Benedito Dias Rodrigues Mel Brooks won't one of my favorite filmmakers but this time he gets to 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 leave a sublime message to the audience and this critic to society and how says the tittle life stinks!!! Resume: First watch: 1996 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5

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.

ido50 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.