Que Droga de Vida!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.