User reviews

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.

"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

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).

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.

Mel 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

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.

Goddard 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.

I 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.

Whenever 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.

Life 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.

By 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.

Actually... 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).

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.

... 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).

...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?

A 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...

Another 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

This 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.

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.

1991's "Life Stinks" was a rare departure for writer-director-star Mel Brooks, not a parody like the glory days of "Blazing Saddles" and "Young Frankenstein," but a seriocomic look at the homeless in downtown Los Angeles (the budget was $13 million). Brooks himself plays the arrogant billionaire Goddard Bolt, who doesn't think twice about tearing down a home for the aged or clearing out an entire rain forest if it means turning a profit with another capital venture. Setting his sights on a piece of L. A. real estate to put up his cherished Bolt Center, he's opposed by fellow billionaire Vance Crasswell (a wonderfully smarmy Jeffrey Tambor), who seeks to purchase the property for himself, proposing a wager that Bolt must spend 30 days among the homeless with no money and no ID or forfeit his half of the land. Stripped of his wallet, his gold watch, and his toupee, Bolt is essentially a fish out of water on his own, at least until he's befriended by street smart bag lady Molly, played in scene stealing fashion by the always radiant Lesley Anne Warren. Fine derelict turns from Theodore Wilson as Fumes and Brooks' longtime buddy from YOUR SHOW OF SHOWS, Howard Morris as Sailor ("I was nearly in the navy!"), who gets to recreate a real life incident that Mel used to discuss on talk shows. After his father Hugo passed away, Howard wanted to have his ashes scattered over the Hudson River, so the dutiful son made his way through the bushes to the cold, damp shoreline, bid farewell to his pop, and watched in horror as the ashes all blew back into his coat (he used to say that his father's final resting place was Rand Cleaners!). When Rudy De Luca's J. Paul Getty tries to best Bolt in the amount of money he lost 'during the crash,' the two get into a slapping match that had Johnny Carson asking Mel if Moe Howard got a residual! Comic invention isn't always consistent, and the final third in particular just kind of peters out, but as a challenging change of pace it remains among the director's personal favorites.

Is this an earnest entry in the subgenre of "the homeless are magic" that Hollywood cranked out from the late 80s to the early 90s, or is this a satire of that genre? On the one hand, there's a certain feel similar to Mel Brooks' earliest films, The Producers and The Twelve Chairs. On the other hand, the film goes so far into weird, misplaced comedy like Three Stooges routines, and ends so far over the line of what these movies do in the end that it feels like a satire of the entire idea of these films. It's helped none at all by the fact that the film is played in largely subdued terms, including barely any musical score whatsoever, making intent a bit harder to decipher. I don't think this is the complete disaster of Mel Brooks' career that many seem to make it out to be. However, I am open to the idea that it's actually a brilliant piece of satire. Maybe it doesn't actually work, though, undermining the assertion a bit.

The billionaire Goddard Bolt (Brooks) is angling to purchase a rundown part of town in order to build a massive improvement on top of it. He's up against Vance Crasswell (Jeffrey Tambor) who bought the other half of the land, and the two enter into a wager to see who gets the whole thing. If Bolt can survive for thirty days in the area without use of his money or connections, he gets the whole plot. If he leaves the area or otherwise fails, Crasswell gets the whole plot. It's a dumb set up to a dumb movie, something that doesn't feel like it's meant to be taken seriously. Satire? Or Genuine effort? I honestly don't know.

Bolt takes this bet with high spirits, his lawyers drawing up contracts around the wager to ensure propriety as well as Bolt giving them power of attorney. And, as soon as he's on the streets, the man who turned five million dollars as his inheritance from his father into $6.8 billion is shuffling around begging for help. No man who makes that kind of money, even with a starting point of five million dollars, is a passive insect waiting for money to fall in his lap. He's a hustler, through and through. He plays tough games in order to win tough prizes. And yet, here's Bolt, meekly begging for a bed or food with no idea how to make any headway. I mean...there's misunderstanding how really rich people operate, and then there's this. They may not be moral. They may not have the best interests of other people at heart. They may be callus tyrants, but one thing they do know is how to get other people to do what they want. That is not always just flashing money around either. The misunderstanding feels intentional, like this is a satire. And yet, I'm still not sure.

He finds some help in the form of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren), a mentally handicapped woman living off the streets who has a history of being left by her husband and descending into this form of madness that keeps her on the streets. So, of course she becomes Bolt's love interest. How is this not satirical in nature?! I don't know!

Bolt finds a way to survive his thirty days, but Crasswell, faced with a defeat he did not see, bribes Bolt's lawyers to abuse their power of attorney and sell off all of Bolt's assets, asserting that Bolt has gone crazy. How would a judge accept this? I don't know! Bolt then immediately goes back to the slums where he descends into ranting with himself, getting into an argument about who's richer with another bum who thinks he's John Paul Getty (Rudy De Luca) before he's taken away to a hospital where he's overdosed on drugs from an inattentive doctor. He's released and ends up at the unveiling ceremony of Crasswell's attempt to rebuild the slums where Bolt and Molly lead the homeless in an attack on the ceremony that ends with Bolt and Crasswell fighting in opposing construction cranes. It's one of the most obvious bits of comedy in the film, and it's two rich men fighting over a slum...I don't know what this movie is trying to do!

The movie ends with a newscast telling the audience of Bolt's judicial victory over Crasswell, his plans to build a cost-free housing center for the homeless, and his secret plans to marry Molly. The two get married at the run down little church in the slums with Molly pulling the cans off the back of the stretch limo and throwing them into the back seat because they're valuable before they drive off. I mean...is this meant to be taken seriously? I really have no idea.

If this movie is meant as an earnest example of the subgenre of "homeless people are magic", then I don't think it works. It's too lacking in self-awareness of the absurdities at play for it to be that kind of good. If this movie is meant as a satirical example of the same subgenre, I'm much more open to it, but I am simply not convinced that it is. It's too earnest at the wrong points. I also don't want to recommend a more obvious soundtrack that makes it clear that the events being played on screen are comedic in nature, but it would be both in line with how Brooks had made comedies before and helpful in figuring out what on earth is going on at the same time.

Essentially, I want this to be a satire of a genre I find irritating, but I'm not sure if it actually is.