The premise of After Life (I refuse to call this film After.Life, because I have no idea what
the point of the period is) is rather compelling. In fact, it seems like the
kind of scenario which would work perfectly as a short film. As a feature film,
it is nothing but frustrating. At first I was convinced that the film was
compelling simply because it kept me guessing about the end.
I knew that the film was going in one
of two directions; ghost story or serial killer. As long as I didn’t know what
type of film it was, I couldn’t predict where it was going. Here is the
problem: the distinction is never made.
Rather than make a decision, this film backs itself into a corner which makes
either implausible, giving no final conclusion either way. It is one thing to
allow the audience to decide, but only when the clues are there. After Life attempts to have it both
ways, failing miserably.
After a
contrived argument with her boyfriend, Anna (Christina Ricci) rushes away from
a date only to get in a car accident. When she awakens, Anna is in a funeral
home run by Eliot Deacon (Liam Neeson). Deacon claims that Anna is dead, and
that he has a special ability to talk to the dead. Meanwhile Anna’s boyfriend,
Paul (Justin Long), becomes convinced that she isn’t really dead. At the same
time the audience never knows whether or not she is dead, but the film
frustratingly goes nowhere.
Once the premise
is established, Deacon takes an overly long time preparing Anna. Ricci spends
half of the movie nude, for no notable reason other than to keep the audience’s
attention off of the fact that nothing happens. Other scenes are of an
overacting Long attempting a one-man show of grief, in all stages. Although
After Life is certainly unique in some ways, which does not necessarily make it
a film of any worth. As captivated as I was at the premise, by the end I was
angered by the outcome.
Entertainment Value:
4/10
Quality of
Filmmaking: 4/10
Historical
Significance: 2/10
No comments:
Post a Comment