MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Lee Eisenberg 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.

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.

SimonJack This film has some great comedy. There are many funny scenes of mishaps and chaos. But the best are the spoofs – in lines and scenes. No element of society seems to escape the jabs of one-liners, witty exchanges or sarcastic innuendos. The obvious are the rich and famous. Even the street people themselves, religion, the city mission, medical care, the law, public service and workers are subjected to jabs. One of the very funniest scenes to me was in the hospital where a doctor orders repeated high doses of a drug for Bolt, failing to notice that he had already seen this patient, with the ensuring result. I agree with those who see a different Mel Brooks in "Life Stinks," and one whom they like better. There's no doubt about the man's comic abilities, but the type of humor he had in his early films wasn't for everyone. It was too crass, crude and vulgar to the liking of many people – me included. My rule of thumb for a good comedy show is one that I would be able to take my girl friend (earlier years), my wife, my mother, and my sister to. If it's not fit for them, it's not very good comedy. I have seen the other earlier films that Brooks produced and acts in, and they fall short. But this film is a pleasant surprise. "Life Stinks" has a real story line and good plot – qualities others have noted that are missing from most early Brooks films. And, it has a story about redemption, with a happy ending. At least one reviewer didn't see the humor in a comedy about homeless people. Yet, time and again, humor and comedy have been the best ways to get substantial attention to serious issues. And, when the humor is clean and tasteful, as in this film, it can be a boon to public recognition and understanding of the plights of people. The production qualities for this film are very good. Brooks is good in his role, and a very good supporting cast lends a lot to the enjoyment of this film. Lesley Ann Warren's performance as Molly would be deserving of an Oscar nomination in many years. All in all, this is a very good comedy satire that most movie buffs should enjoy.

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.