spencer-w-hensley I just finally finished watching this film. Before viewing it I had heard it was considered Mel Brooks' worst movie and that it was more of a serious film in comparison to his older work. I thought maybe it got a bad rap because being serious it was not what people were expecting from a Mel Brooks film at the time, and I enjoy seeing filmmakers break their usual territory in branching out to try something different. Also this was Mel Brooks' first film in four years after Spaceballs which had developed a massive cult following by that time, so I am sure audiences were expecting comedy gold yet again from Brooks'. While the film does have its heart in the right place, as well as some nice performances and a few scattered chuckles, this is one of Brooks' weakest moments. The problem is he doesn't seem to know whether or not he wants to make this a comedy or a drama so he tries to incorporate elements of both and it doesn't work. Mel Brooks' is universally known as a comedic director, but if he wanted to take a more serious approach in directing, he should have focused on the film being a drama entirely and getting someone else other than himself to play the lead role. I mean who could really take Mel Brooks seriously as a dramatic actor? The film does have its merits and I guess Brooks is trying to give his audience a message, that there are always people who have it worse than we do, and that we need to pay more attention to the homeless people on the street because they aren't begging for what we think they might be, they really need help, but what is funny about that when it's all said and done? Granted the film does have a few laughs, very little of them come from Brooks' signature parody- style comedy, but I laughed maybe about five times, which is really unusual for a Mel Brooks' film which have reputations for being laugh out loud all the way through. Leslie Ann Warren provides some nice comic support to Brooks' here and makes the film at least watchable, several other actors playing the homeless also keep the film afloat. Jeffery Tambor is Brooks' rival and ultimate nemesis here. He is given very little to do, and his role is predictable, clichéd and unconvincing for a comedy villain. And then the film just gets downright annoying at the end with Brooks' recycling old jokes from earlier in the film, that weren't really even that funny the first time. Mel Brooks is a director similar to Francis Ford Coppola only in the sense that both men had their greatest successes in the 1970's and their work going into the 1980's and 90's was either hit and miss or just misses all the way around. The unbalance between comedy and drama is what makes this film a weak Brooks' outing. Francis Ford Coppola had the same problem with Jack starring Robin Williams in that the film didn't know if it wanted to be funny or serious. With the release of Airplane! in 1980 directed by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker those guys quickly became originals in the film parody world, and subsequent Brooks' efforts were decent at best, and forgettable or just plain bad at worst. Those guys really brought Mel Brooks' to a rapid decline in his work, and this film is proof of that. And it's sad, though not hard to see why Brooks only directed two more films after this before taking a step away from the director's chair for good. This is not entirely a bad film, though it's a real missed effort for something that could have been a sure-fire hit. Brooks could have revived himself as a serious filmmaker if only he would have focused more on telling his story that way. By having the unbalance here, it ruined his directing career for good. Fortunately we have many classics of the late 60's and 70's that show Brooks' genius and his legacy will live on forever in those.

stevenackerman69 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.

Petri Pelkonen Let me just start this review by saying that Life Stinks is an underrated movie.It is not your traditional Mel Brooks movie, but it is funny nevertheless.He also makes a social commentary with this movie, which is always a good thing.In the plot Mel plays Goddard Bolt, a very rich man.He isn't the nicest man around, as rich men often aren't.He wants to own an entire slum area in LA so that he can tear it down.His biggest rival Vance Crasswell also has interest on that area, so they make a bet.Bolt has to survive for 30 days on those streets, and the area is his.His street name is Pepto.He meets some interesting people on the streets, one of them being a woman called Molly.After the experience he's not the same man at all.Mel Brooks directed, produced and acted the lead of Life Stinks (1991).With Mel there's an amazing cast.Lesley Ann Warren plays Molly.Jeffrey Tambor is Crasswell.Stuart Pankin portrays Pritchard.Howard Morris plays the part of Sailor.Theodore Wilson plays Fumes.Rudy De Luca is J. Paul Getty.Carmen Filpi is Pops, with his eleven's up.There are a number of funny moments in this film.I really enjoyed when Mel does the little dance on the street trying to get people toss some coins.And it's funny when Pepto is beaten pretty badly.It's not funny that he's beaten, but his electronic anklet starts making noise when he gets outside the boundaries of the slum area.The poor man tries to get his foot on the sidewalk in order to keep it down.There's also some sadness when he finds Sailor dead on the sidewalk.But things don't go smoothly at his funeral when they get his ashes on them.It's nice when Pepto and Molly have their little Fred and Ginger moment.And then he starts taking her clothes off.And she has A LOT of clothes.And it's hilarious when Pepto and the J. Paul Getty character do the Three Stooges routine, when the other claims that he's the world's richest man.And check out the battle of the dinosaurs in the end.Or those dinosaurs are actually construction cranes.More people should find this movie.Maybe it's not one of Mel's masterpieces, but it's still pretty darn funny.Life on the streets can be tragic, but Brooks has turned the funny side of it.Life stinks, but a little less with Mel Brooks.

NaturalBornChilla ...this is a classic with so many great dialogs and scenes nobody should miss. Nice story, funny riches-to-rags situations, Mel Brooks is not a bad lead, maybe not perfect but he is funny ;D Don't pay attention to the rating, it's BS. Watch it, then watch something like final destination (2009) and tell me that Life Stinks deserves about the same rating. If you do, I don't think we can be friends XD At this point I recommend the fourth season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" to every Brooks fan ;) Vote 10 against the ignorant opinions of inchworms! I've to make 10 lines here to post a comment? I don't wanna write a book here :P