Slums of Beverly Hills (1998)

You won't be disappointed!

Too much of everything

The Age of Commercialism

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Natasha Lyonne stars as a teenage girl growing up in various slums in Beverley Hills, but her family cannot necessarily afford to live in them. After moving around for most of her life, her family's finally found a place to call home with help from her uncle's money. The catch is that they have to watch after their troubled daughter (Marisa Tomei) and make sure that she makes a transition from drugs to a career worthy of their name.That's not spoiling so much, I don't think, because the movie has much more depth than that. This very original drama/comedy features a great, universal struggle of living without proper means and making life work. It's a coming-of-age film for Lyonne's character who sees the beginnings of her womanhood, struggles of relationships, and maintaining her family's name and reputation through whatever means possible.It's really touching how the Abromowitzes handle themselves and make each others' experiences memorable. The aging father (Alan Arkin) is truly memorable in this film for his struggles in finding out an end to poverty and loneliness without his wife. A great film altogether, not very long (only about 1 hr. 30 min), and easy to watch all the way through. Definitely a buy on DVD (even if the special features aren't all that special). I gave it an 8/10.

This movie is OK, but no more. Worth watching if you're not otherwise engaged, but don't go out of your way to see it.WARNING – SPOILERS AHEADMany have called this a story of a dysfunctional family. I tend to disagree. True, the parents are divorced – but let's face it, that is very normal in current Western society. Other than this, the family members have a very healthy relationship. They bicker, tease and irritate each other on occasion like all families, but they also love and care deeply for each other.They are dysfunctional in society, not towards each other. They occupy a strata of society which is just beyond the edge of what many consider to be acceptable (or lawful). But the activities that would be beyond the pale in wider society are normal and natural in their own sub-culture.This attitude is realistically depicted in the movie. Thus, the 15-year-old Vivian (the main protagonist) has an on/off boyfriend who is a full-time drug dealer. She is a minor who has sex with this (older) boyfriend because he is available when she decides to lose her virginity. She then leaves him without a backward glance at the end of the film. One brother smokes cannabis. A cousin, Rita (played by Marisa Tomei), has escaped from a clinic treating her for drug addiction. She is pregnant by a deadbeat casual boyfriend with whom she has lost contact. When she tells the boyfriend that she is pregnant he discards her completely. She subsequently attempts suicide. Her uncle (the father of the main character) takes her in partly as a means to extract monetary support from her father (his brother). Rita introduces Vivian (a minor) to her vibrator, and encourages her to borrow and use it. She does so, and this is shown (without any graphic detail) onscreen. Vivian stabs her uncle (with great force) in the thigh with a fork – because he is being verbally unkind to her father during a meal.The movie portrays the sub-culture with sufficient skill that most viewers will treat much of this behaviour as acceptable in the context of the character's lives.The film has no real plot. It is a story of a short but eventful period in the life of the protagonist. This includes her sexual awakening, and a brief time during which her family experiences a taste of a better life (thanks to the money extracted by her father from his brother). Nothing earth-shattering happens, but many will find echoes of their own lives in at least some parts of the story. This, together with the good characterisations and acting, makes the movie a worthwhile experience.I have three main criticisms. They concern plot devices which really contribute nothing to the story. I consider their inclusion unnecessary at best, distracting at worst.First, the script makes a particular point of identifying the family as Jewish. Yet this fact, having been stated, is never made use of in the film. There is no reason they shouldn't be Jewish, of course – but it is puzzling that so much was made of this fact when it was entirely irrelevant to the story.Second, there are (I believe) three close-up breast shots. They are so close-up that only the breasts can be seen, nothing else – not even the neck or stomach. The inclusion of these shots jars with the rest of the film, which makes me wonder whether they were added in post-production to try and `juice-up' the movie. In fact, the effect is detrimental.Third, there is one scene in which the father, when comforting his niece (Rita) after her attempted suicide, commits an incestuous act. Specifically, he `cops a feel' by slipping his hand inside her top as she sits at his feet (she had given him no encouragement, and subsequently objects). This action is so totally out of character with the father's actions in the rest of the movie that it is simply unbelievable. Doubtless the intention was to shock and to intimate that any man, no matter how unlikely, may be a sexual abuser. But the actual effect is to intrude on the viewer's `suspension of disbelief' - this man would not have committed such an act.It also seemed a little pointless to set the movie in 1976 (pointed out by an caption which appears shortly after the opening credits have ended). Granted, the depicted society is such that the movie could not realistically have been set in any previous decade of the twentieth century. But no advantage whatsoever was taken from the chronological setting. Only the cars (VERY few in number), music and the clothes were specific to the era – and all of these things could easily pass unnoticed to a viewer who was not paying full attention. The story could have been told equally well by placing it in the 80's, 90's or 00's. The only explanation for the ‘70's setting seems to be that the story is supposedly semi-autobiographical. Presumably the writer (who was also the director) grew up in the ‘70's.These criticisms are quite minor in relation to the rest of the film, which is entertaining in its way. There are some amusing scenes (the vibrator dance for example) but no real laugh-out-loud moments; the enjoyment lies mainly in the drama of these people's lives.This is perhaps more of a woman's movie than a man's, but not excessively so. It's worth giving it a try (unless you are likely to be offended by the sexual content or language). Most will quite enjoy this film. And some, I am sure, will love it.6/10

"Slums" is one of the more underrated films of the 1990s. It seems to rub some people the wrong way for unclear reasons, but I found it to be touching and hilarious from start to finish. Perhaps I'm just a sucker for Alan Arkin, whom I've always liked, and see on screen all to infrequently. More likely I was impressed by the witty script, deft direction and solid cast. I especially appreciated the spot-on portrayal of Southern California during the mid-70s, which just happens to be the era when I migrated from "back East" to Los Angeles. Fortunately, we weren't as hapless as the Abramowitz family, who throughout this film are trying desperately to hang onto the ragged edge of the good life.This is one "coming of age" story that you don't need to be a teenage girl to enjoy.

Very enjoyable movie about a family guaranteed to make yours look more appealing. Reminds us all why the 1970's should never be repeated. Several memorable lines from an outstanding cast. Underappreciated movie that deserves more recognition, highly recommend viewing for some adult humor.