Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

dougdoepke Comedian Brooks tries hard, probably too hard, while the script makes a hash of Hollywood satire. Playing a moviemaker in the film, actor Brooks' promising idea is to document a year in the life of a typical American family. Trouble is that he's so full of himself and his ideas, he can't leave the family alone long enough to act out their own lives. Worse, he's got a battery of distracting psychologists analyzing the minutiae (coffee cups) of the family's daily life. So, what starts out as a promising docu idea, ends up a fiasco.Actually, my little recap makes events sound more coherent than they are. All in all, the movie's really a mess, despite occasionally funny moments. No doubt about it, Brooks has an inventive flair (the space-helmet cameras, for one). But in this movie, too many of his ideas simply cascade forth, remaining ill-formed (the psychologists), or plain non-starters (the dead horse, the gynecology office). Still, the latter raise a thought-provoking question- that is, just how broad should a real life account be. Should it include bathroom trips, for example. And if a line is drawn, where should it be and why. The issue is raised somewhat in the movie, but stumbles around with neither depth nor laughs. Looks to me like a critical eye was needed in addition to the three writers (Brooks & Co.). That is, someone who could weed out the losers and shape the winners. After all, the premise itself remains a promising one. Too bad that the humorous Grodin is wasted in a deadpan role that preempts his often subtle brand of comedy. I kept hoping I'd see some trace of his churlish shtick, but it's frozen deadpan all the way.Anyway, I'm not usually an advocate of re-makes, but here, in more disciplined hands, the results could be both thought-provoking and knee-slapping. As things stand, the movie fails on both accounts.

Michael Neumann Albert Brooks, earlier in his career, may not have been the most appealing person in show business, but his screen persona was then certainly one of the funniest: insecure, obsessive, vain, and obnoxious enough to make his low-key, self-deprecating satires a definite acquired taste. In this mock cinema verité parody of a then topical PBS reality series he attempts to document on camera one year in the life of the second-most typical family in America (the runner-up was preferred in order to avoid a winter in Green Bay, Wisconsin). But the scientific enquiry meets with several unforeseen obstacles, not the least of which is a complete breakdown of the actuality Brooks wants so desperately to capture. Charles Grodin's typically deadpan performance sets the proper comic mood, and the scenario includes plenty of cinema in-jokes sure to raise a chuckle from any film student (it might have been titled 'Reel Life'). One highlight is the slow-motion family frolic meant to show highbrow French critics what the word 'montage' is all about.

krumski There's no question that Albert Brooks is not for everybody - his particular blend of neuroticism and egomania can be way too much for most people. But if you can get on his wavelength, and when he's at his best - oh man! There's absolutely no one better. Real Life is Brooks' best movie, and deserves to be more widely known than it is. His portrayal of a controlling producer, who is willing to violate not only broadcast ethics but the standards of decency and good sense as well in order to inject life into his failing "documentary" is frightening, off-putting and truly hilarious all at once.When I first saw this movie, I didn't realize it was based on an actual television experiment. I bring this up only because when I first saw the film, I felt its only flaw was that it didn't spend enough time showing the family and their disintegration in front of the cameras, choosing instead to focus almost exclusively on Brooks and his manic responses to the dilemma this posed. However, knowing that the real life experiment would have already been familiar to people, Brooks clearly wanted to use this movie to examine not the family but the bankrupt commercial mindset which would put such a project into play in the first place. As such, his satire is dead on and nobody could more perfectly embody the entertainment industry than Brooks himself. Just to see him smarmily singing and glad-handing at the beginning is worth the cost.

lensecap 'Real life' is the perfect send-up of the worst scenario possible for a film maker shooting a documentary, i.e., what happens when your subject matter loses interest in the project before completion? Albert Brooks, as the seemingly besieged director of this 'loaf of reality' year long vigil with a typical American family, walks a fine line between egomania and neuroticism and scores with broad belly laughs both ways. Charles Grodin as the head of the suburban clan from which this film within a film emanates exudes his special brand of bland exuberance at the beginning of this captive camera stakeout inside his home(and everywhere else he may go) provided his life is depicted as letter perfect from day to day. When such is not the case and the obtrusive lenses are interfering with his job as a veterinarian, (in a sequence that has to be seen rather than described) then Grodin regards the camera presence as nothing more than an albatross and mentally switches himself off. Albert Brooks, meanwhile, never says quit. Every so-called hair in the eye of the lense is still a perfect scene regardless of the participation or lack of it, thereof, from his celluloid family. For Brooks regards this film as 'paramount'(oops) over the desires of his cast of characters. Brooks facile mind works methodically from beginning to end. From his perspective, nothing can go wrong, everything is in its place with a place for everything. So when his documentary and the human equation around it blow up in his face , his conferences with colleagues are hilarious as he tries various remedies to salvage not only his project but his self-image. Brooks is a comic delight as a man who cannot take criticism regarding his methods and his interaction with project staff are decidedly one-sided, but in the capable hands of this farceur, his myopic viewpoint is always good for guffaws galore. Real life should be this funny.