Looks good.

Not reallly. I had high hopes, but was left very disappointed by the script. It started off well and had three different characters with their own story and seemed to be slowly building up to a strong climax then all of a sudden I turned a page and it was finished. Nothing really resolved, no questions answered, no character really changed (Maybe one, the little boy I guess but not satisfactory).

I can see why Eastwood was drawn to it, it is right up his street. But I was expecting much more.

They have billed it as a supernatural thriller, bonus money to the marketing dept I think because there was nothing supernatural and nothing thrilling about it. Just three people: one who has lost a brother, one who had a near death experience and one who speaks to dead people and is 100% a character led drama.

Quoted from Murphy They have billed it as a supernatural thriller, bonus money to the marketing dept I think because there was nothing supernatural and nothing thrilling about it.

My feelings exactly.

Still looks good.

$50m is a lot to spend on what is essentially nothing more than an indie, character led flick.

Only $22m so far box office after two weeks. Granted it has not opened overseas yet but it does not look like a great success for Clint here. Jackass 3D had less than half its budget and has given it a right spanking at the box office.

Seems an odd decision to release it at Halloween when there are two huge franchise horrors opening the same week. It is amazing that they would do that really, it can't have helped its chances.

I sometimes think I will never understand this business.

I was a little surprised to see the release date bumped from Christmas to Halloween.
I know Eastwood tends to finish early and under budget.
I feel like they pulled it out of an "Oscar" boxoffice slot for a reason.
I read an interview with the screenwriter, he said they shot his first draft.
Little to no revisions were made and the shooting schedule was tight.
Perhaps these circumstances are reflected by the tepid public response.

E.D.

Listening to The Shining commentary as I write this. Eastwood was previously mentioned as an example opposite Kubrick. Apparently, he shoots two or three takes and moves on. That's his style and seems to go back someways. Seems like Hereafter is no exception.