Hereafter (Review)

The thing about the afterlife is that it’s just so darn comforting. Who among us is willing to accept the fact that we live our lives for no purpose or ultimate goal? No matter what your opinions are as far as faith, heaven, hell or the like, Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter examines the notion that there is something else out there, but without taking one firm stance. It advocates a belief in something greater without naming religions or specifics. It gives us people who have looked death in the face but believe that there is another side. To them, the notion that mere blackness awaits them is not acceptable.

Written by Peter Morgan, Hereafter tells us three separate stories from across the globe which intersect at film’s end. This is a format that has been done to death, particularly in films like Babel which go nowhere. Hereafter is better than most of this ilk, and what makes it work is the fact that it meditates on the themes it explores rather than being too obvious about it all. I would strongly recommend Hereafter to anyone, for even though its flaws are many, it is a film that will get a reaction out of just about anyone. Some have met the film with adulation and others have dismissed it altogether. See it and make of it what you will.

In San Francisco we meet George Lonegan (Matt Damon), a man who used to be a professional psychic who despises his “ability” and simply wants to live a normal life. He has a brother (Jay Mohr) who wants to exploit the power for all it’s worth. Because of his penchant for having visions whenever touching someone, George is afraid he can never make a true human connection, particularly with a girl in his cooking class named Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard). While these scenes are mostly effective, this is the first time in a while I feel Matt Damon might have been miscast. He does the best he can, but at the end of the day you can’t stick a square peg in a round hole, no matter how hard you try.

Meanwhile, in England there are two twin brothers (Frankie and George McLaren) who are living with their mother, who is an alcoholic (and that’s putting it gently). Social services often come over, but the boys can’t fathom leaving their mother for parents who are not theirs. This all changes when one of the brothers is run over by a car while going to get his mother’s medications. Now Marcus, the surviving brother, spends his days yearning just to have a piece of his normal life back.

The film begins, however, with Marie Lelay (Cécile de France), a French journalist in Thailand. Suddenly there is a tsunami, and in the carnage she dies then is brought back to life. We see her brief glimpses into what might be the other side, and she spends much of her time thinking about what exactly she saw, and eventually she commits herself to writing a book about it.

There are many problems with Hereafter. The opening tsunami sequence comes off as a little fake (and frankly a little too Emmerich-y), some of the plot developments are a tad convenient, and the film never makes the chronology of the story clear. At one point a character said that a year had gone by, and that took me by surprise. I don’t know if the three storylines are only supposed to converge at the end or if the events were happening simultaneously, but after all this Hereafter is able to make an impact when it counts.

I fear many viewers may not be willing to go down the road this film wishes to navigate, but instead wish for more sweeping statements about the great beyond. This film has no interest in such things, but instead wants to consider what the idea of death means to these characters. One has seen a glimpse of a new frontier, one has spent his life trapped between realities, and the other just wants to know that his brother isn’t just gone. The film is admirable in its ambition, and each arc is played out to its natural conclusion. There are no surprises, but I quite liked the journey.

There is a great warmth to Hereafter, and while it treads in potentially dark waters it instead focuses on what COULD await us after we check out. The idea of a hell is never brought up, but really neither is heaven. It simply tells us that it’s OK to believe what we believe, whatever that may be. Those seeking revelatory work will be disappointed, for it is certainly rough around the edges, but perhaps you will be surprised by how much Hereafter says by not saying much at all.

Rating:  (out of 4)