "paranormalish" type of movie.
  11. Jan 1, 2012
    5
    With Clint Eastwood as the director and Matt Damon as the lead role, Hereafter should have been a great film. Unfortunately Peter Morgan's script produces a film that breaks down in all the places where it should strike hard. Not even Eastwood and Damon can save this film from mediocrity.
  12. 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.
  13. Dec 8, 2012
    6
    I actually thought this was really good and well written; it delves into the idea of the after life, but subtle as well. One of the most underrated films from 2010.
  14. Jun 9, 2013
    5
    A slow and sometimes very boring film. The positives mainly all belong to the acting starting with Matt Damon who does show he is a really solid dramatic actor. This is a very average film.
  15. Jul 5, 2013
    5
    I'm not sure if I've just missed the bad ones up until now, but generally speaking I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood's directorial output. Hereafter is a little overambitious, though I'm sure there's an aim in mind, but to be brutally honest, whatever that aim was, it missed.

    Sweeping themes of death and the possibility of an afterlife are under discussion, but they're never really examined
    I'm not sure if I've just missed the bad ones up until now, but generally speaking I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood's directorial output. Hereafter is a little overambitious, though I'm sure there's an aim in mind, but to be brutally honest, whatever that aim was, it missed.

    Sweeping themes of death and the possibility of an afterlife are under discussion, but they're never really examined in any great detail, as the rush to cram an awful lot of plot into a small space of time takes precedence. At just over two hours, the running time isn't especially short, but the nature of the structure makes rapid-fire exposition a necessity.

    The film is made up of three distinct plot lines, all taking place in different parts of the world. Stylistically speaking, these are differentiated by different colour tones. London is grey and washed out, France vibrantly warm, and San Francisco sort of normal. It's not a particularly tough task to keep up with the constant changes in locale, but it can be jarring at times when the film appears to arbitrarily move between locations for no apparent reason. This is a major problem given the structural considerations and, rather than feeling like different parts of a whole, there was a definite sense that I was watching three different films that had been cut together.

    In addition to the constant back and forth between the narratives, some scenes rely heavily on some decidedly iffy CGI. This can be very distracting and shatters any sense of engagement that may have been present. Fortunately for both film and viewer, the most marked implementation of this occurs in the first twenty minutes and can be forgotten as the action moves forward. However, there are intermittent shots later on that also make use of it and will cast your mind back with a shudder, although thankfully they are few and far between.

    It's not all bad news though, as the three worlds taken individually are very watchable on the whole. Each one has a kind of 'native' quality to it. London has the atmosphere of a Brit flick, France of French cinema, and San Francisco of Hollywood. Although I liked this aspect of the picture, it's fair to say that it is a major contributor to the lack of cohesion that makes it such a muddled affair.

    In terms of the stars, Matt Damon is the actor of most note to put his name to the movie, though he could have been replaced without much damage. He is capable of so much more and, aside from one or two instances, it comes across as though he's just going through the motions. His effort in the San Francisco plot is overshadowed by that of C├ęcile De France in the French segments. Her performance here has inspired me to seek out more of her work and I look forward to seeing the results.
    Expand
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.