Mixed or average reviews - based on 42 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 127 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Hereafter tells the story of three people who are touched by death in different ways. George is a blue-collar American who has a special connection to the afterlife. On the other side of the world, Marie, a French journalist, has a near-death experience that shakes her reality. And when Marcus, a London schoolboy, loses the person closest to him, he desperately needs answers. Each on a path in search of the truth, their lives will intersect, forever changed by what they believe might--or must--exist in the hereafter. (Warner Bros. Pictures) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 42
  2. Negative: 4 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: Mick LaSalle
    Oct 21, 2010
    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. Reviewed by: Steven Rea
    Oct 21, 2010
    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.
  3. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    Oct 21, 2010
    A multi-character melodrama about the supernatural that's affecting both in spite of and because of its flaws.
  4. Reviewed by: David Denby
    Oct 21, 2010
    It's the first boring performance of Damon's career, although the bland inertia may not be his fault. The way Eastwood stages the "readings," they hold no terror for George.
  5. Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    Oct 21, 2010
    Hereafter is a consistently identifiable Clint Eastwood movie only in the sense that the prolific filmmaker shows that he still has the ability to confound our expectations of him.
  6. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    Oct 21, 2010
    When an 80-year-old director turns his attention to death, you hope for some insight, or gravitas, or even whimsy or anger. Hereafter has none of that.
  7. Reviewed by: Joe Neumaier
    Oct 21, 2010
    It doesn't help that Eastwood's laconic style is as torpid as it was in such misfires as "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" and "Changeling."

See all 42 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 69
  2. Negative: 18 out of 69
  1. Oct 16, 2010
    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. Expand
  2. Dec 15, 2010
    At 80, Eastwood has made perhaps his most internal and thoughtful film yet. The movie is a meditation on the questions and the mysteries about death and the afterlife. Introspection is not really something we're accustomed to doing much of anymore, as our culture tends to reward idiocy and silliness more than anything else, so it's understandable to me why some audiences would find this to be depressing or lousy, but really it's not. It's a very moving film for viewers who appreciate something a little more intelligent than usual. One of the year's best. Expand
  3. Oct 30, 2010
    This is a solid film. This is the type of film that is missing in Hollywood, where directors direct to tell a story with solid characters and strong themes. So great job Warner Bros and Clint Eastwood. This is also a great movie for people who like interlocking stories and kudos to the film for its bravery in using subtitles, and use of locations other than the United States. Matt Damon did a fine job and I don't think this would have been as strong or as intriguing of a movie without him. I hope to see more of these types of films come out of Hollywood. Expand
  4. Oct 26, 2010
    Eastwood has established his film directing style solely on high tension, character progressing dramas that either brings up a question which involves the right of moral obligation or gives a conventional meaning that looks deeper into the human soul. In basically almost all of his films it continues on the exploration of human behavior which we can never fully answer, but can come closer to a better understanding of it. Eastwood hasnâ Expand
  5. Jul 5, 2013
    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.
  6. Jan 31, 2011
    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
  7. Nov 7, 2010
    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. Expand

See all 69 User Reviews