This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 118! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.
Hey folks!
So, I recently decided to give “Hereafter,” directed by the legendary Clint Eastwood, a watch. You know, the 2010 flick that somehow attempts to weave the afterlife into a narrative that’s as scattered as my sock drawer on laundry day. Before diving in, I stumbled upon heaps of reviews praising its depth and emotional grip. Now, before you grab your popcorn and settle in for a gushing review, hold on to your cowboy hats because this might not be the cheerleading session you were expecting.
So, the movie follows three seemingly unconnected characters: Marie, a French journalist who has a near-death experience during a tsunami ; George, a blue-collar worker who can communicate with the dead (talk about awkward dinner conversations!); and Marcus, a British kid grappling with the loss of his twin brother.
Now, the premise is intriguing, right? The whole “life, death, and the hereafter” thing is a cinematic goldmine. But here’s the rub: the movie spends so much time meandering through these characters’ lives that it feels like watching paint dry . We get glimpses of their struggles, their hopes, their fears, but it all unfolds at a snail’s pace .
Don’t get me wrong, the acting is solid. First off, Matt Damon. Love the guy, seriously. He could probably make a tax return look compelling, but even his charm couldn’t pull me into George’s world. It’s not Damon’s fault, though. The guy gave it his all, but the character felt as disconnected from the audience as he did from the living. And Marie? Her journey started off with a bang (quite literally, thanks to a tsunami), but then it just… fizzled out. As for the twins? Heartbreaking storyline, sure, but it felt like it was from a different movie altogether.
Now, let’s talk plot—or, well, the attempt at one. The idea of exploring the afterlife through these interwoven stories is intriguing, don’t get me wrong. But this was like a choose-your-own-adventure story where you never actually get to choose the adventure. The connections between the characters feel forced, the supernatural elements are more confusing than spooky, and the ending? Don’t even get me started. It’s so ambiguous that it left me feeling like I’d just finished watching a David Lynch film without the cool visuals .
The pacing, boy, oh boy. If you’re in the mood for something that moves with the urgency of a sloth on a lazy Sunday, you’re in luck! There were moments when I found myself checking if my remote was working because the scenes just dragged on. And not in a “building tension” kind of way, more like a “did I accidentally hit pause?” vibe.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m all for a movie that makes you think, reflect, or even cry into your popcorn. But “Hereafter” felt like it was reaching for the stars with a ladder made of toothpicks. Ambitious, sure, but ultimately unfulfilling.
Now, I know, I know, some people absolutely loved “Hereafter.” It’s got raving reviews and all that jazz. But for me, it was a cinematic Ambien . It wasn’t bad, per se, but it wasn’t exactly setting my soul on fire. I needed a little more oomph, a little more bam!
But hey, that’s the beauty of movies, right? They affect each of us differently.
Until next time, keep it weird, keep it wild, and remember, even the most acclaimed movies can sometimes leave you feeling like you just sat through a lecture on existentialism without the coffee ☕️. ✌️
Roger