Nice effects though.

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

So, what happens when you die? The film poses that question and decides that you must defend certain aspects of your life...though apparently not sin. It's an interesting concept. In this case, Albert Brooks has to defend his indecision and fear throughout his life...which he only does at the very last moment.Albert Brooks is a bit passive here...although that seems right for the character he is playing (and by the way he wrote and directed the film, also). It seems like we almost always like Meryl Streep, and I do here. It's a much lighter role for her, and I think I liked it for that very reason. Rip Torn is good as Brooks' defender. Lee Grant seems a little cold here as the prosecutor...which often seemed to be her role in films...but it works. Buck Henry...nice to see him...briefly...but why is he here.So what's to criticize here. Well, the film is a bit slow at time. There are some missed opportunities (for example it would have been interesting to see more about the main characters previous lives). And we are left hanging as Brooks and Streep ride off into the sunset...to do what?...be together?...seems unlikely.Nevertheless, this film makes you think more than most films do. It's interesting, but not enthralling.

I sat in a plane watching this thing on my way home. You know, I got the film, but, well ... I didn't get it. I mean it's one of those experiences where you say to yourself "Ah, that's clever, and it should be funny, so why am I not laughing?"Defending your life recycles the what-if-you-die-and-have-to-go- through-some-afterlife-bureaucracy trope that's been done in a number of films before, including a rather famous one by Groucho Marx. But the afterlife genre usually has a gag or two to make the whole experience palatable. Well, like most Albert Brooks vehicles, the humor is understated and the punch is a bit flat because of that. I mean, what can you say about a film about some guy who doesn't know how to defend the decisions he made while he was a live?I'm going to be brutally honest here, I just don't get why Albert Brooks keeps getting projects to act in and possibly direct. Hey, Roger Ebert gave the dude 5-stars when he was alive and kicking out reviews for the Chicago Sun Times, so I must be a Philistine. Right? RIGHT?!Well, no. If I recall the movie correctly Brooks has to prove himself worthy of "paradise", and in order to do that he has to wade through a bank of lawyer like "angels" who'll defend him before the after life tribunal. Pretty clever, huh?Not really. If you know Albert Brooks, then this movie is GENIUS! If you're in the film industry and rely on connections to get your own projects shot, then this movie is BRILLIANT. If you're an indy film maker whose got more talent and better ideas than Brooks, but you're not on the right social track, then this movie is one giant boring snooze-fest, right up to the point where he finds the one "thing" that'll get him through.Films are supposed to be market driven commercial art, sometimes reflecting social issues, or deep questions, some times humorous, some times dramatic, some times full of adventure or some kind of intrigue. But for all of the afterlife stuff presented in this film, and for all of Brooks' "understated" humor style, one is hard pressed to crack a smile at any of the gags, much less reflect on the "life messages" supposedly encoded in this thing.This movie needed a jet fighter dog fight, a car chase or two, and maybe a terrorist take over of a yacht followed by a big fire fight between the Ts and CTs at the end ... but I'm sure all parties involved would be limp wristed if Brooks directed those sequences.Seriously, avoid this guy and his movies. There's better stuff out there that's both livelier and more entertaining.Brooks hasn't ruined his career with any of his flat-graded films, but he's stolen many hours of our lives for the junk he's produced.

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

An optimistic film about the afterlife! Probably the best film Albert Brooks has ever made. Usually overlooked on Meryl Streep's "Filmography". A terrific screenplay. A few of his concepts are certain to offend someone as it suggests "past lives via reincarnation". A brilliant supporting cast: Rip Torn, Lee Grant, Buck Henry, Shirley MacLaine (as the curator of "past lives"). It starts out a little slow, but stay with it. "Daniel Miller" has to die for the action to begin: Daniel pays more attention to his music than his driving and gets hit by a bus. (No gore, however.) In the next scene, he is on an electric tram heading for "Judgement City" to defend his life and all the fears that us "little brains" have. Is this Heaven? No. "But some of your new little mini-malls come close". While in Judgement City you can eat all you want without gaining weight and the food is "fast, fresh and delicious". Where is Judgement City? High above the Earth where we all expect Heaven to be. If Daniel wins his case by defending the decisions he made in his life, he gets to move on to the next higher level of existence. If he loses, he gets sent back to Earth to try again. Rip Torn plays his defender, Bob Diamond. Lee Grant is the prosecutor. Meryl Streep plays his love interest, Julia, who had the perfect life until she tripped on the patio furniture, hit her head, and fell into a backyard pool. ("I shouldn't have died, I was a terrific swimmer.") I rank it up there with other all-time fantasies such as "Here Comes Mr. Jordan","Heaven Can Wait" and "Oh God!". Far from "perfect" movies, but compelling to watch with a haunting quality. Apparently, many of the reviewers who didn't like it failed to understand it. Judgement City is not Purgatory, it is a way station. Also, not all the "persons" who staff the place are entirely heavenly in nature. They are flawed, just like us humans. One of my all-time favorites. If it was a VHS tape, instead of a disc, I am certain I would have worn it out already!