| Page 1 of 4: | [1] [2] [3] [4] |
| Index | 37 reviews in total |
17 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Adventures on the streets of Downtown LA, 26 December 2004
Author:
ICMovies2 from United States
Growing 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.
15 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Underrated, 2 July 1999
![]()
Author:
Quetzl from Detroit
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).
11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
It wasn't bad, just different., 17 July 2006
![]()
Author:
krowley13 from United States
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.
9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
This was a surprisingly GOOD movie, 15 April 2006
![]()
Author:
rdcop from United States
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.
8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Not even close to as bad as some make it out to be, but still below normal pre-Spaceballs quality Brooks, 12 June 2002
Author:
elurker
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.
8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A charming comedy, 2 February 2008
![]()
Author:
ido50 from Israel
Seeing 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.
8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Funny Social Commentary, 24 February 2002
![]()
Author:
John Langbein (medrjel) from Dixie, USA
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.
9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
A different Mel Brooks movie, but manages to make you smile and think, 10 August 2008
![]()
Author:
departed07 from United States
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.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
This movie just gets better, 11 January 2008
![]()
Author:
hintjens from Netherlands
Brilliant over-acting by Lesley Ann Warren. Best dramatic hobo lady I have ever seen, and love scenes in clothes warehouse are second to none. The corn on face is a classic, as good as anything in Blazing Saddles. The take on lawyers is also superb. After being accused of being a turncoat, selling out his boss, and being dishonest the lawyer of Pepto Bolt shrugs indifferently "I'm a lawyer" he says. Three funny words. Jeffrey Tambor, a favorite from the later Larry Sanders show, is fantastic here too as a mad millionaire who wants to crush the ghetto. His character is more malevolent than usual. The hospital scene, and the scene where the homeless invade a demolition site, are all-time classics. Look for the legs scene and the two big diggers fighting (one bleeds). This movie gets better each time I see it (which is quite often).
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Good, easy to watch comedy from Brooks, 17 January 2000
Author:
petervee from Ottawa, Canada
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is a good film by Mel Brooks. On the easy-to-watch side, it is the story of two very rich men who bet the ownership of a homeless area of LA on whether one of them (Brooks) can stay alive homeless, paperless and pennyless in the slums of LA. The dance number with Brooks and Warren is good as is the scene in Brooks house "my Rodin....my van Gogh...." This is a nice movie, portraying the dirty and awfull side of homelessness in a perhaps un-true manner (for younger audiences). Also shows how bad lawyers are and how easily money changes people.
| Page 1 of 4: | [1] [2] [3] [4] |
| Plot summary | Amazon.com summary | Ratings |
| Newsgroup reviews | External reviews | Parents Guide |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |