“Hereafter” (2010). Clint Eastwood, director. Warner Bros., 126 minutes.

Religion has always attempted to answer the three cosmic questions: “Where did I come from? “Why am I here? Where am I going? Clint Eastwood’s new movie “Hereafter” attempts to answer the third of those questions, “What happens after we die?” but from a non-religious point of view. The film follows three unrelated characters in three different countries with three different reasons for wanting to know the answer.

Marie Lelay (Cecile De France) is a broadcast journalist vacationing in Thailand with her boyfriend, Didier (Thierry Neuvic), when a tsunami hits the shore. Marie is caught in the tidal wave and nearly drowns. Cinematography during the disaster is stunning, reminiscent of the panic as concrete ash surged through the streets when the towers collapsed on 9/11. Caught in the roiling water, Marie is hit be debris and nearly drowns. She has a vision of light and people coming toward her during her near-death experience, and she can’t get it out of her mind. What happened? What does it mean?

Marcus (George/Frankie McLaren) is a young boy whose twin brother has died. Overcome with grief and loneliness, he wants to find some way to contact his brother again. The priest who presides at Marcus’s brother’s funeral speaks with the certainty of religious faith: “Death is not the end,” he tells the grieving friends and family. “It is the beginning.” But Marcus cannot find anyone who can give him comfort or certainty.

Marie’s friend Didier is just as certain of the opposite point of view. When she asks him, “What happens when we die?” He responds, “The light goes out. That’s it. A blackout.” Marie is not satisfied, however. She knows there’s more. She saw it. “Couldn’t there be something?” she asks. He says something about proof.

Several other characters in the film have similar desires to contact the dead, either for comfort or to resolve unfinished issues. They turn to George Lonegan (Matt Damon), a blue-collar worker who has the uncanny ability to receive messages from the dead. In the past he has capitalized on this ability by working as a psychic, but he has turned away from that occupation. His brother calls this ability a gift, but George calls it a curse.

While life’s biggest questions may indeed be “Where did I come from? Why am I here?” and “Where am I going?” this film’s biggest question becomes, “When will these three stories finally converge?” At 126 minutes, the film is very long, and it develops very slowly. The characters are interesting, but all have quiet demeanors, and the film lacks a central conflict beyond the desire to know what happens hereafter. Clint Eastwood’s somber original score, though impressive, does nothing to lift the tone or excitement of the film. Even Rachmaninoff’s lovely Concerto #2, which creates a recurring motif for Marcus’s story, serves to bring the mood down rather than up.

Several small events attempt to infuse the film with added cosmic meaning. For example, George attends a cooking class where blindfolded students must describe and identify flavors without seeing what they are eating. This seems to symbolize the difficulty of describing spiritual experiences to people who have not developed their sense of spiritual vision.

In another scene, a priest presides over a funeral and then shoos the grieving family out the back door while ushering in the next grieving family. These assembly-line funerals reinforce the reality that people die every minute of every day. It just happens. So why do we make such a big deal of it?

In a third example, George attends a reading of Charles Dickens’ “Little Dorritt,” which ends with the seemingly karmic statement, “It might be his destiny to come back again.” But to be fair, Dickens’ character was referring to his pragmatic view that he might be returning to debtors’ prison, not that he would be coming back after death. Still, it’s a clever use of the quotation.

“Hereafter” offers no credible explanations for the many stories of near-death experiences people have reported. It is devoid of religion or religious explanations. When pressed for answers, George offers a scientific explanation for his psychic ability: As a child he suffered encephalitis, had several spinal surgeries, and could see visions afterward.  His doctors’ explanation for his visions is “Passive schizophrenia.” But that does not explain the fact that he is able to give accurate readings and communication from the dead, without allowing his clients to give any details or comments that might sway his responses.

In the end, “Hereafter” offers no answers to the question it raises. What is, simply is. People see a light. They feel peace and weightlessness. After that — who knows? The moral of this story is clear, and it comes from George, the one who considers contact with the dead to be a curse: concentrate on the Here and Now, not on the Hereafter.

Jo Ann Skousen teaches English literature at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, New York, and has served as the entertainment editor of Liberty Magazine since 2005. She is the founder and producer of Anthem Film Festival, which will premiere at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas next summer.