Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!ut-sally!topaz!harvard!baron
From: baron@harvard.UUCP (Jeff Baron)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS
Message-ID: <715@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Feb-86 14:31:50 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.715
Posted: Sat Feb 15 14:31:50 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 02:48:37 EST
References: <1659@mtgzz.UUCP>
Reply-To: baron@harvard.UUCP (Jeff baron)
Organization: Aiken Comp Lab, Harvard
Lines: 27

I saw DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS when it first opened a few weeks ago. I must
say that I thought that it was the best comedy since ALL OF ME (Steve Martin
and Lily Tomlin). 

First, I thought that the movie was funny in itself, neglecting the fact
that what it portrays is "somewhat" inaccurate (if not completely wrong.)
Bette Midler is very funny at least, hysterical at best. I thought that she
stole the film from Dreyfus and Nolte. As far as Matisse goes, 
you've seen all of this dog stuff before, and I was actually 
disappointed by it all.

Second, I think that the movie, instead of lampooning Beverly Hills,
was actually lampooning people in general. Everything in the
movie was a hyperbole, from the bums to Beverly Hills to the anorexic
daughter. Far from making us laugh at the lifestyle of the rich and famous, 
I thought that its purpose was to make us laugh at ourselves,
and laugh at our often mistaken ideas about other people by
throwing these mistaken ideas back at ourselves. 
People that dislike the movie because it portrays a distorted 
view of Beverly Hills simply missed the mark.

On a scale of -4 to +4, I'd give it a +3.


-- 
					Jeff Baron
					{allegra,genrad,ucbvax}!harvard!baron