User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 123 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 74 out of 123
  2. Negative: 25 out of 123

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. Dec 14, 2013
    7
    While Hereafter is not the sci-fi drama that some moviegoers might have been led to believe it is, the film is a terrific character drama that directly addresses one of humanity’s most enduring mysteries.
  2. 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
    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 Cécile 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
  3. Jun 11, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie was sad,moving and mysterious at the same time. Really liked the three stories of the tsunami, the dead brother and the magician. It was unexpected as a movie as I thought it would be a bad movie. Well it wasn't Expand
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Jan 7, 2012
    10
    A future cult classic in my humble opinion. Looking at the most important life subject of the importance of "being true to you", and "following the heart" to find love and success in this life, and in such an all encompassing way, that touches with true genorosity of spirit on the oneness of us all. Thank you Clint for a work of love and beauty.
  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. 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 not tie up at the end Expand
  13. Dec 2, 2011
    7
    Bottom Line: Enjoyable, intense study of the afterlife isnâ
  14. Oct 6, 2011
    8
    A solid and subtle movie about people and their beliefs. Very well crafted, with good acting, artfully done cinematics, a good script, and an emotionally driven story. I normally don't like Clint Eastwood films, because they lack subtlety and the acting is usually horrible, but this film along with Million Dollar baby are changing the way I feel about his films. Would have given it a 10, but the way everything comes together at the end felt forced and unrealistic to me. Expand
  15. 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.
  16. Sep 17, 2011
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A thoughtful intelligent film which never really takes a stand on a question we cannot possibly know for certain. The ambiguity is totally appropriate and well presented. Even though there seemed to be nothing going on here as you'd expect to find in a typical Hollywood plot-driven movie, I was quite enthralled, and found myself thinking about it for a few days afterward. Expand
  17. Aug 23, 2011
    8
    Injustement assassiné par la critique pour ses longueurs et sa fin expédiée rapidement. Il est vrai que Clint n'est pas à son meilleur, mais le film est profond et puissant, en plus d'être magistralement interprété. Un Clint mineur, mais un Clint quand même!
  18. 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
  19. ojt
    Jul 4, 2011
    10
    Solid work as always from Clint Eastwood. Hereafter is a great and heartfelt story. And very real about a topic that is as quoted in the film a topic of which is not to be discussed seriously.
    I like the way the stories are woven together, with a firm hand.
    The CGI used with the tsunami-scenes are incredibly well done. Exciting as well as close to realistic.
    All the actors does a great
    job, even the little kid playing two roles, mainly due to Eastwoods way with all the actors I presume.
    Great storytelling, and much undervalued and underrated by many, this little gem.
    Expand
  20. 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.
  21. May 28, 2011
    7
    Beautifully shot (Man, can Eastwood direct!) and a great setup/premise. I wish it had made a few braver choices, and I wasn't too thrilled with the payoff sequences.
  22. 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
  23. Apr 29, 2011
    10
    This is a superb movie. I didn't go see it because of the mediocre reviews, but I'm so glad I rented it as a DVD. The different characters' stories are artfully inter-woven and all the actors--especially Matt Damon and the young boy who plays Marcus is excellent. I couldn't have enjoyed it more. Do not pass it by.
  24. Apr 18, 2011
    9
    This is an overlooked gem. If you do not expect something that pompously tries to offer to solutions that no one honestly can, you actually will find a humbler, charming meditation on loss and fear of loneliness. It has a spare but authentic look, features some wonderful scenes between very credulous characters, and offers a hopeful, instead of outright "happy," ending. As a plus, the scenes of Paris, London, and the amazing opening of a tsunami disaster are gorgeous. No doubt about it, it is a slowly evolving picture; we find out about the characters over time, not all at once, but I never was distracted or bored. The only off-key to me was the music near the end.... whose sudden easy jazz sound was nothing like the mood of the film. Expand
  25. 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 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. Mar 21, 2011
    8
    Clint Eastwood is thinking about mortality. I don't assume it's because he is 80 years old, but he found a story by Peter Morgan (The Queen, Frost/Nixon) which he really felt a connection with and decided to make it into a film. Hereafter includes two real life events, the 2004 Southeast Asian tsunami and the 2005 London underground bombings, and follows three different main characters and how they are affected by events which shape their thoughts on mortality and what may come afterwards.

    The three main characters are geographically separated. One is a French newscaster who was personally caught up in the tsunami. The second is a young British boy who does not know how to function or what to do after his twin brother is suddenly killed. The third is Matt Damon, the American, who has the ability to make connections with people and interact with their loved ones who are in the hereafter. He views it as a curse, not a gift.

    Each character encounters different reactions as they attempt to discuss what happened to them and there are some moments concerning different nationalities and how they may respond to the idea of a hereafter. The French are very intellectual and in the film view the idea of a hereafter as a subject which serious people do not discuss and these visions of an afterlife are most likely the result of a concussion. The British, on the other hand, are shown through a montage sequence of various charlatans and fake psychics as they extort money from people looking for answers. The American, who actually has the ability, wants nothing to do with it and tries very hard to keep it hidden.

    I knew beforehand it was a Clint Eastwood film, but if I did not know that, I still would have attached his name to it. The music which was so memorable from Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby is back again and the long, contemplative shots of the characters trying to make sense of things are here as well. The two young British actors who play the twins, Frankie and George McLaren, are outstanding in their first acting roles and contribute a big emotional weight. The lighting, especially in Matt Damon's scenes in his apartment and in his hotel room, is way too dark. It is side and back lit and much too harsh.

    Hereafter has some bad luck as its video release is the same week as the Japanese tsunami. There is a very realistic tsunami wave in this movie; however, it is brief and early on. To label it a 'tsunami movie' is very misleading and a discredit to what Eastwood is trying to discuss. Eastwood's previous, recent films are better than Hereafter, but this movie is still far superior than the vast majority of its competitors.
    Expand
  30. 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.
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.