Good execution, especially Clint's directing, but the story is quite bland. Lots of wasted potential there.

Feels much like a concept wasted. Watching "Hereafter" is frustrating, as it fails to make the most of its considerable assets, with the cumbersome script severely limiting the effectiveness of both the subject matter & performances. The three strand plotline feels awkward too, with each plot restricting the depth of the other, so when they converge it feels clumsy, & the casting in London is truly rubbish! I didn't hate it though & thought Damon was terrific & Clint's photography was great.

Quite an interesting idea but the realization leaves much to be desired. It feels like for the most part of the movie it cannot make its mind what it will be about.

A solid movie. It's nothing groundbreaking but I enjoyed it. The three subplots are all interesting, but I didn't like the way they all ended up intersecting. They needed to focus more on Matt Damon's characters than the others as well, because he is both the best actor in the film and was the most intriguing character.

Hereafter isn't an excellent film, but it kept me involved enough to want to see more of it. It opens well, and leaves on a similar note, although far less violent, and has you exit the film with more questions and thoughts than you had going in. Regardless of whether or not the plot and the characters stick with you five minutes after the film ends, there's a good chance that you will take something deeper from this film. For that, and a solid plot of three stories, I say it's worth a watch.

One of the weaker, but still very good.

Supernatural thriller ? there is nothing thrilling, nor supernatural about this movie other than the first 5 minutes, which suck you in to the film (no pun intended). However, nothing else comes close to this brilliant scene, and the three narrative strands meander to a quite stunningly banal conclusion with the common link being a (different) connection to the 'hereafter'. As with any film of this type, I suspect your overall enjoyment will be lessened or heightened by your own personal beliefs

Pointless and hollow--surprisingly so, coming from a director as normally assured as Eastwood. Ostentatiously ponderous and nowhere near as profound as it thinks it is. Doesn't really have anything meaningful to say despite its gestures to the contrary, and its three story elements don't finally come together with any sort of cohesion. They just sorta do, and the movie's just sorta there, and after two dull hours, it just sorta ends. Like life, I guess, sorta.

What surprises most about Eastwood's latest is that it in style and theme differs from what made him one of the most exciting directors in the 00's. It's hard to imagine that this is the same guy who made you weep and laugh and weep again through a whole decade - and what's more regrettable is that Hereafter probably will be an unwashable stain on Eastwood's otherwise impressive oevres.

Wonderful, deeply moving meditation on life and death. Eastwood unexpectedly borrows a BABEL-like narrative style, but makes it definitively his own. Damon and Howard are stand-outs in the cast; the resolution of their relationship is unbearably poignant. Tactfully sets the story against real-life disaster scenarios, and uses an effective agnostic POV to explore the deeper layers of the story. Jacobi's cameo is the only odd note in an otherwise stellar entry to Eastwood's impressive canon.

For a supernatural thriller it is very down to earth...

I'm a Eastwood fan, but there's no salvaging Morgan's screenplay. It's as if he got the inspiration by watching an episode of "Ghost Whisperer" or something. It thinks it's being profound, when it's actually exploiting every cliché in the book ("It's not a gift, it's a curse" - I mean, really?). The tsunami sequence was impressive, I'll give it that much, but it's not enough to elevate it.

A film with the usual quality of Clint Eastwood. The problem is, in this time, the story and theme of the film are weak. Still, the director extracts the maximum.

With an unexpected theme, Eastwood returns with another quality work. Here are the stories of three people whose lives have been particularly touched by the mysteries of death. Although the script make clear its position on the afterlife, the strength and beauty of this work are in the way it shows how we deal with loss and with the idea that one day we will face the end of our existence in this world. The human experience itself and their subtleties are the focus of this beautiful film.

The first hour and a half of Hereafter are very strong, but the ending, however sweet, is too complacent to offer any real poignancy.

After the initial attention grabber, movie forgets to be interesting for large periods of time. At one point leading you to question, "Wasn't Matt Damon supposed to be in this?". There are some solid performances though, from Damon, De France and Howard in particular.

Imagine if Malick were retarded; he might have made this film instead of Tree of Life.

this one was massively misrepresented in the trailers, but there's still some stuff worth watching even if it is wholly different from what one would expect and makes no attempt to shed any light on the topic. i could have cared less about the french chick, but the other two leads were pretty stand up.

This is another great film by director Clint Eastwood. The script is excellent, it gives us three distinct and interesting characters. The script makes you care about the characters and the three leads give excellent performances. I highly recommend this welll made drama.

65.000

Eastwood at his best. Damon also.

Did the collaborators of this film have a strong visual intent before filming this? It's a very cumbersome watch. The connections between the three subplots were weakly tied and unconvincing; partnered with a weak script, forced acting (though Damon is great!), and a concept that should have been myterious and ambiguous enough to engage an audience but unfortunately comes across as superficial. Eastwood's direction is beautifully excuted, but that alone could not rescue this hokey meander.

This movie spins its wheels and then sputters out at the end without having gone anywhere. There's no conflict, the characters don't change, and no one accomplishes anything. Worst of all, it has little to say about its central subject.