Good movie but grossly overrated

As Good As It Gets

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This film is dealing with death in the most surprising way possible.After Ray Kurzweil and all his consorts who pretend that in a few years we will be full of nano-robots that will make us eternal because death is a tragedy we have to get rid of, we have the spreading of Tibetan Buddhism that is founded on its famous Book of the Dead and the rebirth theory and there the tragedy becomes a drama, a melodrama even, a Broadway melodrama.Either you have enough merit in your "karma" and then you get into "nirvana" and your energy will merge into the cosmic energy of the universe, in otherwise BINGO! Or you will be reborn in one of six possible realms. The realm of the gods who will survive in bliss one full life to be reborn again when death comes again. The realm of the asura, divine again but jealous of the real gods but that will only be for one life. Then in the human realm and that's the only realm where you can hope to improve your karma and envisage the possibility of getting into nirvana. Then the realm of animals and no chance there to improve your karma. Then the realm of hungry ghosts, monsters who are thirsty and hungry for blood and fresh human flesh, cannibalism and vampirism, and the two together werewolves and wolfmen. Finally Hell itself where you will be tortured for a life time in your mental body but be sure that will be just as painful as if it were your physical body, except that your mental body never dies and recuperates at once. You just have the pain, over and over again.Since our western world has been weaned of any real religious belief and practice, since our religious rites are nothing but habitual actions that are part of the backdrop of our life, we are totally unarmed in front of that death and we are afraid, and we are panicky, and we are traumatized. What's more there are two eras in this world of ours.Before, when people lived less than fifty years, death was an everyday event and most of the time a child saw his or her grandparents die when he or she was less than five and the grandparents he or she knew then were those of other younger children. So we cried a little, we celebrated a little bit more than just a little and adults got drunk to forget, and then the show had to go on. Religions were there to make us believe that these dead people had only departed to go on the big journey to the other world, because there was another world.But after, when people live more than eighty years, it is not rare to have three or four generations in a family; for the parents to retire when their children are still in the process of training for a job one day. Then death has become a lot more unnatural and there is no solace in traditional religions. That's where Tibetan Buddhism comes into the picture and reinvents the Judeo-Christian myth of life seen as a valley of tears, the world as a sea of lachrymal fluids, and our lot as nothing but a sequence of dramatic tragedies. Then life is turned into some kind of permanent mourning not for death but for the death or deaths to come and every single event is seen in its end, in its termination, in the fact it will not last long. And we will suffer hell and blazes when they come to their end.That is efficacious to prevent depression and to get used or accustomed to the fact that any moment of bliss is a blitzkrieg against doom and suffering and death. It all started when a certain Rhys-Davids, the founder of the Pali Society at Oxford University, Great Britain, at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, at the time of the British Empire, published his first Pali-English dictionary giving the false but perfectly Christian translation of '"suffering" for the central Buddhist concept of "dukkha." That Oxford scholar, probably a Don too, was wrong and his translation that Buddhism has been dragging behind itself ever since and all the time was just a misinterpretation of the word in canonical Buddhism, maybe because Rhys-Davids was there and then under the strong influence of the only Tibetan tradition. The Chinese Zen tradition would laugh at that naiveté. So Nathan, who has become a messenger of death because at the age of eight he died and was resuscitated by some doctor, knowing that his wife is going to die soon, drops his whole life in New York and comes back to his wife from whom he was at least separated, just to accompany her into death. That's just the most absurd story I have heard. Any decent human being, knowing he or she was going to die would certainly not require anyone close to him or her to drop out of society to become the slave servant of him or her, a plain dying relative. In other words we do not see the coming death from the one person who should be concerned, Claire herself, but only from the point of view of Nathan, the messenger who does not deliver the message, the coward who does not know anything but submission and acceptance. That is supposed to be equanimity but in fact it is plain absurdity. It is true if he did hand out the message to Claire, she would consider he is out of his mind, and maybe even harassing her. A court order would be at once called for to keep that dangerous maniac at certain distance of her, Claire, and their daughter.And yet some scenes are very powerful, lost in an ocean of wordy sentimentalism.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

From the reviews I gathered that the 2008 Afterwards is an adaptation of the novel in French, Et Apres. This explains the theme of us not knowing the hour of our own deaths, and even more importantly, not knowing before then, which of the people we know well and who are well, will die and how. But the interest of the story doesn't explain why the director handled the theme the way he did. What are the images of the Quebec countryside, summer and winter, in direct contrast with? After all, Claire is a photographer of nature who is insisting on photographing in the snow at night a plant that only blooms one day a year. She thinks husband Nathan is a creep for being a natural at his job as a New York City lawyer. Cinematographer Pin Bing Lee and film editor Valerie Deseine have filled a large number of earlier frames with office building windows. All this is woven together by the music of Alexandre Desplat. Surely an intention was for all of us to see a bright white light surrounding each of us, in preparation for not knowing when the next NYC 9-11 will be and how.

Interesting idea. The charm of Malkovich. And the delicate silhouette of Romain Duris. A movie as old question. About life, love and essence of every day.About death and expectations. About truth and believes. The taller is not very inspired. The words are dust, the nuances are broken mirrors, the lights are only grills of evening.It is a good movie but the taste is not sensational. All is known and the first expectation dies in short time.Nothing is fake, ugly or boring. But the pieces of others movies makes a rusty picture. All seems reheated food. Good intentions are contours of truism. The end is twilight of a promise. A great promise. But it is not very bad; every reminder is a lesson. About the story, evenings , life and hope.

Just saw this movie and the main selling point was Malkovich in the cast. He was fine, as was the female lead played by Evangeline Lilly. The main thing that did this movie in for me was a rather leaden performance from Romain Duris. The basic plot is that Malkovich is a "messenger" or someone who can foretell people's deaths. He is also a doctor working with dying people. He contacts Duris and, for the greater part of the movie, the audience is lead to believe that Duris is destined to die. Needless to say, this isn't the way the movie plays out. The director (or writer) manages to establish a dull, plodding rhythm to the film which is confusing and distracting. No more info for anyone interested in seeing the film and the film is worth a rental, if only to watch and revel in another quirky performance from Malkovich and a great performance from Evangeline Lilly. The main problem is it's difficult to empathize, sympathize or otherwise ize with Duris who has the emotional range of a rock in this film.