David O'ConnellHereafter
February 7th 2011 04:00
The impeccable credentials of participants both in front of and behind the camera are no guarantee of success as Clint Eastwood’s latest effort, Hereafter, conclusively proves. With a screenplay from Peter Morgan, responsible for a string of first-class works in recent years, including The Last King of Scotland (2006), The Queen (2006), Frost/Nixon (2008), and The Damned United (2009), Hereafter seems like a surefire success on paper, yet for more than two hours it creaks along at a snail’s pace without ever generating any dramatic momentum.
With a trio of stories in some way touching upon the mysteries of life beyond the grave, Hereafter drearily conjures up a finale that in no way provides either catharsis or a satisfactory resolution for any of it characters.
In the film’s spectacular opening a holidaying French television presenter, Marie (Cecile De France), is swept away by a tsunami which engulfs her holiday resort. For a brief time she’s lost to the world before an unlikely resuscitation restores her to the land of the living. Returning to her old life, she quickly finds herself distracted, becoming more and curious with granting her near-death experience with the significance she feels it deserves. Though alienating herself from her colleagues and wandering boyfriend, she feels compelled to explore her feelings through writing a book on the subject.
In San Francisco, George Lonegan (Matt Damon) has meekly surrendered to the mundane life of a factory worker after a time of infamy as a psychic. His gift, becoming finally more of a curse, had simultaneously painfully excluded him from a normal life. In seclusion as an anonymous workaday man he encounters a sweet, unattached woman, Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) in an Italian cooking class, but just as they maneuver their way through the tentative, promising first steps of a friendship, fate intrudes, digging up a painful reminder of George's past.
Howard provides an all-too brief ray of life amidst the autumnal wash of colourless blues and grays that saturate the film’s visuals; in her few scenes she's able to breathe life into the elongated vacuity of George’s existence. But sadly for an audience yearning for a spark to ignite the film, her presence is hastily extinguished as George’s cursed gift intrudes upon any chance at experiencing a meaningful relationship - a possibility of grasping another human hand without summoning unwanted supernatural connotations.
A third story, located in London, focuses on twin boys, Marcus and Jason (Frankie and George McLaren) who live with their useless alcoholic mother. When Jason is tragically cut down in a hit-and-run after a rumble with some local street hoods, Marcus begins to feel the pull of his brother’s spirit. Placed in the care of foster parents he becomes mute and withdrawn, unable to cope without his brother’s presence by his side.
Of the three parallel stories, George’s tale is easily the most interesting but even it loses much of its unassuming potency when he’s propelled by the mechanical turning of Morgan’s narrative to hop a plane bound for London to sight-see, including a visit to the home of his literary hero Charles Dickens. At this point, George’s story loses its rigid but conceivable tenor, becoming instead a mere contrivance – another thread implausibly prodded into place so that the threads might fatefully intersect.
Hereafter (2010), though not entirely uninteresting, is still drab in unreasonable ways considering the talent pool it drew. Damon, Howard and to a lesser extent De France, are able to draw something tangible from their roles, but combined with Eastwood’s flat direction, and the equally flat trajectory of Morgan’s screenplay, the film is doomed to be remembered as a rare failure for all parties, and without doubt one of the least inspiring projects of Eastwood’s career. Not terrible by any means, it nonetheless remains depressingly static throughout with an insipid, negligible tying up of loose ends.
Hereafter opens in Australian cinemas this Thursday, February 10.
| 87 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Matt Shea
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
The acting is actually pretty good, it's the limp screenplay and understated direction (so perfect in other Eastwood films of course) that sink it, erasing any possibility of compelling drama.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
did you like Eastwoods last film, Invictus? I found it rather forgettable actually, and I wasn't all that enthused with Grand turino either. I was surprised by how much I liked The Changeling actually, but my favourite of Clint's is still 'Play Misty For Me' - just call me an old nostalgic fool.
P.S. I'm trying to remember now, was it Eastwood or Costner that directed 'A Perfect World'?
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
I thought Invictus was reasonably good with Morgan Freeman's great performance probably better than the film deserved. Really like The Changeling too - and nah mate, can't go past Play Misty, that never gets old.
A Perfect World - now there's one I loved at the time and need to revisit! Great film which was indeed directed by Eastwood.