The film centers on three people, a blue-collar American, a French journalist and a London school boy, who set out on a spiritual journey after death touches their lives in different ways. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Hereafter torrent reviews
Jed D (us) wrote: "Carjacked, will get your motor running but it will run out of gas, rather quickly." Not a bad way to kill 1.5 hours.
Stuart M (fr) wrote: The first half is decent space adventure. William Hurt is at his best here (I've never understood why he hasn't become a star) and Gary Oldman is as reliable as ever, though I wish he had more opportunities to go OTT evil. The boy playing Will is pretty good at saying ridiculous lines and Heather Graham is always watchable as his older sister. The younger sister is actually a pretty good foreshadowing of the vacuous videoblogging narcissists of the modern day. She's every bit as annoying as they are. The space effects and set/costume designs are pretty good. The other effects vary wildly, from the relatively cool interactive holograms to the worst-looking cgi creature I've ever seen. I can't believe this came out the year before The Mummy. Even Jar-Jar looks better than this.The second half is completely overblown bad timetravel BS. There was no need to add in a confusing time-travel plot that makes no real sense and wastes some of the better character elements.
Andrew B (de) wrote: I saw this on Hallmark Channel while visiting family and found it to be a cute movie
Reiyan B (nl) wrote: "My sister Beth had all the brains in the family but...I'm ugly, sooo it all works out."
Jayakrishnan R (br) wrote: 76%Saw this on 29/5/15Hitchcock has a lot of historical inaccuracies, for instance Janet Leigh used a body double for the famous shower scene which the film totally ignore. Hitchcock works mostly on the talent and prowess of it's lead actors Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. Hopkins lives as Hitchcock while Mirren brings substantial drama into this. However, this film may tend to be a slight disappointment because instead of concentrating on Psycho, it's filming and Alfred Hitchcock and his career, the film spends most of the time telling about his marital life where he is mostly overshadowed by Alma Reville because Hopkins gets too less screen time. Moreover, the film wastes a lot of time shooting Hitchcock's psychological confrontation with the real life inspiration of Norman Bates which we can't say for sure really happened or that Hitchcock really saw his own life through a killer's eyes. However, the film needs to be praised for trying to portray Hitchcock's life in a way that resembled his own films.
Samuel M (au) wrote: Cada nuevo visionado de esta pelcula se convierte en toda una experiencia y mi opinin sobre ella mejora; as que solo puedo decir: PUTA OBRA MAESTRA. Ya est.
Conrad S (mx) wrote: Everything that was done well in 'The Dark Knight' is done well in this film. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything new, and no element is the same quality as the previous film. The reason for this is that, in comparison to 'The Dark Knight', every element feels tired. The score is more of the same, but not nearly as grandiose. The cinematography is more of the same, but without the incredible sense of naturalism. The action is more of the same, except the only well-executed version of it is done by the new characters. Speaking of the new characters, the majority of them seem underperformed. Anne Hathaway misses the manipulativeness of Catwoman, Tom Hardy misses the physicality of Bane, Joseph Gordon-Levitt misses the frustration of Robin. Still, the film is enjoyable and does a reasonably good job of wrapping up the story. Despite what I said, I did quite enjoy Robin's story; it reflected the detective work that made the first two films such engaging crime dramas. Out of the trilogy, this is easily the weakest.