Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter

By Gregon

I’m very interested in the upcoming movie Hereafter, which touches on a few of my favourite research areas – namely, near-death experiences (NDEs) and mediumship. Plus, it’s directed by the legendary Clint Eastwood! Here’s the trailer:

And the blurb:

Hereafter tells the story of three people who are touched by death in different ways. George (Matt Damon) is a blue-collar American who has a special connection to the afterlife. On the other side of the world, Marie (Cecile De France), a French journalist, has a near-death experience that shakes her reality. And when Marcus, a London schoolboy, loses the person closest to him, he desperately needs answers. Each on a path in search of the truth, their lives will intersect, forever changed by what they believe might – or must – exist in the hereafter.

Wonder if Eastwood’s interest in this script is an outgrowth of where he’s at in life (having turned 80 this year), although in this recent interview he said he didn’t have a theory as to what might (or might not) lie beyond the veil of death.

Hereafter is released on October 22nd in the United States.

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

7 Comments

  1. Hereafter – Must See
    There aren’t many must see movies that come out these days – blockbusters sure, but mostly just fluff. Clint Eastwood makes well paced intelligent movies – not perfect by any means, but they’re thoughtful, not slapped together like a Transformers. For Clint to venture into the subject matter of Hereafter, one has to presume he did his homework so as not to embarrass himself – especially at this stage of his career. Therefore this movie rises above a genre peice to the status of must see in my opinion. Looking forward to it – hope I’m not disappointed.

      1. Hollywood’s Treatment of Material
        It is confounding why Hollywood takes material that is genuinely interesting like UFO phenomenah or Near Death Experience and produces such awful results predominantly. Their excuse presumably is they are trying to create a commercial success requiring sacrifices/compromises to the accepted paradigms of the phenomenah, and yet the result is it simply alienates their core audience while lacking interest to the mainstream. And special effects are a poor substitute for story. Treating any subject with genuine respect, good research, and well constructed story elevates it to a level that the public more often then not gravitates to and ultimately results in the sought after success. I can only hope Hollywood smartens up and puts quality before quanitity – however unlikely that occurring may be…

        1. I hate it when Hollywood put
          I hate it when Hollywood put their noses in the production. They’re obsessed with commercial success and don’t give a damn about the art in itself. Another thoughtful movie in later years is The Butterfly Effect. When I bought it on DVD a few years back I had only read about it but never seen it. It so happened that the edition had both the director’s cut and the theatrical version. I just happened to watch the director’s cut first. Although the other version wasn’t all that bad I still prefer the director’s cut. But I think the director was right. I trusted his vision of the story. The producers was probably afraid that an un-happy ending would scare the audience away. Like they are stuck in the 30’s with weeping women with napkins crying their eyes out. Still I believe the directors version was way much more logical story-wise. That is why it works so much better. Just like most sci-fi and horror buffs I like good special fx and good CGI but it’s not everything. Unfortunately Hollywood today is too much about big explosions and CGI creatures and too little about thoughtful stories like Hereafter and The Butterfly Effect.

  2. Hereafter: a personal review.
    This movie has finally become available on DVD so I rented it from LoveFilm (our equivalent of NetFlix, I think).

    I have only just watched the final titles scroll up the screen so I didn’t want to wait until the morning-after cynicism sets in. In short – I thought it was an excellent film: a well conceived story, sympathetic characters and most of all, balanced and brave. For Eastwood to take on such a project he was taking the same risk as the French lady in the film – fraught with the same threats to his credibility. A lesser personality might have compromised in favour of Hollywood schmaltz or sceptical caveat but Eastwood pitched it just right.

    Whether the director or the actors actually believed in what they were producing on screen for us doesn’t really matter. The message rang true and honest. Nice to see the name of Steven Spielberg as an executive producer – it would be interesting to see what he might do with a Close Encounters of the Spiritual Kind.

    Dave.

    PS – I just had a peek at Rotten Tomatoes and the reviewers are almost split down the middle at 46%. I have to say that I’m somewhat surprised the percentage was that high considering what a cynical bunch movie reviewers tend to be. I spotted the word “honest” a few times which also reflects my overall impression.

    1. I was just happy to see it
      I was just happy to see it get out there. An Eastwood film is going to have some automatic draw, so at least a sizeable number of people may have awakened to the reality of ongoing post death life. I have never forgotten that Eastwood made “Unforgiven.” Since then I will always watch his films good or bad.

    2. They’re here
      [quote=kamarling]Nice to see the name of Steven Spielberg as an executive producer – it would be interesting to see what he might do with a Close Encounters of the Spiritual Kind.[/quote]

      http://youtu.be/X9aENGodu5A

      Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 😛

      As for Hereafter, I think it split audiences because it’s very agnostic — it doesn’t give a yay or nay answer. Eastwood said he doesn’t know what to think about the afterlife himself, and it reflects in his film. People want answers, they want a film to take sides. Which is a shame — because a film like Hereafter is meant to make you think and go seek the answers for yourself. Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life polarised audiences in much the same way — even though Malick used a grail-full of alchemical symbolism in his film and made it clear what he thinks about the issue, most audiences didn’t want to think about it. People don’t want to think for themselves after a film — they want a definitive answer delivered on a silver platter.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal