"Defending Your Life" is a new-age reincarnation movie, which means it has a sappy premise that only someone that has led a pampered existence could possibly relate to. Daniel Miller is an advertising executive who buys himself a BMW as a birthday present to himself. Then, when trying to pick up a bunch of CDs that have fallen on the floor while driving, he runs head on into a bus, dying instantly. When he wakes up, he finds himself in Judgment City, where a tribunal will decide whether he will be able to "move forward" (presumably to some higher plane of existence), go back to Earth to be reincarnated so he can try to do better next time, or be discarded as so utterly worthless that he is not worth saving.Now, you may think this tribunal would be concerned with Miller's self-centered attitude or his thoughtlessness. Or, possibly it would be concerned with some darker sins, like being mean and selfish. No, the only thing the tribunal cares about is fear. According to prosecuting attorney Lena Foster, Miller cannot be allowed to move forward, because he never overcame his fears.Let's stop right there. Fear is a normal, healthy reaction to danger. It is the emotion that makes you take precautions to avoid dangerous situations, and when that is not possible, to hide or run away. The absurd premise of this movie, that fear is something that must always be overcome, makes sense only in a world where one is sheltered from danger, for people who have lived relatively healthy lives in middle-class America.During the trial, we see scenes from Miller's life of which every second has been recorded. We see, for example, a scene in which he is being harassed by a bully when he is in grade school. This is presented by prosecuting attorney Foster as evidence that Miller has not overcome his fears. The idea, presumably, is that he should have fought that bully instead of backing down and being humiliated. Fine. But what I want to know is, When the bully died, did he get to move forward? One would think so, because the bully sure wasn't afraid. And as I noted above, the tribunal in Judgment City seems to care nothing about moral worth, only whether one has overcome fear.This is not addressed in the movie, no doubt because of the self-satisfying myth that so many people cling to, which is that bullies are cowards. But this is just an imaginary revenge against bullies. I knew a few bullies when I was young, and none of them were cowards. Sure, they often picked on kids who were smaller and weaker, but they were just as likely to take on someone twice their size and even beat the crap out of him. So, from what I could tell, these bullies would definitely have been allowed to "move forward," because they had undeniably overcome their fears.Meanwhile, back in the jungle. That is, Miller and Julia go to a place where they can see what they were in their past lives. Miller sees himself as a black African primitive who is running through the jungle from a lion. I guess that is why Miller had to come back, because when he was that primitive man in Africa, he was unable to overcome his fear of lions. He should have stood his ground and kicked its ass.Foster presents more evidence against Miller. A friend of his once gave him some inside information about a new watch company, telling him to invest $10,000 in the company, which is all the money Miller had at that time. We won't quibble about the fact that it is illegal to profit from inside information, because most people don't really regard that as a crime, especially when they stand a chance to take advantage of such information. More to the point, when someone gives you some "inside information" about a company and tells you to invest all you have in it, that is a damn good time to be afraid. Sure, the company turned out to be Casio, so with hindsight we can see he would have made 37 million dollars on the deal, but most of the time such information turns out to be worthless. Nevertheless, Miller is accused of letting his fear keep him from making a killing in the stock market.It gets worse. It is pointed out that Miller subsequently invested the $10,000 in cattle and lost it all. But does he get credit for having the courage to invest the money in cattle? No. Apparently, you only get credit for having the courage to make good investments, not for having the courage to make bad investments. Well, I'm glad they cleared that up. Now we all know how we should invest our money.As the pièce de résistance, Foster presents a scene from what Miller did while in Judgment City. In particular, on the previous evening, Julia and Miller confessed their love for each other. She invited him to spend the night with her. But he didn't want to, because he believed their relationship was just perfect the way it was, and he was afraid that sex would spoil it. Once again, Foster points out, Miller has failed to overcome his fears and he does not deserve to move forward. Well, all I can say is that I have known several women who did not want to have sex with me because they said it would spoil our friendship, so I guess they will not be moving forward either. I, on the other, was fearless in the matter, more than willing to risk the friendship to satisfy my lust, so I guess I will be moving forward.

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?

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!

Albert Brooks writes, directs & stars in this 1991 romantic comedy that co-stars Meryl Streep, Rip Torn and Lee Grant. After getting into a car accident on his birthday, Daniel Miller (Brooks) is sent to the afterlife where he's on trial for being afraid his whole life. He meets lawyer, Bob Diamond (Torn) who defends him and prosecutor, Lena Foster (Grant). They show him past moments of his life where he had fear and made wrong decisions. Soon, Daniel finds romance with Julia (Streep) and must try to overcome his fear. I've always liked this film, Albert did a great job and he and Meryl have good chemistry. I also really like the food scenes where you can eat all you want without gaining weight. I recommend this great film.