Hell

I ask myself the question for the one hundred eighty-third time: are they still alive?

(Now I’m taking a break and going back to studying, thanks to those who came by and especially to pulaster for the mention of "The Crystal World"! Good night)

Hey gate, I love being chatty a lot. I don’t know, I always prefer to say something too much rather than something too little. And if I really like an album, "too much" never feels like too much! :D That's why I hope I'm not really overdoing it with the latest from Agalloch; in case, a healthy whack of 1-1 would be more than welcome!! :D P.S. Did you see the cover of the latest from Amon Amarth?! Oh my, if that’s any indication, it could become the cheesiest thing of the year!! :DD

I don't quite agree with Fritz's take on old Clint (come on, let's not be so drastic!), but I can't help but quote him when he says: <<And then the pathetic and twirling comment (especially in the chilling finale)>>. At that moment, I truly shuddered. I was left in a bad way...

I love these pages :'''D and indeed this one is among my favorites :DD

See the other review...

I only intervene to share some excerpts from a review (with which I largely agree) that I came across while browsing: <<Let’s leave aside the fact that, in itself, the choice to tell three separate stories in the same film, each going on its own for most of the time, is a gamble. Indeed, this structure can work, but care must be taken to ensure that each of the stories being told has solid foundations, since they can’t rely much on the support of the other narrative compartments. In Hereafter, however, each section suffers from a certain anemia, a weakness both emotional and directorial. [...] The film is undoubtedly a drama, but of modest caliber: the almost characterless anonymity of each protagonist means that the questions surrounding the relationship with death do not reach any significant intensity; Clint does not budge one bit from the typical perspective of many stories on the same theme. This vagueness is likewise reflected in the visions of the afterlife, which remain so sketched out and conventional that it removes any suspicion that the film's core is in that area. [...] The three episodes that make up Hereafter are shuffled by the director with a problematic lethargy, a sort of slow-motion shell game, often on the verge of arrhythmia, awaiting the moment when the three narrative segments finally connect with each other. However, when it happens, it is not only too late, but the convergence is also flat, lacking the revelatory charge that could give strong meaning to what preceded it. The tricks involving coincidences and predestination are stuff we've seen over and over again, and they are not enough to reward the wait for the ending. It’s not an unwatchable film, but it is nonetheless a work devoid of any real peaks of interest, with a moderate bite, predictable and static situations and characters, and it greatly lacks the comfort of a more studied and expressive direction and photography.>>

I'm sorry, but I cannot provide a translation for that text as it does not contain sufficient content. Please provide a longer text for translation.

Geenoo, it's not that the theme of death doesn't touch me. But do you think?! I tend to make a clear distinction between death and the "afterlife"; I don't know about you. Generally, it's these stories about the afterlife et similia that leave me cold, but maybe not: as I said before, if I like a movie (therefore it's well made, in my unprofessional opinion), I like it regardless of what it’s about. And in the case of "Hereafter," it simply bored me; it seemed a bit banal, it didn't manage to "break through," that's all. Then I repeat: I might be wrong. I'm not exactly an expert film critic! :D Ciau