Life Stinks (1991)

"Life Stinks" is a somewhat uneasy mixture of drama, dark comedy, and slapstick. As opposed to many of Brooks other movies, there is an actual story being told, rather than just a series of almost unrelated sketches. The first half (dark comedy and drama) is much better than what follows, which is mostly slapstick. Brooks is believable as the displaced millionaire living among derelicts in order to win a bet. Lessley Ann Warren is also very good as a bag lady. Although somewhat damaged by the uneven script, "Life Stinks" is entertaining, and you cannot help but come away with a sympathetic view of the homeless people. I say this, go in expecting drama, with some laughs, and you will be pleasantly surprised. - MERK

Fmovies: This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead).

Homelessness (or Houselessness as George Carlin stated) has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school, work, or vote for the matter. Most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism, the war on Iraq, pressuring kids to succeed, technology, the elections, inflation, or worrying if they'll be next to end up on the streets.

But what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home, the entertainment sets, a bathroom, pictures on the wall, a computer, and everything you once treasure to see what it's like to be homeless? That is Goddard Bolt's lesson.

Mel Brooks (who directs) who stars as Bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival (Jeffery Tambor) to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries; if Bolt succeeds, he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings. The bet's on where Bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can't step off the sidewalk. He's given the nickname Pepto by a vagrant after it's written on his forehead where Bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) an ex-dancer who got divorce before losing her home, and her pals Sailor (Howard Morris) and Fumes (Teddy Wilson) who are already used to the streets. They're survivors. Bolt isn't. He's not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it's fight or flight, kill or be killed.

While the love connection between Molly and Bolt wasn't necessary to plot, I found "Life Stinks" to be one of Mel Brooks' observant films where prior to being a comedy, it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Spaceballs for the matter, to show what it's like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don't know what to do with their money. Maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like Monopoly money.

Or maybe this film will inspire you to help others.

Life Stinks fmovies. This is not the typical Mel Brooks film. It was much less slapstick than most of his movies and actually had a plot that was followable. Leslie Ann Warren made the movie, she is such a fantastic, under-rated actress. There were some moments that could have been fleshed out a bit more, and some scenes that could probably have been cut to make the room to do so, but all in all, this is worth the price to rent and see it. The acting was good overall, Brooks himself did a good job without his characteristic speaking to directly to the audience. Again, Warren was the best actor in the movie, but "Fume" and "Sailor" both played their parts well.

I guess as we all get older, we feel the need to be more enlightened socially, and that's what this movie's all about. Take a rich man, throw him on the streets for 30 days, and a little backstabbing and you get a movie.

This movie, while not on par with most of Mel's previous ambitions, is a nice movie. Leslie Ann Warren is pleasing as the bag lady. I enjoyed it, but it's not like Mel Brook's other movies. That's where most criticism comes in. If anyone else made this movie, I think it would of recieved a lot more praise.

That's not to say Mel made no mistakes. Some of the scenes are downright dumb and make no real sense other than trying to make a joke. Then again, I think you can say that about almost every other movie too.

I think most people could enjoy this movie on some level if they forget it's a Mel Brooks project, which is hard since he stars in it.

Mel Brooks has been in a serious decline. This is commonly accepted fact. This movie was guaranteed to not even touch early Brooks, for it was made during his decline. It was to be no Young Frankenstein, no Silent Movie, no Producers,not even a History of The World. What I wanted to find out was how close it came to these classics.

Quite close, in fact. It certainly has its moments(Mel's dancing, getting knocked into the dumpster), and forms a more cohesive whole then most recent Brooks movies(it contains more then a series of gags loosely tied together by a plot that could have been created by a 3 year old). I didn't find it offensive - the way it dealt with homelessness may not be the whole truth, but remember, this is a PG-13 movie and is meant to be suitable for family viewing.

Overall, this is a decent movie, and certainly doesn't deserve a 4.8. It's not Brooks' best(not even close), but is an inoffensive comedy which only has one particuarly objectionable scene and will certainly entertain. Worth a rental.