The Sweet Hereafter

I think that I liked The Sweet Hereafter because it was so silent it scared me. Because the people were so normal, I thought they were just like me. Mainly I liked it because the people WERE just like me! How would we act if our children were killed in a terrible bus accident??? Would our towns be able to go on??? The performances were wonderful also...especially Ian Holm and Sara Polley. Ian Holm (Mitchell Stephens) is a big-time lawyer who takes on the case of the lost children because of his own losses in life...Sara Polley is one of the children who survived, but has nothing to live for. I cried at this movie every time i watched it, and will cry again...It is so real and so dramatic, that I just can't help myself...

In a small town in British Columbia, a school bus skids into a lake, killing several children. Their grieving parents are approached by a lawyer, Mitchell Stephens (Ian Holm), who is haunted by his dysfunctional relationship with his drug-addicted daughter. First of all, well played to Sarah Polley, who not only sings but also has to be paralyzed. She never seems to have gotten the full respect she deserves, and in many circles is best known for the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. She is so much more than that. And Ian Holm is a powerful lead. Apparently Donald Sutherland was the first choice but it ended up in Holm's lap. Sutherland is one of my favorite actors, but I think Holm has a sense of gravitas that Sutherland does not. So, with all due respect, this was the right call. This is widely considered one of the greatest Canadian films of all time. That is a tall claim, but who am I to argue with the critics?

Ian Holm is terrific in this. The whole movie, by relatively inexperienced director Atom Ergoyan, is moving & haunting. Got 1-2 Oscar nominations, but Ian Holm should have been one of them. See this & be moved.

The Sweet Hereafter is a study in subtlety. I am not surprised that a fair number of people here dismiss it as pretentious trash. It requires the viewer to pay attention and make connections that are not always stated explicitly. Not everyone will have the patience (or...dare I say it...intelligence?) to do so. The turning-point of the movie is a surprising action by one of the central characters late in the film. At first, it may not be entirely clear why she chooses to do what she does. Here too, one needs to consider previous scenes carefully and try to view other characters from her point of view. The DVD has a commentary track (in the "special features" section) by the director and the author of the book; it clarifies quite a few things that might remain hazy. This is, in any case, a movie that needs to be watched more than once. Haunting, poignant, sorrowful without resorting to tearjerking, perceptive, mesmerizing...for viewers who can handle that subtlety, a masterpiece.

This is my kind of film. It's slow and not a lot happens. It's classy, atmospheric and oozes class. Not one for the MTV 'no attention' idiots who hang out at the multiplexes. Holm is excellent and siezes top billing. The supporting cast are equally good. Superb.

This was one of the best films I have ever seen, and it was certainly the best film of 1997. (although an argument can be made for "The Ice Storm" and "The End of Violence") This was a very challenging movie, and it could be watched on many different level. (ie. it was enjoyable for people who just wanted to sit and see a movie without thinking, yet it was also very interesting for people who wanted to be part of the movie, and caught all the symbolism.) Simply put --- THE BEST MOVIE OF 1997.