Being a fan of Mel Brooks movies in general, it wasn't hard for me to find this movie enjoyable. Many Mel Brooks fans like the laugh-a-minute spoof humor that is usually incorporated into the movies. This one was slightly more serious then his other movies, not having as many puns and witty banters and physical humor jokes. It was really more of a drama with a couple scenes here and there with the Mel Brooks humor. A lot of my friends who are also Mel Brooks fans, found this movies to be less enjoyable simply because of the lack of humor. A few of my friends who had never really cared for Mel Brooks movies liked this one more simply because it was more serious, and with less of the typical Brooks styled jokes. All in all it was a really good movie, and I thought it was well written. While this movie isn't my favorites of the Mel Brooks movies (how can one compete with Spaceballs, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, Young Frankenstien, etc.?) it was still enjoyable, and I don't think it's nearly as bad as some people are making it to be.
Add a Review
-
krowley1317 July 2006
-
Quetzl2 July 1999This 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).
-
elo-equipamentos10 October 2017Mel Brooks won't one of my favorite filmmakers, but this time he gets hit in the target in this dramatic comedy and pay tribute to those invisible people who lives in the streets as human remains, scorned by the society and must to be hidden to landscape, people like "Sailor" who bring to character homeless's heart and end up died on the sidewalks of the cities, Mel leaves a sublime message to the audience and his critic to the society and how says the tittle life stinks!!!
Resume:
First watch: 1996 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5 -
ICMovies226 December 2004Growing up around downtown LA as a kid in the seventies didn't look much different than it does today as far as the kinds of odd characters you'll run into while passing through it and I think this movie really captures some of the authentic types of characters you meet when you really get to know them, but you also run into those other types that are always looking for trouble as also depicted in this Mel Brooks movie who brings a lighter and even comical side to this scenario that is so prevalent and filmed in downtown Los Angeles.
Mel Brooks also stars as Goddard Bolt, a ruthless billionaire who soon begins to experience how the other half lives by unintentionally making a bet with his conniving business associates, from there he goes from riches to rags and meets some strange, funny but good hearted souls on the streets as well as endless comical mishaps, but with the help of a bag lady (Lesley Ann Warren) he begins to discover what really matters most unlike his former business associates.
Although this is one of my favorite movies, I still think the ending could have been done much better, but the comedy throughout never ends. -
merklekranz18 November 2009"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
-
medrjel24 February 2002I 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. -
Qanqor2 June 2008Whenever I make up a list of the absolute worst movies I've ever seen, this movie is always on it. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It took an act of will to sit through the whole thing, and I would sooner spill my own blood than have to sit through it again.
What's wrong with it? Let me tell you the story of my trip to go see it in the theater.
I went to a midnight show, on a Saturday night. I the only ones in the theater were myself, and a bunch of loud, boisterous, rather unruly teenagers, sitting somewhere behind me. They were obviously out having a good time on a Saturday night, and had come to this "comedy" for some laughs. Before the movie starts, during the previews, they were laughing and joking and making loud comments having a grand old time. It was borderline annoying; had they continued their unbridled enthusiasm into the actual movie, I might've said something, but I was feeling tolerant and empathetic of their spirited fun, so I let it go. And they did settle down once the movie started.
Why am I telling you all this? Because you can judge this alleged "comedy" by the effect it had not just on myself, but on this rowdy bunch.
During the entire run of the film, not one person in the theater laughed. Not once. Not myself, not the boisterous kids. Absolute silence, aside from the soundtrack. And when the film was over and the lights came on, we all, all of us, slowly filed out of the theater in slow, somber, absolute silence. It could've been a funeral.
This was the effect that this "comedy" produced. Not laughter, not enjoyment, but absolute DEPRESSION. It was a depressing, depressing movie, and not the tiniest bit funny. Preachy, self-indulgent, depressing, but not funny.
I consider Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" to be on the short list for Funniest Movie Ever. It still absolutely blows my mind that the same gentleman could be responsible for quite probably the Least Funny Movie Ever.
In short: if you're feeling too happy, give this movie a whirl; otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you. -
brandimarie19852 February 2022I was surprised after watching this to find it had a 5.8/10 rating on IMDB and some reviews across the internet that make this movie look like it isn't worth a watch. I thought it was great. I have no attention span and I sat through this entire movie and even plan to purchase it on DVD if I can find it. As far as laughing your arse off, you probably won't but there is a lot in this movie that made me smile but I would call this almost a Comedy/Slapstick/Drama/Romance because of the story line. I thought Mel Brooks and Sigourney Weaver have great chemistry together. There is a dance scene I felt was a little lengthy, not too dazzling and kind of unnecessary and I feel it should have been cut from the official release of the film and would be better as an extra clip but I feel like they left it to give more body to Molly's background as a dancer. Nevertheless, this movie will go into my top 100 all-time favorites. If you enjoy a cute romance story coupled with smart-ass comments and some Three Stooges' type comedy then check it out.
-
inkblot118 November 2006Goddard Bolt (Mel Brooks) is a wealthy businessman who doesn't understand why cutting down a rainforest or tearing down an old folks home might create problems, if such a thing is counter to his plans. He lives in a mansion and has three lawyers at his beck and call. However, he only owns half of a homeless neighborhood in LA and he wants it all, greedy man! Of course, his plans are to raze what's there and make a new neighborhood in its place. Although Bolt is willing to buy the other half of the neighborhood, the present owner convinces Bolt to do things a little differently. If Bolt can live for 30 days, as he has bragged, in the rundown neighborhood, he will win the land. If Bolt can't make it, he'll forfeit his own land. Bolt is game. He lands in the neighborhood and begins a journey to experience life as a homeless vagrant. Can he really survive this treacherous territory? This movie has some good ideas and some good scenes. Watch Brooks try to earn some money by tapdancing or attack his opponent with a construction shovel and you will be laughing plenty. But, the overall film is just average. It takes a good look at the homeless and the instrinsic worth of a human being, yes. But, the humor is just not there in abundance, unlike other Brooks' movies. Brooks tries hard, though, and Warren is winning as the most beautiful homeless woman ever on screen. If you like Mel Brooks, do not shy away from this film. Just be prepared to sit down to an only mildly entertaining film and one that is not particularly memorable.
-
Captain_Couth27 August 2005Life Stinks (1991) was a step below Mel Brooks other productions. He stars as a rich man who wages an insane wager with his "friends". Brooks claims that he can life like a homeless man for a month. His shocked and amused friends accept this unusual wager. During his "stay" in the Bowery, he meets a bunch of odd homeless people, one of them catches his fancy (Lesley-Ann Warren). They strike up a friendship as she teaches him the many tricks she learned whilst living on the street. Can Mr. Brooks survive on his own without the luxuries of being filthy rich? Will he win this unorthodox wager? Who are his true friends? Find out when you watch LIFE STINKS to find out!
This film has been slagged unfairly. Sure it's not a classic like his earlier films but it's still enjoyable. I liked the way Mel Brooks pays homage to Charles Chaplin in this film. If you have watched Chaplin's earlier silent films then you'll get the humor as well.
Recommended for Mel Brooks fans. -
CHARLIE-897 November 1999This movie was a kind of turn for Mel Brooks. It was a return to his days of old, when his stories were not raunchy spoofs but human relationship comedies. However, there is one major difference between "The 12 Chairs" and "Life Stinks"- the first one is funny, the latter is not. Very simple. Some people whether or not homelessness is a good source of comedy. Well, maybe. I don't know. It's been used to good advantage before in "Sullivan's Travels"-perhaps because the situations there are cleaned up by the censors of the day. But the bums here are the type you'd expect to meet in a Charlie Chaplin picture. At the same time, there are scenes where it seems depressing. I felt depressed watching this movie indeed. The scene where the sleazy business man bribed the lawyers to convince Brooks that all his hard work was for naught is merciless. Overall, Brooks seemed to want to attempt another human values comedy, but like before, failed miserably at the box office and with the public. His films seem to be getting worse and worse, though they definitely follow a "good-bad-good-bad" pattern.
-
This year is the 20th anniversary for Mel Brooks' underrated comedy Life Stinks, which was a departure for Brooks in that it was the first straight story he had done since The Twelve Chairs in 1970. It wasn't a parody of a genre like Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles, Silent Movie, and High Anxiety. This was a story trying to show us the plight of the homeless, which is all around us. How many panhandlers do we see on the subway going to work or outside a McDonald's that we brush off? What about the people who wipe windshields down at the Holland Tunnel? These are people who have been thrown away by the system that seems to thrive on keeping the rich in power and not understanding that as Brooks' character says, "Every person has the right to have a place to live." Brooks is showing us that it isn't easy out there and there are dangerous elements that we need to take care of. So why don't we try to deal with this problem? I have the answer from George Carlin's 1992 HBO special: There is no money to be made off the homeless. You need to have a solution that ends homelessness and have the corporate guys steal money in the process instead of just trying to care for your fellow man through human decency, which isn't going to happen because we are a selfish species who only care for our own welfare. As to this film, the best moment to me is when Brooks' character sees a homeless friend has died and he is just being taken away to the morgue. Watch how Brooks is acting in the scene. He realizes that there are many like his friend who have become victims and it is almost due to his past being uncaring about them, as he was in the opening scene, when he doesn't care about consequences to actions he is taking in tearing down people's homes. So why didn't this film do better in this country? Well, yeah, it was released under MGM, which had financial problems and still does, but I have the feeling that even if it had been released on 2000 screens at once, people would not have wanted to see a film that criticizes its country. Brooks himself mentioned how the film became a big hit overseas for him. I guess other countries were more open to our problems. We should not be patting ourselves on the back saying we're a great country. We have our own faults too and we need to look at them. It is so ever true today. The whole bit where Tambor's character bribes Brooks' lawyers to join him in betraying Brooks is just like the Wall Street meltdown of 2008. These guys could have been on Wall Street doing the same thing. I would've loved to have been a judge disbarring the lawyers that pulled this stunt on Brooks. Anyway, this is a film that should've won Best Screenplay at the Oscars as well. I hope that people seek out this film and realize, "There but for the grace of God, go I." In this day and age, this film was an omen.
-
zerlinde625 November 2021...what kind of life those who gave this film bad ratings & reviews live. Probably comfortable, spouting about how this film is tasteless & not funny. Of course-why should they know how being poor/homeless is tragic? Life Stinks was no Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles (which had PLENTY of tasteless jokes, as in when Cleavon Little's character said good morning to an old lady & she responds, "Up yours, ni**er!" but nobody seemed to have a problem with that), Spaceballs, High Anxiety (spoof of Hitchcock films), or To Be Or Not to Be. However, it was a good try at making a comedy that also makes a societal statement & how things can change for the worse in a matter of moments, and it was quite believable because people don't realize what they had until they hit rock bottom. At least he kept it amusing, & Lesley Ann Warren gives an amazing performance as Molly.
If this movie is in bad taste for some, which side promotes the bad taste? The rich a-holes, or the poor & homeless? Tbh, the only bad taste was the one seeping from my mouth when Vance double-crossed "Pepto." If it's the homeless "vagrants" that give those people a bad taste in their mouths, know that it very well could've been someone I love very much who could've ended up like him (sans climax & denouement) if I didn't have the empathy & love in me to take him in, give him a bed and roof to sleep on & under, feed him, & encourage him to go to a doctor due to health problems, he'd be as dead as Sailor, people passing him on the streets as if he's just a piece of garbage on the street. I felt Bolt change poignantly from a greedy businessman to a "real" person in dire straits, and that says a lot. Bolt didn't start out as a particularly generous man & was unabashedly chasing a goldmine, but he learned his lesson quickly. Not particularly easy to do when you've had everything since you were a child & suddenly you have nothing, but he found, luckily, that he did have heart. He became friends with a man who peed on him-I can imagine a guy like Vance kicking the crap out of poor old Sailor, though.
I felt there were very funny bits of comedy, mostly the subtle ones another may not catch, & some good slapstick. Overall I agree with fans who say it's not his best, but to call how the homeless were portrayed as unrealistic tells me none of these people have been to or through any slum sections of large cities. For those reviewers, try walking in the ABC section of NYC or Harlem. I have, and from what I've seen there & in East L. A., the portrayal seems pretty realistic to me.
I say if you're not really a Mel Brooks fan or haven't seen any other of his films and/or you prefer spoofs, skip Life Stinks & watch Young Frankenstein or High Anxiety (great performances by Cloris Leachman and Madeline Kahn {RIP...she was a hilarious comedian. And anyone who thinks Brooks directed films are better without him in them, I suggest watching High Anxiety...the airport scene is hilarious.
All in all this movie makes the mark for me no matter what critics say-they're critics for a reason-they can't make films. -
I have done quite a few reviews on IMDb and this film is unique in that I never saw the entire movie. It was so terribly stupid and unfunny that I just couldn't sit through it--though I tried.
The biggest problem with this and any Mel Brooks movie I call "the Mel quotient". In other words, the better his movie, the less of him you see in the film. Think about it--The Producers and Young Frankenstein were great films and he was barely in them at all. BUT, films like Life Stinks and Space Balls are chock full of Mel and are pretty dopey movies (yes, I DID NOT LIKE Space Balls--but this isn't the place to talk about that).
Second, apart from cancer, rectal itch and mental retardation, I can't think of a less funny topic than homelessness. This is just a comedy breaker. Think about it, folks. The FUNNIEST(?) scene in the movie has Mel making whoopee with Leslie Ann Warren in a dumpster!! And this is funny in what way? -
elurker12 June 2002Mel 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. -
RodrigAndrisan24 May 2021... but still entertaining. Actually, it's the saddest comedy he did. The topic of homelessness is more current than ever. As a spirit, it somehow approaches Chaplin, only it doesn't make you laugh, it leaves you with a bitter taste. It somehow resembles Vittorio De Sica's "Miracle in Milan" (1951).
-
ericgoldberg-5015929 November 2022This movie is okay but one of my least favorite Mel Brooks movies. It's no Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein or Spaceballs. Lesley Ann Warren really hams it up in such a ridiculous way with her screaming and overacting. She was much better as Miss Scarlet in the movie Clue. Jeffrey Tambor plays a good sleazeball. The story is very similar to Trading Places which is so much better than this. It's only saving grace is Mel Brooks himself.
I will say this movie makes me walk a mile in a homeless person's shoes and see what they have to do to survive. The moral of the movie is that people, especially the rich, shouldn't treat the homeless like garbage. They should help them in any way they can. -
skad1326 August 1999Another chapter in the ongoing question, whatever happened to Mel Brooks's sense of humor? It starts out nicely enough, with Mel as Trump-like mogul Goddard Bolt ("You can call me God"), who accepts a bet that he can't live on the streets for 30 days. But the moment the movie hits the streets, it turns into a pathos-laden mess, with occasional "funny" bits interjected (Mel sees a black kid break-dancing for money and tries to do a vaudeville buck-and-wing, yuk, yuk). Leslie Ann Warren is nothing short of wasted. The worst part is this movie's musical number, in which Brooks and Warren do a silent dance to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love." Brooks's musical parodies are usually the highlights of his movies; here he plays the whole thing straight, like a dancing excerpt from an aging guest star on "The Carol Burnett Show" (on which Rudy DeLuca, this film's co-writer, began his career). Go rent Charlie Chaplin's THE KID, which covered the same ground 70 years before and did a lot
-
blumdeluxe26 December 2019"Life stinks" tells the story of a rich businessman who, in order to gain ownership over a piece of land, agrees into a bet that makes him live under the poor inhabitants of named quarter for a certain amount of time, questioning many things that he thought to be very clear.
The story reminds a lot of "The Ghost of Christmas Past" and is pretty much similar. What is added here is a good sense of humor and a more modern approach. Generally though, the film stays quite predictable. However it is not too hard to emphasize with the characters and the message surely hasn't lost a bit of its value.
All in all this is not a top title and you can argue, whether it was necessary to tell this old tale in a new form, but if you set this discussion aside, you get a solid film for a solid one-time view. -
smartgggg3 April 2003Actually... the first half of this movie is quite enjoyable! Billionaire Brooks on the streets, having to find shelter and something to eat to keep living. And some hilarious lines. For instance, at one point there is this bum who looks at a soaking wet box (his home), floating away in the rain. His reaction: "There goes our neighborhood". But when Brooks returns to his villa after he's won the bet, this film rapidly turns into what Brooks had been eating when he was on the streets: garbage. Couldn't they have figured out something better than this?
Rating from the Dutch judge: 5 (out of 10). -
gavin694210 March 2017A filthy rich businessman (Mel Brooks) bets a corporate rival (Jeffrey Tambor) that he can live on the streets of L.A. without the comforts of home or money, which proves to be tougher than he thought.
This is not one of those Mel Brooks films you hear about. It may, in fact, be the least talked about. But that's not entirely fair, because while this is not "classic Brooks" by any means, it is also not his worst. There are some clever moments and a fair amount of humor, even if the social commentary might not be as biting.
The one down side, in my opinion, is that the poverty scenes don't go far enough. Yes, there are rats and one character dies, but it seems like Brooks' character gets off relatively light. But this all ends up being more or less a prelude anyway... -
The movie is rife with scenes and themes that could act as negative emotional triggers for many individuals. This is not parody. The film does not have a redeeming lesson. It is, rather, a bizarre piece what could only be deemed sadistic exploitation, and to what end I do not know.
-
ido502 February 2008Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was "just OK", I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.
But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.
There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.
Very recommended. -
welhof130 June 2021This was your typical slightly above average comedy. Just a movie you sit down to and laugh and move on with your life. Mel Brooks was in typical form here, I've always enjoyed him. There were small scenes throughout the movie that were barely noticeable that I thought were funny than the main funny parts haha. An enjoyable film. Check it out.
-
lee_eisenberg25 March 2018By the 1990s, Mel Brooks was one of the undisputed kings of parody. His unabashedly tasteless comedies poked fun at almost every topic and genre. So it was no doubt a surprise when he released a movie that was an original story and not a spoof. I once found an entry for "Life Stinks" in a film encyclopedia, and the description began "So does the film." I will say that it's no "Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein" or "Spaceballs", but it has its moments (and it does draw attention to homelessness). We could be cynical and say that what it depicts would never happen in real life, but would ANY of Mel Brooks's movies happen in real life?
So even if we understand that it's probably his lowest movie, we can still enjoy it. It turns out that Theodore Wilson (Fumes) died of a stroke around the time of the movie's release. Damn.