Review: HEREAFTER

Clint Eastwood’s HEREAFTER starts big. It opens with a large scale tsunami sequence that’s shot with great spectacle and energy. The camera stays at street level as the waves come rushing closer, then batter and devour a main character. This opening certainly grabs the audience’s attention and makes them sit up straight wanting more. Unfortunately, they’ll be kept waiting as this movie quickly turns contemplative, then new-agey, then ultimately inert. Eastwood has always been an introspective, mature director and his meditative take on life after death is at odds with this grand opening and audiences probably won’t help being felt a bit let down by the slow, talky drama that follows. Eastwood is a strong storyteller and though HEREAFTER has its strengths, it’s a misfire by his standards and one film that may have trouble connecting with mainstream audiences.

Like the similar BABEL, HEREAFTER is three seemingly unrelated stories about three characters in three different parts of the world. Each has been touched by death in different ways, and they will eventually come together during the film’s inevitable but unfulfilling conclusion. The aforementioned tsunami happens while popular French TV reporter Marie LeLay (Cecile de France), is on a vacation with her boyfriend (Thierry Neuvic). The water pounds her and she’s left for dead, but she somehow survives and returns to Paris where she has trouble coping with the trauma until it’s suggested she write a book about her near-death experience. The story then shifts to San Francisco, where construction worker George Lonegan (Matt Damon), struggles with an extra-sensory gift (he calls it a curse); he can communicate with the dead. His older brother (Jay Mohr) wants him to cash in and conduct psychic readings while acting as his business manager. George initially resists the plan, but soon finds himself unemployed and has second thoughts. He signs up for a cooking class where he meets the beautiful Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) but finds his powers interfering with his ability to sustain a normal relationship. The third story concerns a pair of 12-year old twin boys in London, (Frankie and George McLaren) who depend on each other since their mother’s a heroin addict who can barely stay awake. When one of the brothers is killed by a truck, Marcus, the one left behind, desperately seeks psychic help to retain the fraternal bond. The fates of Marie, George, and Marcus are clearly destined to converge.

The tenuous text of the film is held together by the skill of its editing and cinematography and Eastwood does a professional job of weaving these three tales together but HEREAFTER is not the cathartic, thought-provoking, emotionally solid movie I was expecting. The plot may sound complex, but in reality there’s simply not a whole lot going on in HEREAFTER, a half-baked slice of paranormal psychobabble unlikely to satisfy anyone. It’s a handsome film but suffers from significant pacing problems- the 129 minute running time starts to drag as we jump from story to story. It lacks big drama and emotions and Eastwood’s vision of the afterlife is a disappointing cliche; whenever George makes a psychic connection, there’s a loud thump and we quick-cut to white lights surrounding a group of shimmering, ghostly figures like something from a TV show. Eastwood is still among the best American directors working today and HEREFATER has some standout moments: a tense scene with Marcus chasing his hat through the London tube has a big payoff and the scenes where George is confronted by those desperate to contact deceased family members have some real drama. Eastwood scores the fim with his minimalistic acoustic guitar which fits nicely. The acting is mostly low-key. Damon is a dependable actor who smartly underplays George, a man haunted by the deaths and afterlives of strangers. Miss de France is a fresh face and handles her challenging part with class and depth. Only Bryce Howard, all giggles and twitches, seems wrong.

HEREAFTER is about life after death but makes no great statement about its main theme. It’s more about quasi-spiritual feelings, about how people deal to their own powers and faith. Despite my gripes, it’s not a bad film and is infinitely more watchable than most films coming out of Hollywood, but it meanders, raising questions without offering answers (why the heck is George suddenly able to see into the future at the very end?) and falls below the expectations raised by this great director and cast. Perhaps it should have ended with that tsunami.

2 ½ of 5 Stars