Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Callous rich mogul developer Goddard Bolt (Mel Brooks) plans to buy an L.A. slum to build his vanity project. Developer Vance Crasswell (Jeffrey Tambor) owns the other half of the property. Vance bets him the property that he couldn't survive in the slums without any of his money for 30 days. Homeless Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) comes to his rescue when two crazy thugs try to rob him.A rich man bets to live as a poor man. Sadly for Mel, it's been done better and funnier. The problem starts with the black kid dancing for money. It's so old that it's cheesy. This sets off the main conflict for me. Is this going to take some real swipes at poverty or is this a broad spoof? It tries to do both and comes up short on both accounts. Just as I grow interested in the mentally disturbed Molly, she says she's faking it. The story takes an interesting turn but the resolution is uninspired. The movie is mostly not funny enough.

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.

...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

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.