Visitors Review

Christopher Smith (2012-05-25 19:01)

In the film's far-reaching goals, "Hereafter" fails to connect its meticulous plotting together, leaving the second hour unnecessarily tedious and overtly detached from the audience.

(2012-05-25 09:53)

Clint can get away with this

I am normally not interested in stories about spirits and the departed, nor can I find the conviction to attach importance to the reports that we receive sometimes about 'near death' experiences, which are often claimed to have been post-death experiences, by people who came back to life. I gave this film a chance, because it is 'made' by Eastwood and it stars Matt Damon. That, I thought, would at least guarantee that it is not outright stupid. It isn't. Actually, once you start with the beginning and the South East Asian tsunami pulls you in, and the heartbreaking story of the London twin boys with their addict single mother, it is hard to walk out, though Damon's part (the psychic)tries hard to demotivate me. We have three threads in Paris, London, and San Francisco leading to a unified ending via a London book fair. Whatever the realities behind the ghost world, Clint tells the story well. The hereafter might very well be a genuine concern of his, as it probably is for many of us. I can't quite manage to be convinced that the so-called near-death experience is what it is claimed to be.

(2012-05-24 20:14)

Boring movie

I reviewed this movie when it came out on dvd to review. If it weren't that I had to watch this to do my review I would have shut it off before the first 20 minutes. It was very boring and it felt way longer than it should have been. Don't waste your money on this horrible movie

mick987g (2012-05-24 08:07)

Not an Oscar Winner

Just got back from watching this movie. The opening scene was great andI thought that the movie would move faster than it did. I keptwondering when and where Mr. Eastwood would tie the three storiestogether.It seemed to drag on and on, at one point I almost went to sleep. Ifound myself looking at my watch at least four times during the movie.If I look at my watch more than three times it means it doesn't keep meengaged.I kept saying to myself "Come on Clint tie it together. I knew at somepoint the three characters would come together but didn't realize thatthe last fifteen minutes was it would.One good thing about the movie was showing the fakes physics who willtake people's money to speak to the dear departed.Hey if Houdini could not contact after he was gone , what makes youthink anyone else can do it! Myself I don't see this movie being in thetheaters very long and will be on video by the first of 2011. Will itget an Oscar nod? I doubt it very much. Will it make back the moneyspent on it? Nope! Save your money and wait till it comes on cable, atleast you will have commercials to give you a break!

Rex Reed (2012-05-23 17:07)

Shifting gears to a softer, gauzier mood, Clint Eastwood's Hereafter finds the masterful icon charting new terrain.

(2012-05-23 04:39)

Languid as ****

I presume the pacing of this film is supposed to reflect the afterlife. I hope not, I dont want to spend eternity with that 'Sunday-afternoon-after-a-weekend-doing-nothing' feeling. Half the problem is that it cant seem to decide whether to be an out and out, if understated, supernatural thriller, or an exploration of the known science of near death experiences. If the latter, Matt Damon's character is as jarring as he is irritating. He is the 'one in 10 billion' or whatever it might be, who has a genuine window into the beyond, except that he won't use the ability, 'I dont want it, it's ruined my life, boo-hoo, poor me' etc. If anyone with his ability does exist, he would single handedly revolutionise our science, stun skeptics at CSICOP and win James Randi's $1,000,000 challenge for scientific proof of the paranormal. Therefore we can probably take it that this aspect is not based on fact. The French newsreader character was far more interesting, and should really have had the film to herself. She was on a journey of discovery that does seem rooted in genuine experience, and could have been used to open up discussion of the scientific study of near death experiences. The brief scene in the German hospice was a particular lost opportunity. The Dr there was worthy of a wider role herself. All in all, and interesting and worthy exploration of a field that must fascinate all of us. I'm not entirely sure whether it is appropriate to weave real world disasters that touched the lives of hundreds of thousands into a fictional thesis on the 'Hereafter', but it's great that Clint chose to explore this theme. I'd have done it differently, but I doubt any major studio would give me the time and money... (if I'm wrong, let me know)

Danusha Goska (2012-05-22 17:14)

Frustrating How Bad It Is

It's frustrating how bad "Hereafter" is. The topic, life after death,is fascinating. Almost all the actors are top notch in every scene.Cecile de France and Thierry Neuvic are both especially good, bothgorgeous and moving in their roles. Clint Eastwood's directionexemplifies seamless, slick, pro, Hollywood style. The problem is thescript. It's idiotic, manipulative, and shallow. Worst of all, itsemptiness and ineptitude often produces sheer boredom. You will learnmore about death watching a cable TV afternoon show on professionalpsychics, or having a long talk with a friend about paranormalphenomena, or reading online accounts of near death encounters. When amovie can't get any deeper than these readily available alternatives,it truly is wasting your money and your time.There are a couple of really great scenes in "Hereafter." The bestscene is the very first one; maybe you can check into a theater showingthe film just to catch it. The opening scene depicts a couple ofgorgeous French tourists, Marie and Didier (Cecile de France andThierry Neuvic) lounging in their hotel bedroom in Southeast Asia.Marie remembers that they must purchase presents for his kids. Sheventures to a market; he stays in bed. And the 2004 Tsunami hits. Thespecial effects here are one hundred percent convincing – it's as ifyou are viewing actual film footage of the tsunami rising from theocean and flooding the beach, hotels, the streetside markets whereMarie shops. Utility poles snap and fall, one after the other, like somany twigs. Cars are taken up and become waterborne projectiles,mercilessly hitting and drowning humans. Marie is shown, bruised andbattered, falling through water, detritus, past other bodies. What's soremarkable about this scene is that it emphasizes the human tragedy ofthe tsunami, rather than the ooo-aaa of watching a virtuoso specialeffects scene.But there are too many other scenes that are completely shallow, silly,and manipulative. A character is introduced, built-up, and killed offin record time. Even as this character makes his appearance, and isshown, with brisk efficiency, to be someone you could love, you realizethat this character has no place in the plot, no place in the movie,except as someone the movie is teaching you to like so he can be killedoff and used to serve the film's theme of life after death. You get itthat the film is doing nothing in this character's scenes but milkingyour tears. The movie really lost me with these scenes, and those whohave seen the movie know exactly which character I'm talking about.Another character is introduced only to make the situation of retiredpsychic George Lonegan (Matt Damon) more pathetic. As soon as thischaracter appears on screen, you know exactly why she's there, how andwhy she will let George down, and so you can't become emotionallyinvolved in any scene she's in.Damon is never believable as George the psychic. George is written as acompletely passive, socially retarded loser who doesn't know how to say"No" or how to make a living. Damon is most convincing as a cockycharacter. Again and again George attempts, and fails, to say "No" topeople, and Damon can't make these scenes believable or poignant ormake them make any sense at all. In their repetitiveness, they becomefrustrating, and ultimately laughable. In addition to being a passivepushover, George isn't very nice. He's shown behaving very badly towarda child and any sympathy the audience might have had for him is lost.Even the lighting is handled manipulatively. When George is inapartments with several available lamps, he lights only the lamps inadjacent rooms, and conducts his psychic readings half in darkness. Noreason is giving for this, except that we all know that darkness ismore spooky.There's a completely unbelievable scene where a small child visitsseveral psychics in London in one day. I know adults who couldn'thandle the logistics of such a field trip: tracking psychics down,locating and traveling to one venue after another, paying admissionfees, reserving seats … and a small child does this? Not. Took me rightout of the movie.The ending of this movie is awkward and completely unbelievable andutterly absent any emotional truth. It seemed an attempt by thescreenwriter to put a big, fat bow on the empty mess that preceded it.Two relatively minor complaints: most of the film follows threecompletely disconnected story lines in three different countries, andthere is no good reason for this. All three story lines could haveeasily taken place in one country, and the viewer would be spared theannoyance of having to read subtitles. When actors as good looking asde France and Neuvic are on screen, you don't want to miss a shot.There are a few blatantly anti-Christian scenes that are just laughablein their absurdity. There is a Christian conspiracy to keep knowledgeof the afterlife publicly known? Christians are preventing scientistsfrom researching this topic? Yeah, sure, if you think throwing thatinto your movie will sell tickets or add depth. Good luck with that.

(2012-05-22 09:07)

When Hollywood Tries to Go Deep

This film embraces near-death experiences and the notion of a Non-Judgment Day as fact. Obviously, an aging Clint Eastwood, sitting atop the world amidst his fame, accolades and wealth is beginning to grapple with what may come, if anything, after his own demise, when it uncertain he will fare as well as he has in his present life. Through this film Eastwood attempts to move the viewer toward accepting the view that "all" (asserted by Cécile De France's character); all of us, no matter what we have done, end up in a light-infused netherworld where we float lighter than air (but of course there is no "air" there, strictly speaking). I have no control over what Eastwood believes about an afterlife, and as a Christian I would not want to control it, but outrageously, Eastwood throws Christianity under the bus to create conflict in this film; for where there is no conflict, there is no story, no story - no profit, no Academy Awards. Cécile De France's character (a French journalist/media star) has a near death experience; it transforms her life and the conflict arises when her desire to publish, in book form, her experience is opposed by reactionary forces including the "religious lobby". Now if you are so naive as to believe that in America, let alone France, there exists a "religious lobby" that could pressure a publishing house to not publish someone's views on an afterlife, then I suggest you go grow up. Simply go to the Amazon.com advanced search engine and type in "near death" for "All Categories", and you'll find that the "religious lobby" has not been very successful from stopping anybody from publishing anything they like about life, or absence of life, after death. Apparently what Eastwood is trying to convey is the likely truth that people who try to convince others about an afterlife, or what it is like, based on alleged near death experiences may meet with skepticism from many people, including from "religious" people, including Christians, like me. So apparently, if I as a Christian tend to dismiss the significance of near death experiences, than I am bigoted and closed-minded (so much for freedom of religion). I could point out there where many reliable witnesses to Christ's resurrection, but I don't go around bashing persons who remain skeptical. The other big problem I have with this film is that lack of depth brought to the suggestion of everyone, without exception, enjoying this blissful afterlife. In this film a child molester is depicted as doing just fine in his afterlife, although he begs forgiveness from his still-living daughter for molesting her. Did any Hollywood deep-thinker ever consider the contradiction between the notions of sending a child molester, whether repentant or not, to this delightful light-infused netherworld, but this same person IS seeking forgiveness from his daughter? Which is it? Do people need forgiveness or not? If we "all" go to a pleasant netherworld, why seek forgiveness? We can rub shoulders with Mother Theresa and Pol Pot in a great big happy clam bake; no judgment, just happy times.

Emanuel Levy (2012-05-21 19:33)

A point of departure for Eastwood, Hollywood's most versatile and prolific director today, Hereafter suffers from narrative flaws (compromised ending), but it offers quite an intriguing meditation about fate and mortality, life and death.

residentevil182 (2012-05-21 05:43)

Tearjerker movie, and maybe a masterpiece without Matt Damon

I went into the theaters with a lot of expectations, after all ClintEastwood always moves me, his movies are all able to touch my soul, butthat doesn't mean every single thing on it must be good. Hereafter is awonderful movie; It has an astonishing story telling, the way it linksthree stories in just one movie is plain awesome, the cast is moving,but here is where my only complain comes: Matt Damon wasn't preparedfor the role. He read the lines good, his expressions were right, buthis heart was not in it. I was watching him besides Frankie McLaren (Ohmy god, that kid... I cried with his scenes) and Céclie De France and Iknew he wasn't standing as high and them. The characters of Marcus andMarie Lelay were just strong, well developed, and they moved me, theymade my cry like I almost never do. The character of George had a lotof potential, but Damon's acting wasn't convincing; his characteralways keeps distant, he is broken inside because he never could have anormal life, but where's the sorrow in his eyes? Where's the pain? Theburden? All I could see were forced actions like his head resting onhis hands, but there has to be more, we need to see that he reallysuffer because of it, and it's not just in the movements and theattitude, it's also on his eyes. I really pictured the whole movie witha George played by Joshua Jackson, a man who is able to play all thosethings and make you think he is under the character skin, Matt doesn't.Now here come the spoilers:-Story: 10/10. We are all concerned about death, and there is always aline we draw between life and death, we all have our beliefs and thismovie is nothing, but Eastwood's way to see the after life, and heintroduces us it by this wonderful storytelling. Three charactersdeeply broken by different circumstances, they can't find happiness onlife, and they need each other in order to leave things behind, andit's moving the way the find each other. Jason's death made me cry, butit also helped Marcus to become more independent, which is what Jasonalways wanted. Marie finally realized what she was meant to do, sherealized that it didn't matter if she had to leave the comfort of herjob and boyfriend behind; she had to follow what she saw. George's lifeis outright sad and his development is interesting, we want to engagewith this character and get to know him better, maybe even protectinghim a little bit. The three stories and their link were smartly done.-Cast: 9/10. Frankie McLaren and Cécile De France (Marcus/Jason andMarie Lelay) deserved an Oscar nomination and award for their role.They kept me angst, they made me feel their whole feelings, I couldreally feel empathy for them, so why 9/10? As said before this rolebelonged to Joshua Jackson and not to Matt Damon, who wasn't bad atall, but he wasn't convincing, he didn't really believe he was George,something Jackson would have got right, I'm sure.-Special Effects and Sound editing: 9.5/10. Absolutely marvelous, yetthe real trouble lies on a sharp buzz I kept hearing whenever we sawthe after life, but it's just a little mistake, for an outstandingsound editing and impressive effects like the tsunami or the subwayexplosion. It was really an awesome job.Setting, Photography and Art direction: 10/10. We get awesome andbeautiful scenes from Hong Kong, London, France and the USA, all theplaces were shown like they really were, the houses, the beach, theapartment, every single place we are in the movie feels real and we getawesomely done pictures in the whole movie. There is not a doubt thatthese scenarios were awesomely done.Conclusion: The movie is perfect, despite the sadness that surroundsthe characters is warmhearted and it would have been a masterpiece ifit wasn't because of the lack of heart Matt Damon had in this movie,but you still must seeing, be patient with Damon and enjoy a movingfilm from Clint Eastwood, who is maybe one of the best directors on USAof the decade.

(2012-05-20 17:37)

A very crisp blu-ray strictly for those that believe in ghosts - Boo!

Eastwood's tabloid take on the afterlife is just as trite as his sports movie about soccer; his bright, white-light scenario is Weekly World News material. It is not hard to see executive producer Spielberg's schmaltzy wishful thinking pervading this childish excursion into the phenomenon of psychic silliness. There is an audience pleasing tsunami sequence at the outset; but all hope of ongoing insights are flushed away just like the tropical tourist trap. It might work as a fantasy for adolescents, although they are unlikely to tolerate anything this slow, let alone subtitled sequences. Uh oh, gotta go, Mommy is yelling at me from heaven for giving this a bad review!

Tom Seymour (2012-05-20 05:51)

Not his finest, but that's proof of how great this man is.

alerter (2012-05-17 17:42)

with Hereafter, there is no in between

Eastwood's Hereafter is going to be a love it or hate it affair. It isremarkably different from anything he's directed before and remarkablysuperior to previous, similar efforts from Inarritu, etc, to relateglobally dispersed, yet ultimately intertwined character drivenstories.I am someone who does not believe that there is such a thing as lifeafter death. As skeptical as I am about it, I also know that I cannotpossibly prove that there is no such thing. Hereafter didn't change mymind about this one bit, but that didn't stop me from deeply enjoyingand appreciating the story that Eastwood and Morgan had to tell.So much has been said about the leisurely and meandering pace of thefilm, which I find to be pointless observations. Many of these samereviewers completely failed to grasp that the astonishing, mostlyfirst-person tsunami sequence was supposed to have happened in Thailand(not Maui, where the practicals were shot), based on the 2004 IndianOcean tsunami. It's equally clueless of these same commentators tocharacterize the terror elements of Herefter as being "post-9/11," whenterrorist attacks against civilians have been going on, around theworld, before and since 9/11. The terror incident portrayed inHereafter is clearly based on the 2005 London Tube bombings, known overthere as 7/7. (No one, not even a ghost in Hereafter, predicted it.)Finally, some of these same reviewers fault Matt Damon's George Loneganfor not being a future seeing clairvoyant, when his one and onlysupernatural ability is limited to channeling the dead under veryspecific circumstances. For these impatient chroniclers, all of thesedetails must have rushed by too slowly for them to have noticed at all. The fundamental story revolves around three kinds of loss.Cecile De France's silver-spooned French TV journalist Marie LeLay dies(skeptics would say she has a near-death, out-of-body experience) andthen miraculously comes back to life when active efforts to revive herhave failed. Her experience of crossing over and back gradually comesto overthrow nearly everything in her previously self-assured andself-determined Parisian life.Damon's Lonegan rightfully considers his ability to channel the dead asbeing a curse. Modern medicine has boiled his condition down to a formof childhood brain-injury induced schizophrenia, to be controlledthrough the use of powerful medications that render him feelinglifeless. Refusing to medicate, his unmuted "talent" results in hisongoing alienation from the rest of everyday humanity -- that humanityhaving a high propensity for shooting messengers. In the meanwhile, helives an economically precarious blue collar life in San Francisco andlistens to Charles Dickens audio books as a substitute for sleep. Allof this is portrayed with deft understatement by Damon.Real-life identical twins George and Frankie McLaren portraytwelve-minutes separated twins Jason and Marcus, who are engaged in aspirited battle to prevent London's Child Services from taking themaway from their beloved opiate addicted mother (Lyndsey Marshall), whoself medicates between fixes with alcohol. The younger Marcus, who hasalways deferred to his "older" brother, becomes a lost half-soul whenJason unexpectedly dies while returning from an hope filled errand thatMarcus was initially asked to undertake for their mother. (Jason wasfilling a prescription that would begin their mother's fight againstaddiction.) The same tragedy results in Marcus being placed in a fosterhome. So, he loses his mom, too. No matter how high functioning Marcusseems to be in his determination to reconnect with "Jase," he is deepin the grip of shock and grief. All of the other elements of Hereafter serve to underscore and developeach character's profound sense of loss as well as their respectivequests to fill their voids with meaningful answers. There's a veryDickensian feel to this, too. Bryce Dallas Howard delivers an inspired turn as Melanie, George'snight school cooking partner and potential romantic interest. Somereviewers have criticized Howard for overly hammy "bad acting," when,in fact, she perfectly nails the part of a hypomanic speed-dater,rushing headlong into something she desires, but is too wounded by atraumatic past to be able to handle. It's all seemingly unbelievable...until you've met people, in real-life, who are just like Melanie. Assuch, I think Howard's interpretation was something courageous.The acting is so relaxed and natural you almost don't realize that it'sa direct by product of Eastwood's (mostly) one-take approach to filmmaking. Every actor is delivering their A-game. If I were permittedmore than 1000 words here, I would go into more detail about that.Suffice it to say that no one is phoning anything in. As for how things tie up at the London Book Fair and the fairy taleending between Marie and George, I have no qualms. She's died and comeback, so George's "curse" becomes his unique means of understandingwhat happened to Marie in a way that no one else can. To me, that issomething lyrical, if not poetic.Hereafter delivers no answers whatsoever about the afterlife, but itdoes conclude with three bright notes of new beginnings. In that, somemight see the work of a benevolent divine hand. I saw three decentsouls who chose to never give up. One does not contradict the other. I urge you to see it and decide for yourself.

(2012-05-17 06:45)

"Death--the last sleep? No, it is the final awakening." - Walter Scott

Not what I was expecting - too bad. The first part of the movie and large portions after that were in French. I really didn't expect a subtitled movie (even though I use closed captioning). A very "artsy" movie,not at all what I expected from a Clint Eastwood directed movie. There was a foreign flavor to the whole thing.I guess I expected more of Matt Damon's character as the psychic, rather than little flowery vignettes randomly scattered over more than two hours. The first part of the movie I enjoyed and I got my hopes up but then sheer ennui.

Bill Gibron (2012-05-13 22:33)

A triptych of tales which argue for a stronger editorial hand and the inherent flaw in such a format - all parts of your omnibus better work, or the failures threaten to pull down the successes.

andynaik (2012-05-13 10:38)

Intriguing story, painfully slow execution

Hereafter is basically of story of unrelated people in different partsof the world that somehow come together after being connected to deathin some way. Very interesting story.However, the execution is pretty slow. First few minutes are reallyinteresting and may get the audience into believing that this may be aroller-coaster ride. Things kind of die down after that unfortunately,being centered on the various characters of the story. Things neverseem interesting in the mundane lives of the characters until the veryend where a hasty attempt of tying them together is made.It is not heavily flawed though and has an artistic side to it. Theconcept of death affecting the characters in some or the other way isintriguing and we get to see various perspectives. I personally thoughtthat the story could have been given more justice.Not the kind of fast-paced action movie expected from Eastwood but goodnonetheless and requires a bit of patience.

Movie_Muse_Reviews (2012-05-13 00:45)

A messy mixed bag, but with some strong moments and insights

The eternal question of "what happens after we die?" is about asenigmatic as the kind of film Clint Eastwood's latest, "Hereafter,"tries to be. Supernatural? Thriller? Relationship drama? The film willlikely defy most audience expectations, so to be helpful, the answer isall of the above, but mostly "c.) relationship drama," final answer.Eastwood tries his hand at intertwining three separate stories aboutdeath/the afterlife that as one might predict, converge in the end.It's a common and often successful film structure -- if you'reAlejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. Eastwood is not as adept at this as theplot-weaving master/director of "Amores Perros," "21 Grams" and"Babel," but he finds some touching moments with these characters as heso often does, and he also provides a solid list of interesting, albeitscattered, questions and discussion points.The story is an unconventional choice for both Eastwood and forscreenwriter Peter Morgan, who is known for British historical fiction("The Queen," "Frost/Nixon"). Eastwood's strength in this stage of hiscareer has been the human factor, so that stands out as the film'sstrength too. His second collaboration with Matt Damon proves to besuccessful yet again in that regard. Damon's story captivates more thanthe other two; he plays a psychic medium trying to "quit" because hesees his ability as a curse. He shares a juicy scene with Bryce DallasHoward that has nothing to do with death, but Eastwood captures thetension perfectly. "Hereafter" has any number of highlights such asthis, but the cohesiveness lacks.Of the two other stories, one follows a wealthy French newscaster(Cecile de France) whose life course changes drastically when shesurvives a tsunami and has a near-death experience in which she briefly"crosses over" to what she describes as the titular "hereafter." Theother follows a young English boy who loses his twin brother in anaccident and his search for answers. The setup for these different plotlines drags and sometimes the film becomes flat- out boring, but again,certain scenes are strong in the way one would expect from Eastwood orMorgan.The script provides a high doses of insight despite the clunky pacing.The focus stays on the way that death affects the living, specificallythe impact it has on the other elements of one's life such as theability to forge relationships with others, career aspirations andforming one's own identity. It's an exploration or a case study on theimpact of death and how it alters the way we move forward -- it's justlittle more than that.In one scene, the young boy, Marcus, turns to Google for answers in aquick brilliant clip. He types "what happens when we die?" into thesearch bar and then clicks on several different YouTube videos ofreligious figures explaining their views such as "all will be okay ifyou believe in Jesus Christ." The brief scene offers a fantasticcommentary about where we go for answers these days that could generatea day-long conversation , but in the context of the whole film, itdoesn't fit the tone.Continuity acts as the biggest obstacle for multi-story films and itsespecially formidable in "Hereafter." The films that get over the hump,such as some of Inarritu's films, "Crash," "City of God" and moregarner heaps of critical praise, but the ones that don't make it overthe top usually roll all the way back down. But with "Hereafter,"Eastwood finds enough tender moments and makes enough interestingobservations about the characters that the film, as messy as it is,never entirely falters.~Steven CVisit my site at http://moviemusereviews.com

(2012-05-12 10:37)

Mixed and Confusing

Had high hopes for this movie.... But that was soon dashed when I was faced with a very confusing and mixed story line that was hard to follow and at times did not make sense. The story jumps along from scene to scene and at times found myself thinking I was watching a different movie.I would give this a miss and wait for it to come to TV....

thetedster117 (2012-05-08 23:16)

i wish i was dead after watching this waste of a film

do yourself a favour,spend your money on a CHIA PET,WATCH IT GROW OVER28 DAYS ,you would get more enjoyment from that than wasting 2 hours ofyour life watching this film.matt damon and clint eastwood should be brought up on charges forfraudulent claims of being entertainers.they should be forced to issuea refund to all who went to view this ,plus every person should becompensated for pain and suffering. this movie was absolutely dreadful,i wanted to jump in front of bus going 80 miles an hour just to wakemyself up from the boring nightmarish trance this film left me in.i would rank this film lower if the ratings would let me,but there wasno category in the minus.think of the most boring day of your life andtimes in by 100 and that may come close to the pointless plot andending this film delivered.

Luciana Guillen (2012-05-08 11:53)

A Touch Of Light

I saw this move recently and... well... we all noticed that the musicalso the topic are ''Clint Eastwood''.... yes of course he has a greatpersonality and very defined one to tell us that he was there. I lovethe way Eastwood makes us ''feel'' what every each and single characteron the film feels in the moment it's being felt... is nice how 3perfect strangers can help each other... how the big pains in life canbe in a way solved... is like a little light in the darkness... whenyou think you'll never get your life back again (it happens to the 3 ofthem in fact), when you think all you do is worthless... when you'rereally REALLY disappointed with life gave to you and you deny ofthat... there's someone like you... waiting to feel complete... and youremember you're not alone and then everything falls into place withjust a little... handshake. Of course... almost forgot... the actors,amazing, thanks Clint for this lovely movie! No need to remind us thegreat director (and compositor!) you are!