Roger Ebert gave the movie Matt Damon and Civet Eastwood a perfect result

In the movie “Clint Eastwood 2010” HEREFTER “, Matt Damon, George Longan, a gentle colleague, is comfortable with the audio books of actor Derek Jacobi reads the works of Charles Dickens. George is also psychological and has the ability to communicate with the dead – not in any way directly but through mysterious impressions and visions. Thus, it is sometimes used by the bereaved to contact the deceased loved ones. George can see shades of what he believes is the other side, but he is also a sensitive person who understands the place full of emotion in which his clients may be. In fact, Eastwood presents George’s psychological capabilities as being based and perhaps not even real. It is imagined that George is only able to take advantage of what his customers need to hear him to close their grief.

The “afterlife” is a web -like plot that appears to include many different themes. George develops a prosperous relationship with a beautiful cooking student named Melanie (Price Dallas Howard). On the other side of the world, a French news reader named Mary (Cécile De France) survive from Tsunami and soon becomes convinced that the afterlife life is real. Meanwhile, in London, a couple of identical twins (Frankie and George McLaren) is struggling to avoid putting them in a nursing care after their mother was revealed to be a drug addict. Unfortunately, a car accident is unexpectedly killing one of the twins.

All of these characters have different relationships to death and the hereafter, and Eastwood gently explores these relationships. In the end, of course, indicators of plot interconnection overlap.

Most critics were indifferent to the “hereafter” (rarely classified between The best films directed by Eastwood) The film only carries a 48 % approval classification Spoiled tomatoes According to 233 reviews. It seems that the general complaint is that Eastwood was so nice that the movie drama rarely appeared as convincing. It was more than a gentle contemplation of excitement.

However, there was a critic noticing poetry otherwise.

Roger Ebert Review “The Hereafter” He immediately puts the reason for his admiration for him – mainly, because he does not make any specific data about the presence of the afterlife. Ebert noticed that “the hereafter” was not a psychological film about the supernatural powers, but there is a thesis about the reason for a need, as a type, to believe in the afterlife. He stated that he did not believe in psychological forces and may not have been Eastwood either, but the film was an incredible person in his thinking in the hereafter. “This is a movie,” Books, “for smart people who are naturally curious about what is happening when shutters are closed.”

Ebert wrote that seeing the prevailing Hollywood movie, which is not related to dry and artificial intrigues in his story, but focuses on her characters, moods and needs for emotional survival. He continued, “These characters are not heading towards solving the plot.” There is no “solution” for their stories. There are different degrees of consolation, or not. They do not pierce dialogue. They lack certainty to impose themselves. George, in particular, is reserved and sad, because his strength has become a burden on him. Ebert concluded his review of his remarkable central topic for the film, and he wrote that it was not about death but love. “Eastwood) embodies how love makes us love Need In order for there to be a hereafter. It is a man in peace. He has nothing to prove except to care for life. “

As always, Ebelt was excellent in clarifying the mood of the film. It is, unlike many of his computers, dug the emotional meaning of the “Hereafter”.

I love Ebert “The Hereafter” enough to mention it List of the end of the year One of the best films for the year 2010. It was not classified in the first ten places, but it required this in an honorary signal section. This list also included films such as “Greenberg” from Noah Baumbach, “Gareth Edwards” and “John Cameron Mitchell” “Hole” and Olivier Assayas’ Carlos. These are some heavy hunger, and Eastwood is more impressive in their comparison.

In his actual list, Ebert announced David Venn publishes the story “Social Network” To be the best movie this year, which was a common option for number 1 in 2010 (it is understood). Ebert was also fond of “King’s speech”, “Black Swan”, Tilda Swinton Action Showcase “I am LOVE”, “Ozrk Noir”, the dark “winter” and ” “Inception”. It was a mixed bag for a year, but in 2010 he had some excellent offers.

Ebert, the product of Catholic schools, did not have a lot of faith in God or the afterlife, topics that were written about it very frankly. In 2012, he formulated an article called “How do I believe in God,” Explain the current situation of his faith (or his absence). He walked during his journey of faith through the conversations he had with nuns and the strict Catholic concepts of sin, and the thought of infinite concepts throughout the way. He also saw the existence of God as a little possibility, and became more comfortable with the human pursuit to find meaning. “No, I’m not Buddhist,” he wrote. “I am not a believer, not an atheist, not an atheist. I am still awake at night, ask.”how?’ I am more satisfied with the question than I will be with an answer. “

In these words, we can see why the “hereafter” echoed with Ebert. It is more satisfied with the question more than the answer.