The dead arrive at a way station where counselors guide them to choose one memory to live with for eternity. The place is an overgrown administration building. After the counselors help the arrivals pick their memories, the film crew recreates the memory and the arrivals watch the tape. After watching the tape, they disappear into the next stage. The counselors await for the new week and the next arrivals.I love this idea. It's got great potential. However it feels a little like watching some kind of government bureaucracy. No matter how touching it gets. This has a DMV type of pacing. There is one fun section where they are recreating the memories. It could funnier but I like that section. I love this movie idea but two hours is a stretch.

Every so often, a film is made that allows the viewer to take his or her own life and experiences into consideration while watching. After Life, a film about a place beyond death where the recently deceased are tasked with choosing a memory in which to spend the rest of eternity, is that kind of film. Shot in pseudo-documentary style with actors and non-actors alike, many of the film's characters spend a lot of time thinking about the best and worst times of their lives.Simple, almost beautifully drab visuals never pull from the movie's main focus, figuring out what experience had the most meaning in one's life. These stories are sometimes scripted and sometimes real memories told by real people, ranging from a fun trip to Disney Land to dancing as a little girl. The simplicity of this film won't knock your socks off with visual appeal, but the weight of its message will surely stick with you long after viewing, while you think about what memory you might choose to spend the rest of time reliving.

What is the happiest moment of your life? If you had to pick one moment, one memory to keep with you and the rest were going to be erased what would it be? This is the central question of Afterlife a film about life, memory, happiness, movie making, and only in tangent, death. A group of dead people arrive at a dilapidated building where they are told to select a single memory that they will dwell in for all eternity. Heaven as it turns out is only a memory. The film is mostly these people talking directly into the camera documentary style reflecting on what was most important to them.I recently told a friend about this movie, who told me it sounded "corny", and if the film had only been about these people I, might agree. I told my friend that I liked the film because while watching it I reflected on my entire life, and what happiness had meant to me during it. I was almost shocked and a little saddened by how quickly I came to realize what my moment was, like the movie as a whole it leaves a bittersweet taste. My friend told me they didn't think about their life that way, and that it would be too depressing to do so. I told her that someone in the movie says that too, and what made the movie as a whole so good and not just a clever concept was how honest it was about the complications between notions of a meaningful life, nostalgia, and personal happiness.The dead have a half a week to choose which memory they want and the rest of the week is spent filming the memories in a sound studio. The screening at the end of the week is to be their moment of "ascension". Though silent at first the "counselors" shooting these memory-movies are not separate from the process, they too are dead. Takashi and his trainee Shiori we see handle most of the cases.Afterlife despite its title is not a film about death, but about memory and self-reflection. Two characters become problematic early on, one an old man who says he cant remember his life clearly enough to choose a specific moment, the other a young man who refuses to chose a moment, insisting it would be "avoiding responsibility for his life" and a surrender to empty nostalgia. Takashi becomes interested in the old man's case(for personal reasons we discover later), and has the man's life sent to him on videotape so that he may observe and report, in a quieter variation on Albert Brook's "Defending Your Life" (a conceptual cousin to Afterlife).Afterlife is about producing films that capture only a single moment and that only have meaning to single person; films that will only be screened once, but will be remembered literally forever. They are so personal as to be inconsequential to anyone but their intended viewer, but I couldn't think of a more meaningful type of film to make both for an audience and their creators. I think this is why many people watch films, at times to identify and at others to connect with what is unidentifiable.Russian silent film director Aleksandr Medvedkin used to travel the USSR on a train stopping at random villages and asking the people what their problems, issues, and concerns were and then asked for their assistance in making a film about just that. Doing this Medvedkin wanted to give cinema to the masses. The world of Afterlife likewise gives cinema to the individual.There are sprinklings of melodrama in the film towards the end, but they allow the characters to actually reach important conclusions that the film wouldn't have been able to connect together otherwise. Even if you can't remember your own moment, isn't it possible that you are an extra or a main character in someone else's, and nothing as dramatic as some old flame pining over you, but maybe a moment spent with a friend or a family member. Maybe your parent's happiest moment was when you were born. It's only from an imaginary position like an Afterlife that we have the distance to reflect on such grand feelings intimately and sincerely.Since were not dead, this question can be written off as sophomoric or corny, our best days may in fact still be ahead. But I wonder if without some prior sense of what is truly beautiful, meaningful, and warm fuzziness incarnate whether we can know true bliss when we finally see it. This is assuming it's something you can even know when you see it, and not something that only occurs with memory. I was once told in a Sunday Sermon, happiness is predicated on happenings and events, but joy was something internal that had little relation to the outside world. Personally I think real happiness is created when memories generate joy that later events cannot soil or touch.The only objections I could reasonably see are often spoken by the characters themselves, particularly the young man, who thinks the entire system is flawed; what do they do if a baby dies for instance? My own moment (and no I will not tell you nor anyone else) was actually quite "corny", in fact it was the first time in my life I realized why a certain kind of sentimentality existed. This movie is sentimental for sure, but it's definitely sincere. If we get lucky in this universe and there is an Afterlife, we would all be very fortunate to find ourselves in a movie theaters like these with kind hearted counselors to help us grieve for and accept our lives, and if there isn't well at least there's still movies like Afterlife; things worth seeing, things worth talking about, and things worth sharing with each other.

The underlying premise and theme of this film is extremely thought-provoking. Within the first 20 minutes, your brain will light up like a Christmas tree as you think of the implications and how you would react in a similar situation. It has the magical ability to awaken nostalgic memories of your own, and several times I had to pause the film so that I could indulge my own private thoughts for a while. Hats off to the director/writer for achieving the necessary balance between fantasy and realism (i.e., taking you to a surreal place whilst not destroying the human perspective).But the downside... I feel that the director failed to cultivate some of the excellent philosophies which were barely touched upon. This could have been accomplished with more dialogue. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of *talking* in the movie, but it's mostly anecdotal (people wistfully reminiscing about the past). There wasn't enough analysis and barely any *dialogue* (people communicating with each other).Without ruining anything, I'll give you one example. The premise is, of course, "if you had to pick one memory to relive forever, which would you choose?" One character simply refuses to pick. This is brilliant. As soon as he takes his position, which he does in the first 10 minutes of the film, it woke me up and made me wonder why he would choose this unconventional act of defiance.But much to my disappointment, this central theme is abandoned. The character is hardly seen again. He does deliver an interesting monologue towards the end which is encapsulated in a single powerful statement he says (I won't tell you what it is). But I couldn't help feeling as if the director didn't really follow through with his philosophy.Perhaps that was the intent of the director: to present us only with fragments so that we may ponder the philosophy ourselves. But that approach somewhat betrays the nature of art. Art, I believe, should do its best to communicate a complete idea, and *then* open up the floor for discussion. Anything less is a mere Rorshach test. Or whatever you call those inkblot thingees that psychologists use to probe your mind.As you can probably guess, I'm not a big fan of the Minimalist movement.Another gripe... Some of the interesting philosophical points were shoved aside to make room for the romantic sub-plot, which I found to be a bit forced and unbelievable. I would have preferred to see the director stick to the heavier issues. If this is truly a film about deep spirituality, why dedicate so much time to a teenage girl's crush on a guy?So my overall criticism is that there wasn't enough substance presented. I admit there IS the possibility that the dialogue/philosophy I craved was lost in translation. It is possible that the English subtitles didn't convey the philosophy inherent in the original Japanese. That's been known to happen.But still, I think this film could have truly benefited by a good old fashioned Shakespearian soliloquy, like Hamlet Act III Sc 1, to help clarify the director's message.Well, here I've wasted my whole review babbling about philosophy, and I haven't touched upon the technical merits of this film. Let me just wrap up by reiterating that THIS IS A GOOD FILM despite my criticism. I love the way the director achieved a surreal feeling without using gimmicky, schlocky clichés like pearly gates and angels and pixie dust. Everything about the production is firmly rooted in reality despite the very unrealistic nature, and that achieves a very bizarre and clever paradox. Also there's no music at all. It's an original, I'll definitely give it that! Give it a whirl. I'll probably watch it a 2nd time myself.