I struggled quite a bit before scoring this film from one of the most accomplished directors alive, but Eastwood seriously missed here. The three parellel stories of a tsunami survivor, a psychic, and the twin brother of a recently died child make a fabricated connection at the end of a 2-hour long wait, that just doesn't fly. After Invictus and this, apparently Eastwood is finding some true acting skills in Damon, so I'll look forward to another of their collaborations; but as in the case of Changeling, I kept scratching my head at why Eastwood even made this.
Mo says:
'I kept scratching my head at why Eastwood even made this'
ReplyDeleteWell then you're really pretty clueless. The point is to assert the value of life and human connection through a refection on death and the possibility of an afterlife. I would have thought all that was self-evident from the film in all sorts of ways not least from the wonderfully romantic ending. Go on now, be honest, did having to read subtitles upset you?
And you didn't understand Invictus or Changeling either. Dear, oh dear!
Fred,
ReplyDeleteIt's called art. Subjective. Worked for you; didn't work for me.
To me It was good and i guess absolutely worth to seeing.Looking to afterlife based on some evidences in the books of such experiences whose have been reported by a number of people and maybe it' true , was cool. Especially when you knew this looking has been done by a powerful director and screenplaywriter (peter morgan). The first scene of Tsunami was incredible and breathtaking and directing 3 parallel stories with simillar theme and reaching to a common spot which shows nothing in the world is coincidence and some happings are such meaningful events and connected to each other by unseen strings and one day it will reveal and so on is an old and believable concept and i'm glad Eastwood worked on it and showed iterest to metaphysic world. Indeed through the movie i was thinking why you didn't like the movie but after reading others note It seems there is contraversia about movie among grand critics too ,Roger Ebert loved that but Peter Travers and Leonard Martine were so so...then i can't agree anymore : It's an Art , worked for some but didn't for others .
ReplyDeleteThe element that bothered me, was that I kept waiting to see how these three stories interconnect, and this wait required enduring quite long (and to some extent unnecessary) sequences, to the point that I found myself fast forwarding some scenes. And when the wait was finally over, the payoff was not satisfying at all.
ReplyDeleteThere's no question in the power of the tsunami sequence, but again, that lead to some very cliche scenes showing the "light at the end of the tunnel"; vague figures silhouetted by a bright background light, as a representation of life after death. I believe if we were never shown any of the director's imagination of what life after death looks like, it would have been much more artistic; i.e., leave it up to the viewer's imagination.
I enjoyed this movie very much also. Maybe it was because I was considering each of three storylines by their own merits, rather than investing too much in how they will tie in to each other at the end.
ReplyDeleteStrangely, I was reading an article on Ebert's blog, on how this is Eastwood's best movie ever:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2012/03/hereafter.html
Apparently like the movie "Kick-Ass", this is becoming another movie that everybody enjoyed except me. Maybe because I'm expecting Eastwood to become better and better with each movie.
BTW, as opposed to his buddy Ben Affleck, I'm impressed at how much more of an accomplished actor Matt Damon has become since their "Good Will Hunting" and "Dogma" days together.