Just what I expected

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Down and Out in Beverly Hills features an excellent cast doing probably their each individual best work. The casting itself is pitch perfect right down to the two dogs. But I believe the problem stems from the direction. The films claims it's a comedy, when really, it's a chuckle-delivering drama. I think director Paul Mazursky accidentally made the premise a bit too serious.You know how people say a film is "love it or hate it?" I think Down and Out in Beverly Hills is "love it or accept it." I think of these kinds of films sort of as "elegant comedies" where the sets and actors are very classy, but it's questionable you'd want to see a movie with those kind of characters. Other movies I believe fit into my sub-genre are Arthur and Fierce Creatures. They aren't bad films, but I don't believe the characters are interesting enough to carry the weight of a full length film on their backs.The plot: A rich family's life is changed when a bum tries to commit suicide in their backyard pool. The family is made wealthy because the husband, Dave Whiteman (Dreyfuss), is the head of a coat-hanger factory. His wife Barbara (Midler) is happy with the wealth, but unsatisfied as a person. Her and Dave's relationship is complex and she is more often than not left unfulfilled by her husband.The bum is played fantastically by Nick Nolte. His name is Jerry, and after his "faithful" dog companion runs away to find a home with a jogger, Jerry jumps in the Whitemans' pool when it is draining to try and kill himself. Seconds away from being gone, Dave jumps in to save the man and to revitalize him as a human being to make him happier in life.An act of role reversal is made here where the happier half is the bum and the sadder half is the wealthy family, so the film gives a sincere look at how some people live their lives and how some are happier than others. The problem is just in the way it's executed which is hard to explain. It's hokey and not as inspired as it would seem.Paul Mazurksy has a talent for squeezing the most out of his actors and giving them constant, incorruptible, shockingly well-built chemistry. Later in his career, he provided the same chemistry to Woody Allen and Bette Midler in Scene from a Mall, a movie that besides the chemistry, has little to offer. The setup between the three leads is anything but contrived and highly welcomed as they each give their own sense of screen magic.So, what is wrong with Down and Out in Beverly Hills? It's honestly hard to say. I sat through the whole thing, no interruptions, and upon finishing it I reached a quandary. I didn't know if I liked what I just watched. Sitting down, writing this hasn't helped much either. I think it's one of those films that is cute, warm, and gentle, but that's it. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you're looking for, but there isn't much urgency or attraction equipped in the script. Just a bunch of characters wandering around, awaiting the next predicament to fall into.Starring: Richard Dreyfuss, Bette Midler, and Nick Nolte. Directed by: Paul Mazursky.

Americanization of the 1932 French comedy "Boudu sauvé des eaux", based on the play by René Fauchois, is one of Paul Mazursky's most misguided ventures (although it was a big hit in 1986, a time when the words 'Beverly Hills' were a current catchphrase at the cinema). Wealthy, pampered, but highly dysfunctional denizens of Southern California take in a hobo who has tried to drown himself in their swimming pool. Upon moving in, the now-cleaned up bum/con-artist discovers he's more normal than his filthy-rich patrons. Paint-by-numbers filmmaking, done up in loud colors. Richard Dreyfuss, Nick Nolte and, particularly, Bette Midler do everything they can with meager material. *1/2 from ****

Funny to see how little attention "Down And Out" gets today - bare-bones DVD release, a paucity of IMDb reviews, a modest Wikipedia entry - given that less than 25 years ago this was one of the highest-grossing comedies of its day. What happened?The stamp of the 1980s may be part of the problem. A very '80s look and vibe surround this social satire, where a bum named Jerry (Nick Nolte) is rescued by hanger tycoon Dave Whiteman (Richard Dreyfuss) and put up in his fancy Beverly Hills estate. Jerry finds ways to ingratiate himself with everyone in the household, even the normally hostile Whiteman dog Matisse. Dave soon finds reason to curse his generosity.I'm in agreement with ratnazafu's earlier comment that this film's connection to its time is part of its charm, though its pastels-and-neon visual signature is not for everyone. The script by director Paul Mazursky and Leon Capetanos is fun and arrestingly non-formulaic, but rather underbaked in such matters as who Jerry really is and what the issues are with the Whitemans' distrait offspring. Most critically, there's a tonal problem at the center - Nolte's direly realistic acting manner clashes with the film's overall cheerful and lightweight spirit."There's something very threatening about you," Jerry is told early on by Dave's wife, Barbara (Bette Midler).Nolte famously prepared for the role by living for days as a vagrant (insert obvious Nolte joke here), and I think the experience made it hard for him to settle into a comedy about being homeless. His gruff, bleary manner is established early and never quite goes away, even as the script paints him in the role of a smooth-talking rascal.In one scene, we see Dave and some new homeless friends parody the famous "We Are The World" song in a drunkenly over-the-top, amusing manner. Nolte is in the center of the frame, but tries to get out of the shot by hiding his face behind a pole. I don't think he saw himself acting in a comedy, and for the most part, he isn't.Dreyfuss and Midler, on the other hand, have a lot of palpable fun, and their careers deservedly got huge boosts from their performances here. At times Dreyfuss seems to be channeling Jackie Gleason, but it works, especially as he develops Dave as a genuinely likable character frustrated by his new friend Jerry's refusal to join the rat race. Midler does well with a tougher part, a shopaholic narcissist. "That was the cherry on the cake of my day" she groans when Dave tells her he saw their son in a tutu.Jerry finally achieves his breakthrough with Barbara through sex, a device the film not only plays up with a silly orgasm scene but repeats with the Whitemans' maid and daughter. The latter ravishment proves a breaking point for Dave, who loses it in a big finale which throws up as much fireworks as it can in a way that points up the story's overall lack of nourishment.Mazursky movies have a unique quality, full of ideas and visual invention, diverting enough so that you don't particularly mind even when they don't go anywhere special. There's nothing dislikable about "Down And Out", unless maybe you are Nick Nolte, but nothing memorable, either.

I visited a deli on Rodeo Drive just before this movie was released and was staggered by the uniformity in grooming. It was like a small-town high school in the 1950s. All the women looked alike. Beautiful. Their long hair fluffy, each strand curled like Top Ramen. (Okay, okay. I lack the vocabulary. Excuse me.) They all seemed to wear the same dark rough-knit long-sleeved sweaters, tight Levis, and leather boots. This is what one kills for? The privilege of wearing a uniform? Paul Mazursky has got the milieu down pat and he skewers it. I haven't seen the French original but, though it may be different, it's probably not funnier than this version.I'll skip the story except to say that it's about a homeless man (Nick Nolte) who is taken in by a wealthy dysfunctional family, and he straightens everyone out by giving them what they want -- as he puts it. Some gags are funnier than others, helped along by Mazursky's direction. When the spoiled, bored wife has an orgasm with the bum, she screams so loudly that the neighbors a block away turn to listen. A flock of pigeons is frightened out of its tree. I can't think of another movie that features a psychiatric veterinarian.The climax, unfortunately, is more silly than funny, as if nobody could think of an ending that would stop what's already gone by. Mazursky had the same problem with "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice," at the end of which the sting of genuine phoniness gives way completely to fantasy and everyone does a ring dance to "What The World Needs Now Is Love..." In "Down and Out in Beverley Hills," a party ends with the accidental setting off of a fireworks display and everyone jumping into the pool. You almost wince at the desperation behind this scene.And then, in a denouement, when the bum decides to leave with the family dog, the whole family and their servants follow him into the mews behind the mansion and beg him with their eyes to come back, which he does quickly enough. Sure, it's a happy ending, but just exactly what is going to happen when Nolte returns after he's been exposed as a lying, manipulative, lazy scuzzbag who has given the son permission to be a transvestite and has been doing both his host's wife and daughter? All he had with him when he first entered the family was a pocket full of rocks. This time he's got a lot of baggage.Still, it's a light-hearted and engaging comedy, and none of the acting hurts a bit. Aside from the doggy's psychiatrist, I thought Little Richard was the most memorable character, especially when he complains about how much longer it takes the police to respond to HIS emergency alarm than his white neighbors'. (The dog chases him away, tearing at his golden robe.) Dreyfus is quite good too, reminding me of his performance as the exasperated and finally mad psychiatrist in "What About Bob?" Mazursky wisely avoided any attempt to insinuate overt signs of "seriousness" into the screenplay. A comedy doesn't need dark undertones to be successful, and this is successful.