Very well executed

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Film auteur Albert Brooks creates a whole new concept of an afterlife with Defending Your Life where apparently the big sin is not to be courageous enough. At least that was his big sin. One wonders how the scrutiny was on other candidates.No such thing as hell. We just keep coming back until we get it right. As Rip Torn has it there are folks that keep coming back into triple digits. Those are who you don't want to hang out with. Draw your own conclusions.So when Brooks his hit by a bus in a traffic accident head on, we next see him on the Tramway to Judgment City. That was an interesting concept as well. It looks like our concept of heaven is quite earthly. It's better than flying around on a cloud playing a harp that could get boring after a while. I wonder what Judgment City looked like in 1491 instead of 1991. Or even 491. The Oriental people would have understood it better as reincarnation was part of their religions.Brooks dies young and he's among a group of new arrivals who've lived out their allotted measure and he's got nine days in Judgment City the Las Vegas of the celestial plane with a bunch of senior citizens. But he gets a stroke of dubious luck when he meets Meryl Streep one of the only young people in the recent arrivals. They have nine days to make the most of it.But that's at night and by day both of them have to be Defending Your Life before a celestial tribunal with a pair evenly matched adversaries, Rip Torn as Brooks's defense attorney and Lee Grant as the prosecutor. These two go at it over Brooks the way Ronald Colman and Vincent Price duel over the fate of man in The Story Of Mankind.In the end Brooks proves maybe he has what it takes.I found this a strangely unsettling film. I kept thinking of that Broadway show tune from Texas Little Darlin', The Big Picture Show In The Sky. The idea of a hidden camera taking video of you is quite unsettling. No such a thing as a right to privacy. Looks like God has us all on a smartphone that has eternally charged batteries.And also having a sister who died young makes one wonder what her fate might have been. I can say that if she didn't make it to the higher plane no one did or should.Defending Your Life is an interesting and funny film, but might be as unsettling for other viewers as it was for me.

Defending Your Life has a somewhat promising concept: when you die, you have to defend your life in order to see if you "move onward" or have to return to Earth for a do-over. Unfortunately, it misses too many notes in the execution of this concept, and suffers from major problems of tone and balance between the comedy and the serious.The workings of Judgement City, the trial process, and the afterlife as presented here don't make much sense from a logical standpoint (there are so many issues I had with it that I won't even go into them). Maybe we're meant to forgive the problems for comedy's sake, but the humour feels too sparse to do that. Some of it is effective, but many of the sight gags fall flat or just feel cheap. Or maybe the viewer is supposed to dwell on the inconsistencies and what profound meaning they might conceal from us "little-brains" (yet another perpetuation of that silly '10% of our brain' myth). Perhaps that works for others, but I find contemplating the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything to be dissonant with watching a guy in a white muumuu shuffle around in generic hotels and office complexes while making mildly clever quips and undergoing a sham of a 'trial'.Brooks and Streep have pretty good chemistry, but their romance does feel superficial and a little rushed, and the ending where he overcomes his fears to come chasing after her is too pat.Final summary: Uneven life-after-death film that fails both as a comedy and as an inspirational thought-provoker. 3/10 | D

The basic concept looks like it incorporates various belief systems here and there; Buddhist view of reincarnation, Abrahamaic religions' views of afterlife personal judgment, and the American Dream of a liberal heaven. The movie builds up the main character's funny attitude very well. It's too bad that it doesn't really support the story. It's because the story gets to be so serious and it leaves no room for any practical jokes. I personally think that this movie should also be billed as a romance story, because it can present the afterlife acquaintance and ensuing relationship nicely. The acting is decently okay. Albert Brooks give out enough character to his role and was funny in it. Meryl Streep gives the nice balancing act on the romantic side of the story.

This is a 'snoozer.'Technically it's not a 'sleeper hit' because it made $16M at the box office. Which, in 1991, is a lot of money, right?Well, it's money, we can agree on that.Anyway. Now twenty-three years post-theatrical release, nobody remembers its existence. It's a shame, really. That's why I'm coining the phrase, 'snoozer,' a good movie everyone seems to forget about.Because wow, this movie holds up.I think it's easier to watch Defending Your Life when you know the year it's from. Even then though, the production design is spectacular. It's easy to discern they're shooting on a set sometimes, but it's strangely enchanting.First of all, this movie's written, directed by and starring Albert Brooks as Daniel Miller. That man's talent is underutilized. He's a great actor, and Defending Your Life is an all-star picture that fires on all cylinders.From recent memory, he's great as Paul Rudd's father in This is 40, and he's just spectacular in Drive. In DYF he's playing a much less antagonistic role.An obvious and (what some may consider) dull comparison to make is with Kafka's The Trial. Perhaps there was some inspiration there.The script is reminiscent of a Woody Allen movie; each line's meticulously written so there's humor in every beat. Everything occurs for more than one reason, and it's all very thought provoking.Judgment City is one of the most intelligent and detailed depictions of the afterlife you'll ever see.The 'attorneys' (although they prefer not to be thought of that way) are the best part of this film. Lee Grant as Lena Foster (the prosecutor) and Rip Torn as Bob Diamond (Miller's defense attorney) are stupendous. They establish a captivating back-and-forth from the get-go.Grant's role in DYF comes in toward the tail end of a long acting career. It's her job to be the bad guy in purgatory, and she accomplishes this in spades, but Lena's not without subtlety or nuance.To use his own quote, Torn's character is, "just dynamite." He's the most optimistic, lovable person and I enjoy seeing the loyal friend character; someone the protagonist (and the audience) can always count on.Meryl Streep's excellent also; her character exemplifies 'affability.' It's the quality you recognize in all genuinely good people. She's quick to laugh and can tell when someone expects her to, and she's easy going; unfettered by worry.Seriously, it's quietly a masterful performance. This is the best role I've seen Meryl in.Well friends, if you haven't seen Defending Your Life, it's a five star comedy with compelling characters, an intelligent narrative and some very touching sequences. Despite the predictable ending, it brought a tear to this humble reviewer's eye.But if you're sensitive to spoilers stop reading now.To comment on the aforementioned character of Lena Foster, it's worthy of note because she's intense and accusatory but you can see her feelings deep down. She wants Miller to move on from Earthly life, but she can't force it on him. Ultimately, she wishes him the best.In consideration of the inherent difficulty in world building, Brooks' exploration of the material is vast and thorough. He put a lot of work into writing this screenplay, and it shines through in certain moments in an indirect manner.For example, Miller asks where Diamond (Rip Torn) was the day before."I'd tell you but you wouldn't understand," Diamond says."Don't treat me like a moron, try me," Miller says."I was trapped near the inner circle of fault.""I don't understand.""I told you…"There are four main trial sequences, and instead of doing the exact same thing (having Diamond vehemently defend the merits of Miller's choices) the stand-in utilizes a different defensive method by having Miller defend himself. This offers the viewer a greater variation in scenes.And if the only option for pay-off is explaining it as nonsensical (literally), then so be it.Another good example is during the final trial sequence.I think we all know what's coming when Foster shows the clip of the night before, a scene from the lobby of Julia's hotel. Perhaps Brooks recognized the potential for cheesiness ahead of time, and wrote the following exchange as a precautionary measure.Foster brings up the clip and Rip Torn objects."I was told we're not doing that anymore," Diamond says."No one told you that," a judge responds.It's hilarious, nonsensical and completely out of left field, but it works! It's a great joke, and totally justifies the placement of the scene.Which transitions into my sole criticism of the film. It's a bit predictable. But that's fine, given the unbroken flow of well-rounded moments provided along the way.It's illustrative of a larger truth. A well-thought out story can be efficient. The ending doesn't have to be spectacular for us to buy in. It can be satisfactory if the ride was even more so to get there.Defending Your Life reminds us that great screenplays can often be great enough.There's still one thing that baffles me:Why isn't it out on Blu-Ray?