Upon its release, Eastwood's film struggled in theaters. Critics were mixed about the movie, and it never caught on with audiences. It's easy to see why. In a lot of ways, it is the completely atypical Eastwood movie, unlike any of his other flicks as a director (more on that later). It also deals with one of the more polarizing issues when it comes to audiences and people in general, faith, religion, death and the afterlife. Just about everyone has their personal opinions on the subject, and many don't want to be preached at about someone else's beliefs. Fair enough I guess. It's a shame because the movie is typical Eastwood, well-made, well-written, and just a good movie overall.
On vacation in Asia with her boyfriend, French TV journalist Marie Lelay (Cecile De France) barely survives a near-death experience when an immense tsunami strikes the coastal town she's staying in. Swept away by the wall of water, Marie has visions, maybe hallucinations, of another place, maybe out of this world which she struggles to deal with as she returns to her normal life. In London, 12-year old Marcus (played by twins Frankie and George McClaren) is dealing with the death of his twin brother as his mother deals with a substance abuse problem. All Marcus wants is some sort of answer. Is his brother all right wherever he went? And where do the dead do? In San Francisco, factory worker George Lonegan (Matt Damon) is trying to move on with his life. From an early age, George has been able to communicate with the dead, but looking at the ability as a curse, he's trying to put it all behind him and live a normal life. As these three people's lives develop and change (for the better and worse), their paths seem destined to cross in some way. How? Who really knows?
Many of the reviews I read about Hereafter pointed out that this was such a departure for Clint Eastwood as a director. His films always had a very gritty, hard-edged feel that showed people struggling through some past trauma, past incidents. Think of Mystic River, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby, even Unforgiven and The Bridges of Madison County. They were all about the people above all else. That's why I don't understand the reviews written about Hereafter. Is it a departure for Eastwood? Yes, of course it is because he is working on a different level, more faith-based, more personal beliefs. But at its heart, this movie is about the small people in a big world looking for some sort of happiness, some sort of answers to a question or a problem facing them. What I'm trying to say is that yes, this movie is different, but not bad different. It's Eastwood playing with what he knows but expanding on it out of his comfort zone.
Where I'm guessing this movie lost some people is at its most basic level, the conversation and dependency on the idea of an other world after death. That's an individual thing that will hit each person differently when talking about this movie. If you don't believe in some version of a god, some place your soul goes after your death, you're probably going to struggle getting through this movie. Not a judgment there, just an observation, I struggle with those questions myself. At a certain point, you just have to go along with it all. Damon's Lonegan actually does communicate with the dead. This isn't left up for interpretation by Eastwood and the script. George does it. Either you can accept this or you can't as a movie viewer. The message boards at the IMDB are riddled with arguments -- not discussions -- about religions, god, life after death. It's got to be one of the easiest ways to start an argument (mention any of those), and it is then easy to see why a movie like this can be so dividing. What's disappointing is I don't think Eastwood intended to make a "message" movie. This is a movie about the people, not the idea.
The story follows in the vein of Crash where character interactions and storylines are inevitable. For me, Damon's story is the best, a middle-aged man truly struggling through an ability given him. He's lonely and just wants to be happy in one form or another. Through physical contact he can communicate with the dead so relationships are nearly impossible. He has a chance with Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard, great supporting part), a woman he meets at a cooking class he's enrolled in. You're rooting for George to just be happy, and Damon -- maybe Eastwood's new favorite actor -- does a fine job with the character. The other two main characters, Marie and Marcus, deliver equally impressive performances, but I didn't love them as much as Damon's. De France especially turns in an amazing performance, and she's one of the more classically beautiful actresses I've ever seen. It all plays into this innocence, this vulnerability to her character trying to right her life.
One complaint I can understand is the somewhat slow pacing in this 129-minute movie. Eastwood is in no rush to move the story along, and that's fine because we do get to know the three different characters. He provides these heartbreakingly real moments that will make you forget the slower moments. George makes a connection with Howard's Melanie only to see his "ability" ruin the possibility of any future. Marcus narrowly avoids being killed himself with some possible divine intervention. Marie finds an outlet for the questions she has. The best though is George's late scene with Marcus, genuine and real no matter how you look at it. The ending could have been pegged sappy, but I'll say instead that it's tone and theme appropriate. An underrated work from one of my favorites, Clint Eastwood.
Hereafter <---trailer (2010): *** 1/2 /****
No comments:
Post a Comment