She does, but her writing veers off course as she investigates scientists who research the afterlife and the stigma attached to their work. All three stories have a sense of urgency: these are people tormented by the inexplicable. Eastwood establishes their stress but never hurries the film. Many absorbing moments dot the movie that luxuriate in situations and details, such as a cooking class where the psychic meets a potential lover or a London Underground sequence where an enigmatic event rescues the brother.
Indeed, the film nimbly maneuvers through territory few American films enter. Even with all this, the ending is a letdown. Improve this question. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Yes, the exterior is definitely Liverpool Street. This from Google Streets… This, by the way, is the tiny single outdoor entrance. That only makes sense in movie-land ; We clearly see the boy walk in here at the head of the scene and out again at the end. Maybe they imagined no-one would notice it was the wrong station, historically.
Here is the Charing Cross location shot from the movie, totally authentic and complete with its original, now defunct Jubilee Line signage… Extraneous information, not truly important to the answer For the true London Underground connoisseur, though, this shot confuses me. Improve this answer. Tetsujin Tetsujin Firstly, you just don't get signs hung from the ceiling like that telling you what station you're in" That sign isn't to say that you are at the Charing Cross underground station - it's telling people how to get to the National Rail station from the underground as evidenced by the red National Rail logo.
HorusKol - I think you're picking up on entirely the wrong part of the answer; but anyway… he walks into Liverpool street. By the time he reaches the bottom of the escalator he's in Charing Cross, Jubilee Line dead branch. No, I'm picking up on a part of the answer where I think you're wrong Mind you - I can't place that concourse at the top of escalator at either Liverpool St or Charing Cross underground stations — HorusKol.
I can't go check in these times, of course, but it looks like the 'back way' into LivSt tube, which goes only to the Central, from the entrance next to the overground train platform 1 rather than the main one over the concourse. I've never used the entrance he's seen to use in the movie, so it may be that. Unless it's a part of Charing Cross I've never seen, I recall that has a diagonal barrier structure leading in a straight line to the escalators. It's most definitely not the top of the same escalator we see in the next shot.
I've filmed at CC too often to be confused by that point; you have to be really careful of your angles when shooting to not see the grey wall at the top. For over one and a half centuries hundreds of millions of people have sacrificed years of their time, some have even sacrificed their lives.
Wherever you get great sacrifice on a mass scale, ghosts will walk and the London Underground is no different. Not to be confused with the city of Liverpool, Liverpool Street Station is one of the busiest stations in the city of London. Not recorded in the footfall count are the number of spooky spectres walking the platform but staff have witnessed just this. The station was built on the site of a mass grave called Bedlam Burial Ground. The locale was used as a final resting place for plague victims for years from to Archaeologists unearthed more than skeletons from — During the blitz in World War 2 a number of underground stations doubled as air raid shelters.
When the alarms sounded, signalling bombs were to be dropped onto the city, local Londoners would hurry to their closest London Underground Station for protection. Varying between fifteen metres to almost sixty metres underground it was thought the stations would be a safe place to be when the bombs started falling. Hereafter isn't necessarily about afterlife--it's about life after. That's the key because once we've seen the light, we want to know, was it "that" light, or enlightenment.
Interesting choice for one of our finest, most talented directors. While on the street market, a tsunami reaches the island and Marie drowns and dies. However, she is brought back to life and this afterlife experience changes her life.
Marie loses her job in television and decides to write a book about her hereafter experience and other scientific researches. Then she editors invite her to travel to the London Book Fair. In London, Marcus and Jason are twin brothers and their mother is heroin addicted. When she decides to treat her addiction, Jason goes to the pharmacy to buy medicines but he is bullied by a gang of urchins that want to rob his cellular. He flees, but a van hits and kills the boy while crossing the street.
Marcus is affected by the absence of his brother and seeks answers with charlatans. His foster parents bring him to the London Book Fair to meet their previous foster son Ricky. In San Francisco, the psychic George Lonegan Matt Damon has quitted using his ability to connect with the after life, against the will of his older brother, to work as hard hat.
When George is fired, he travels to London to visit the Charles Dickens' house and other touristic areas. Their lives are entwined in the London Book Fair, where George listens to the reading of Marie's book and Marcus recognizes him.
However, I am absolutely disappointed with this pointless and boring story. The subplot of the twin brothers in London is only reasonable, and is also disappointing, and Marcus' problem is easily resolved and without emotions. The subplot with the psychic George is quite ridiculous and his brother is annoying.
What George is doing in a class about cookery by an Italian chef if he is not able to cut a tomato? He should start wit hygienic principles, since he does not wash his hands before handling the food. Why is he attracted by Marie? My vote is five. I can see why some people had trouble with the movie. It's not only the story or theme the movie has, it's also the director at helm here. If you watch a Eastwood movie you will expect a lot.
So some were really disappointed of course as can see here, there were also quite a few who really loved the movie too. It also has a very strong beginning, which is very powerful, in complete contrast to the rest of the movie, which almost seems tame in comparison.
You can't fault the actors though. They are all really good and do their best with the roles they've been given or chosen for themselves. It is the expectation that might lead you to believe this is a letdown, but try to remember that this is not trying to give you answers. And it's also not out there to provoke too much.
And it stays true to itself, rhythm-wise :o. Not knowing what Clint Eastwood's beliefs are regarding life after death, I'll venture to say that the character of Marie Lelay Cecile De France probably comes close to providing an answer. She comes away from her near death experience convinced that there's something more beyond this mortal coil, and is willing to forsake wealth and career to explore the possibilities.
For Eastwood, this could have been a serious bump in the road for his directorial career, but the man continues to amaze. He's had a remarkably successful run of hits since 's "Mystic River" and you would think the law of averages would catch up at some point. But I think it's safe to say that an Eastwood film is as close to a sure thing as you can lay a bet on.
In general, I'm positively predisposed to the themes presented here because in fact, I've had occasion to be read by a gifted psychic. Except for the 'whoosh', this person's ability paralleled that of Matt Damon's character George Lonegan, with an uncanny ability to make connections to the other side.
I've always been keenly wary of quacks who claim these kinds of abilities, but there are those rare individuals who can come up with something well out of the range of first hand knowledge or mere coincidence.
The clincher for me was an event that was foretold, nothing major mind you, but something that would have defied any laws of probability, and I'll leave it at that. With a sure hand, director Eastwood brings his characters and their individual circumstances together with patience and inevitability. There is no hurried rush to judgment about George's 'power', while the tragic loss of Marcus' brother is handled skillfully without becoming maudlin.
One can sense the tortured loneliness of the young boy who loved and misses his brother so much, desperately seeking one last assurance that his sibling is safe and in a better place. However I'm sure the naysayers will find this picture to be trite and quite unbelievable, but that's OK. Like Marie Lelay's boyfriend, one can maintain a self assured denial of the supernatural because after all, someone should have been able to prove life after death by now.
But that just makes the mystery deeper and more wondrous, and not being able to come up with an answer makes the journey all that more interesting. From director Clint Eastwood Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Changeling , I saw a few clips and this film was discussed on Film with Jonathan Ross, and I wasn't really that enthusiastic after finding out more, but I still tried it. Basically this film focuses on three people are their approaches to mortality and death, with the film opening with the Indian Ocean Tsunami in Thailand and some of the characters affected by it.
George Lonegan Matt Damon is the American man living with a gift to see the dead in the afterlife when touching people and make a connection with them. Marcus twins Frankie and George McLaren is the London schoolboy who has recently lost his twin brother McLarens again and is placed in a foster home, and wants to speak to his brother in the hereafter.
After the London underground bombings are also seen, all three characters are brought together in some way or another in the end, each on the search for truth and resolution with the existence of the hereafter and what may or is there. Eastwood does an alright job of directing the story, Damon does do well as the retired psychic constantly asked to read for people, and it is good to see two real tragic events depicted in the film in a thoughtful way, but the story is rather dull and boring, so my predictions of what it would be like were correct, an uneven thriller drama.
It was nominated the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Loner psychic--able to make a heavenly connection to the deceased via a simple hand-grasp of the living but always afraid of the emotional consequences --eventually crosses paths with two people who may really need him: a pretty French reporter who recently survived a tsunami and a troubled British youngster desperate to communicate with his twin brother, who died in a car accident.
Oddly sentimental picture to come from director Clint Eastwood, with corny emotional lifts more in common with the oeuvre of Steven Spielberg who executive produced.
Matt Damon is solid and competent in the lead, however the supporting cast regularly shows him up. Beautiful production doesn't rely on visual effects to juice the plotting a blessing , yet the heart of the piece never quite comes through due to contrived scripting and a general air of familiarity.
In the end, it's another boy-meets-girl story Clint Eastwood film, a story about experiencing the 'hereafter. When I look back I have enjoyed all movies directed by Clint Eastwood. He uses a quiet style but unwavering in its telling of the story. The story here is of certain people surviving near-death experiences, and in the process being able to make contact with those who have died. The point that it is less of a 'gift', more of a 'curse' in how it affects their lives, but they are able to help people through it.
She and her boyfriend are on an island vacation when a Tsunami hits, she drowns, is not able to be revived for a short time, during which she 'sees' a glimpse of the hereafter. Alive and well and back home, and on the job, she is not her old self so is encouraged to take some time off to write a political book. Instead she begins to research and write "Hereafter.
We find that George had a near-death experience when he was but a boy, and for a time he actually worked as a psychic, but is trying to distance himself for it, because of the anguish it sometimes causes.
Bryce Dallas Howard has a minor role, but an important one, as the new girl in town, taking a cooking class to meet people and she becomes friends with George. But as she presses him to tell her something about her past, the message opens an old wound that breaks them apart. All in all a very good movie, for the way it explores the subject and how it shows the effects on those touched by it.
Matters not whether you believe in the subject, it is just a movie, and one worth seeing. Their hands touch, he sees that she was dead underwater during the Tsunami and immediately knew she would understand him.
As the movie ends we sense they will build on their common bond, they understand each other in a way that ordinary people can't. I'm a big fan of Clint Eastwood's directing, but every once in a while, he misses. Having done a lot of research on this phenomenon and having an interest in it, I looked forward to seeing this film. Hereafter focuses on three people: a French newscaster who is caught in a tsunami and has a near death experience; a young boy whose twin brother dies; and a psychic who believes his ability is a curse, not a gift, and therefore resists it.
Now, I believe we have lost the art of the story buildup -- nowadays a story has to get to the point in the first five minutes of the movie. Eastwood builds to the ultimate interconnection of these three people but the build takes until almost the end of the film. And getting to the end of the film is a slow journey. In spite of this, I found the ending sweet, and the beginning very powerful, showing a tsunami and its effects.
Cecile de France is very good and so interesting looking; however, a near death experience is life-changing. I'm not sure we saw the effects of that experience on the Cecile de France character. This film could have been much more powerful; I thought it lost its way as it was getting to the point of the movie. Quinoa 8 November Clint Eastwood is a professional, we know that so well by now.
And we also know looking at his films from the past, oh, twenty years or so, more or less he does have an interest in the stakes of life and death and, now, what comes after, or the questions that come after. Like another prolific 'old-timer' working now, Woody Allen, Clint Eastwood has a lot of his mind about it - or, at least his writer does, Peter Morgan. But what comes out in Hereafter is a polished but mostly clumsily handled narrative that has a "Plot A", "Plot B" and "Plot C" where the first one would have been just fine on its own.
Morgan wants to have that kind of multi-faceted look at the world like with Babel, only without giving enough depth or complexity to the B and C plots Actually, that may not be totally fair. They do get some depth. It's just not too original or meaningful for me. It's not that I can pinpoint one thing that is flawed with the film.
It's more like a mood or a tone.
0コメント