Real Life (1979) User Reviews

"I'll show the French what a montage really is!"

[ALauff · 7/10 · 12 October 2007]

In his most thorough feat of self-deprecation, Albert Brooks plays himself as a smarmy upstart Hollywood director charged with filming a real-life portrait of an "ordinary" Phoenix family to be financed by the Boulder Institute for Behavioral Science. Taking as its satirical subject the PBS series "An American Family", Real Life's opening text scroll includes an excerpt from a media critic that reads (paraphrasing), "This is a whole new method of anthropological research…as interpreted by the camera." It's the last part, "interpreted by the camera," that clearly interests Brooks. In detailing the crumbling of the family and the director's process of selecting what to shoot and how (it isn't long before he's staging scenes), Brooks shows how the mere presence of the camera shapes a new reality for spectator and subject. Their first dinner under camera (the technicians wear ridiculous astronaut-like helmet devices over the top halves of their bodies) has Charles Grodin trying to present his perfect family, but his stressed-out wife gives a hilariously blunt assessment of her feelings. (Meanwhile, Brooks wonders whether his leading man is coming across as unsympathetic.) The institute's naïve statisticians don't see the folly of their pursuit until Brooks makes the film his blatant vanity project; the comic highpoint is a montage of happy, slow-motion family moments that Brooks narrates ("I'll show the French what a montage really is!"). In this project, all are delusional, from the quixotic scientists who fatuously hired Hollywood talent for a film about reality to the unseen producer who makes money the inappropriate subject of every conversation. And film-making, like all profit-driven endeavors, is subject to self-interest, rendering futile the entire notion of the camera as objective recorder. But try telling that to a Hollywood producer.

An experiment gone crazy...

[buzznzipp1995 · 7/10 · 17 March 2007]

Local 'madness' in an Arizona small, one horse town. Based on a show shot in Santa Barbara California in 73' a first reality show, that went horribly wrong! It was a hit, but the family was never the same. This is an off the cuff answer to that first reality show, that I believe may have gone lost in translation.

Sure this starts out interesting and goes right along, showing a small Arizona Phoenix as the place where the real family will be followed by a camera and crew, in the home, in their lives and all over the place. It seems at times so depressing and so real in parts... that it hurts just watching. That's not bad when it seems that it is real. Brooks has a creative and wild mind. With it all some how he can lose people in his presentation. It isn't that he is not talented, he just sees things through a different ' lens ' than most average do.

If more people had been informed of why and how the movie came about, I think it would have done better at the theater. Albert Brooks is an entertaining creative craftsman and his work and acting shows to those who can follow what he is about.

I recommend this movie for it's madness and reality type-lore but the fun part is seeing the Arizona from the seventies and how different it is today. Brooks will always be good at his job I believe, but you have to understand the mind from which it comes. (***)

REAL funny

[JasparLamarCrabb · 7/10 · 15 April 2006]

Albert Brooks wrote and directed this goof on the PBS landmark "An American Family" and it's hysterical. Trying to record the day to day banalities of an average American family, film-maker Brooks and company are as intrusive as possible while trying to be invisible --- the cameraman wears large orb-like headgear.

As the "everyman," Brooks wisely casts Charles Grodin, then at the height of his career and perfect playing the kind of inept father/husband just itching to be caught doing the most absurd things. Nobody is better at losing their grip than Grodin and Brooks eggs him on until he explodes. Brooks doesn't just film the family, he invades their lives and captures a lot of uncomfortable moments like a gynecological exam! REAL LIFE is a masterpiece of comic discomfort.

Albert the Great

[krumski · 7 February 2000]

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.

"I'm a comedian, not a liar..."

[mjneu59 · 7/10 · 29 December 2010]

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.

YOU spend the winter in Wisconsin!

[kustom135 · 9/10 · 4 January 2006]

In _Real Life_, Albert Brooks makes fun of just about anything: the movie industry, the 'nuclear family', intellectuals, horse owners, furniture refinishing, urine testing, technology, Wisconsin ...

This film is a gem. Every character is played so transparently that someone could be fooled into thinking Charles Grodin really is a disoriented and bumbling father and husband. Albert Brooks plays 'himself' to the point where he must have needed therapy after making this film.

Vanity projects are usually tedious. This turns the 'vanity' genre (yeah, there is one!) on its ear. And it's probably one of the most 'American' films I've ever seen. Great stuff!

Albert Brooks' feature film debut shows promise and sharpness despite a roughness.

[IonicBreezeMachine · 7/10 · 9 January 2022]

Albert Brooks (himself) undertakes an ambitious year long project documenting the lives of a typical American family. With the assistance of Psychological professionals and expensive testing and searching methods, Brooks' team selects the Yeager family of Phoenix, Arizona consisting of husband and wife Warren and Jeannette (Charles Grodin and Frances Lee McCain respectively) and their two children Lisa and Eric (Lisa Urette and Robert Stirrat respectively). As Brooks ingrains himself and his crew in the lives of the Yeager's the family come under ever increasing strain with Brooks' invasive presence in their lives.

Real Life is the directorial debut of comedian Albert Brooks. Brooks had attained prominence with his stand-up work as well as supporting parts on television and a bit role in Martin Scorcese's Taxi Driver. Brooks raised the money for the film's production budget himself and collaborated on the script Harry Shearer and Monica Johnson (the latter of whom would be a frequent collaborator with Brooks). When the film was released it received mixed reviews with much praise aimed at Charles Grodin's performance as Warren Yeager, but criticism directed at Brooks' "one note" performance. While the film did have champions such as Gene Siskel who claimed the film to be one of the funniest of the year, most critics liked the idea more than the execution. Real Life has some truly biting moments of satire and early signs of the promise of Brooks' future in the director's chair, there is a roughness in the execution that holds the movie back.

The fact that Harry Shearer is a co-writer on this film is rather appropriate, as it feels like a rough outline of ideas that would be adopted for a future mockumentary he'd be involved with, in This is Spinal Tap. The movie is very prescient with its satirization of PBS' An American Family where the invasiveness of cameras in one's life doesn't capture reality so much as distort it. Real Life feels like an indicator of what would serve as the template for reality TV with the reality often taking a backseat to Albert Brooks where the family are almost secondary characters in the movie that should be about them. The movie has some really strong moments of cutting humor with scenes such as the gynecologist office being uncomfortably funny. But there are also instances where the movie will abandon the Yeager family for long stretches as we focus on Albert Brooks negotiating with his Psychology advisors or studio executives in what are basically variations on the same point. While the central joke of the movie is in how Albert Brooks' character is making the movie more about him than the Yeagers (down to the fact he moves in across the street from them) most of the strongest set pieces are focused on the Family's interactions as they deal with the invasiveness of cameras in their lives but too often the family are sidelined. With that said there is some really funny material here that is both funny and intelligent but it's also rough and lacking in polish that comes from experience.

Real Life while moderately funny serves as more of a template for films such as This is Spinal Tap or Christopher Guest's filmography. It wouldn't be unfair to say that Real Life walked so that those future films could run and become the enduring classics they are. If you are a fan of those mockumentary style comedies like Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman then Real Life works as both an amusing diversion and a prototype of this type of comedic format. Slightly dated in some aspects, but predictive and ahead of its time in others.

Best of Al Brooks

[kstuart-3 · 10/10 · 17 January 1999]

"Only six of these were ever made. Only five ever worked. We have four of those." IMHO this is the best movie Brooks ever made. He plays an egocentric, inept film director who turns a simple movie into a botched science experiment. The high-tech gadgetry is ultra low-tech these days. It's a gem of a movie. If you haven't seen it, it is well-worth renting -- or buying.

Albert Brooks tries so hard,...

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 13 July 2006]

Albert Brooks tries so hard in this fake documentary about American family life that you find yourself willing to wade through the movie's many slow moments and gags that just don't succeed. Plus, the movie can be quite funny from time to time. But, in general, I look at this like a fake documentary that was a noble experiment that ultimately failed--but is still worth seeing. After all, if it hadn't been for films like this, maybe they never would have made films like BEST IN SHOW as well as AND GOD SPOKE.

Although the purpose of this documentary is to show American family life in an unobtrusive manner, ultimately, the family becomes like a lot of modern "reality TV" families and the action becomes more and more suggested by the producer, Brooks. And, ultimately, the filming takes on a dramatic impact on the family.

Funny, insightful but far from perfect.

A Brilliant First Feature!

[epp678 · 9/10 · 17 February 2000]

Any Albert Brooks fan who has not seen his first glorious feature is truly missing out. As anyone can attest, Brooks has the rare gift of turning ordinary human moments into riotously funny scenes, and this film is full of such moments, plus much more subversive material, like the way Grodin's character repeatedly comes perilously close to committing a felony against his family.

Perhaps the greatest joke of all is that while the character "Albert Brooks" continuously states how he is documenting real life, we all know that this is really a star vehicle for him. He is more concerned with how much everything costs, like the head-held cameras (for those who haven't seen it, imagine the result of torrid affair between Dave Bowman and the Hal-9000). This film, more that anything, is a satirical take on how Hollywood subverts what is really "real life," all this coming from a director with as great a grasp on how humans relate to one another than anyone.

some fun spoof value

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 21 April 2024]

Filmmaker Albert Brooks is making a documentary about a regular American family following the success of the groundbreaking "An American Family". They pick veterinarian Warren Yeager (Charles Grodin) and his suburban family.

It is a mockumentary and a spoof of television production. It hits some fun insightful notes, but some notes fall flat. For example, it fails to predict the rise of modern reality shows where it's far more compelling for the people to go crazy. The crazier the antics, the better it is for the show. I kept thinking that Brooks should be excited that Warren is getting more unstable. It would help if Grodin gets more energized. Maybe the two characters need to be switched. Despite that, I get that they didn't foresee the future reality landscape. It still has some fun spoof value.

Albert Brooks may be the funniest man alive!

[jcosper · 10/10 · 16 December 1998]

This movie killed me! I got it off the PVT sale rack at Blockbuster. A major find, if you ask me. You can't even begin to describe Albert Brooks' humor. It's so complex, you have to see it to understand. Once you understand, you'll laugh your head off!

Real misfire

[abooboo-2 · 3/10 · 5 April 2009]

This film has one funny sight gag - the camera men with their high-tech (for its time) helmet cams prowling the Yeager and Brooks households like voyeuristic aliens. And that's it. Otherwise, it is a static, flat satire that goes nowhere. I'm amazed to read some other comments describing Brooks' first film as "complex." It's consistently dumb and obvious and desperate - the "perfect" family is actually dysfunctional, the black academic is a prig who resents being racially stereotyped, the Hollywood producer only cares about making money not art, a gynecologist is actually a baby trader who was ambushed by "60 Minutes" (sounds funnier than it plays) -- and so on. Ha ha. At nearly every turn, Brooks sucks the humor out of every potentially humorous situation. He doesn't know how to pace in the longer format and the film feels horribly padded, as well. I sat there stone-faced for a little over an hour and a half waiting for the humor to kick in, charitably chuckling here or there.

Of course with the explosion of reality programming over the last decade, one would think that this film was ahead of its time. But Brooks botches it by focusing more on himself and the totally unfunny scientific institute. We don't even meet the Yeagers until about a half hour into the picture. There is absolutely no need for the scientific institute in the film, and Brooks should have remained OFF camera, goading and cajoling the Yeagers into being more "real" from behind the scenes. That might have been funny. But what we get is Brooks moving into the house next door (not funny) and expecting what? This is where the movie makes no sense. Does he want conflict or the "perfect family" being perfect? Because when he gets conflict, he seems dissatisfied, and the institute reacts with grave concern that jeopardizes the entire project. But isn't that the whole point? Why would the institute even become involved unless they wanted to study the ups and downs and everyday struggles of a typical American family? The whole concept is half-baked and hopelessly confused.

This film makes so many poor choices. Why would the studio send the Yeagers on a two-week trip to Hawaii? It's not funny and serves no purpose. The film within the film is supposed to be about the film-makers' callous intrusion into the Yeagers' life, not their generosity. Generosity isn't funny. When the Yeagers return, Brooks opts to give them an hour to themselves. Again, how is this funny? He should be right on top of them from the first moment and never let up. He shouldn't live in the house across the street, he should live IN the Yeagers' house. Time after time, Brooks shys away from where the laugh is. When the documentary finally starts filming, the wife complains of menstrual cramps at the dinner table (not funny) which triggers an unfunny argument with husband Charles Grodin, and we see that reality is messy, unpleasant. Might have been funny or interesting if the film had built to that moment, showing the Yeagers gradually breaking down under the constant scrutiny of their lives. But it happens with no build-up, no tension, no funny.

Strangely, Brooks seems bored with the Yeager family. They never come into focus, particularly the children. The young son is given nothing to do and barely registers. The daughter gets one junior-high-school-drama queen scene, then is forgotten. The wife flirts with Brooks early on (not funny) but that's quickly dropped. Why would the wife possibly invite Brooks to film her visit to a gynecologist? Not funny. Might have been funny if she had let it slip she had an appointment with the gynecologist and Brooks had tailed her there and surprised her at the office. And Grodin, a very funny actor, is completely wasted in the bland role of the bland father trying to maintain his bland image.

Brooks ill-advisedly makes himself the star, and he just isn't at the top of his game here. His neurotic ramblings don't have much bite, his character isn't sharply enough written, and his goals never become clear. I should have been tipped off in the first scene. Brooks is schmaltzily introducing himself and the institute representatives to the town. The black academic is uncomfortable in this setting and doesn't stand up when introduced. Brooks jokes that if the audience is wondering why he didn't stand it's because he "doesn't eat much." Huh? Oh, I guess I just don't get that complex Brooks humor.

Real Life Is The Most Underrated movie ever!

[connerg-2 · 3 February 1999]

I think what most filmmakers say when they watch a great film is "I wish I made that movie". This is one of those movies. Not only is this a comedy classic, I would say that this movie is ground breaking. And way ahead of its time. Albert Brooks, proves that he is one of the funniest comedians ever, and in my opinion one of the best actors on the screen. And the ending is simply brilliant, and at the same time "Hilarious". I would like to tell you more, "But I don't have the time, or the cord!"

Clever, prescient satire

[gbill-74877 · 8/10 · 29 April 2021]

Quirky, clever comedy from Albert Brooks, and one ahead of its time in showing the possibility of a real family being filmed for entertainment, and how unreal such a depiction of "real life" would turn out to be. Brooks is great as the narcissistic director of the film, which is meant to capture the life of a family over a year, but he gets too personally involved with his subjects and they soon crumble under the pressure, part of which includes a media circus.

The technical needs of the project are high, so the film conjures up futuristic technology like the 'Graphicon 8000,' which does a primitive rendering of a 3D model of a person's face to determine their screen presence (after giving its technical report, its next screen "Thank you, pick up your shoes at the desk" was pretty funny). The Ettinauer 226XL cameras that fit over their operators' heads and record digitally onto integrated circuit chips and then upload later for processing were prescient technically, on top of being funny in use, the cameramen circling around their subjects.

Not all of the scenes which follow work completely, but there are enough good ones to keep it amusing, such as the black doctor (J. A. Preston) calling Brook's character out for his subtle racism and Charles Grodin, playing a veterinarian, making a serious gaffe while being filmed operating on a horse. The meetings with the studio, the executive calling in from his vacation, are quite funny too, because the situation seems so absurd and yet the dialogue and characterization so real.

The real satire is in Brooks's character and the concept of reality entertainment in the first place, the latter effectively mocking the content we would regularly only see decades later. Brooks shows us that such a film can't possibly capture "real life" because people feel the pressure of a camera, and so to observe is to disturb, as the maxim goes. Driven by someone always looking out for himself more than the well-being of the family, and by someone looking to entertain instead of the doctors who are ignored, the project is doomed in more ways than one. Funny, sometimes dark, intelligent stuff.

All's fair in Real Life and Warhol

[ThurstonHunger · 7/10 · 17 January 2024]

Watched the Reiner documentary/love-letter to Albert and realized unlike his others I had never seen this Brooks film.

If you like his sense of humor, and appreciate the way he loves and loathes himself, then I think you'll enjoy this film from 1979. There's a whole lot of mocking going on, and Brooks as if often the case, is keen on an idea that the camera changes everything, well before MTV had its Real World.

I almost feel like this would make a better book than a movie.

Cleverness I think sometimes hits a bit of a wall trying to climb onto the silver screen, but the movie really is clever and was worth checking out. Really Brooks is a social critic, but one that you'd actually like to sit down and have a drink with.

The early parts are so great and bursting with the eager energy of the long gag he's going for. That bad sweater kind of 70's PBS hip documentary - "hey what are you waiting for, let's go inside" - Mix in a bit part for Spielberg's brother that also catches the invasive nature of cameras with a 60 Minutes vibe. As always in the Brooks realm, there is a sense of relationships being impossible and yet ever so vital. A Real Truth?

Not every one likes to feel bemused, but this is A-rated B-Musement.

Smart & Funny -- My #9

[pwdoncaster · 10/10 · 29 March 2000]

#9 on my all-time list. Another one of those truly (and tragically) hidden gems -- full of great lines that you can spout ad nauseum to your friends and family until they finally see it (and, trust me, they'll thank you for it). Without question, this is Brooks' best. And true to his genius, arguably the funniest character in the film is one you never see -- just a voice on a speaker phone. If you don't become a Brooks fan after seeing this film, you'll never be one.

Very, Very Close

[bix171 · 9/10 · 4 January 2003]

In his directorial debut, Albert Brooks combines the broad but edgy satire developed in his short films on `Saturday Night Live' with the ruthless self-flagellation that would become his trademark and while it falls short of the genius that would explode in `Modern Romance' and `Lost In America', it's chock full of purpose. Brooks has a lot on his plate and wants to make sure he gets it all out in the open: his targets include documentary filmmaking, reality television (his prescience about today's programming is surprising), Hollywood and, not least of all, the role of the comedian as social critic in society. As a narcissistic comedian/filmmaker intruding into the lives of a hapless Phoenix nuclear family (the parents are Charles Grodin and Frances Lee McCain), Brooks immediately establishes a sophisticated filmic style that includes a mastery of long, uncomfortable takes and a shrewd sense of camera placement that keeps you tuned into the conceit of having lives recorded for fun and profit; that the conceit turns outrageously psychotic at the end only adds to the immaculate design. Unlike Woody Allen, whose unsightly condescension towards his audience is obvious and demeaning, Brooks respects his viewer's intelligence and rewards it with challenging material that's also accessible and funny.

Severely underrated (yet quite influential) comedy

[doctrinmtl · 9/10 · 11 June 2021]

First of all, I'm no expert (I've only seen this film twice), yet I feel compelled to write a review as (much to my surprise) there aren't very many!

If you're a fan of "Arrested Development", you will see how the narration style (at the very least) borrows from "Real Life". If you've ever watched "Review With Forrest McNeil, there's a similar theme: "how far a man will go in his devotion to his show". Finally (and this is a bit of a stretch), but there is a very slight resemblance between Albert Brooks and Seinfeld's "George Costanza" when they're excited (even though we all know Jason Alexander originally interpreted the character as "Woody Allen-esque" only later to find out it was modelled after Larry David). Still, it's a nuance.

At any rate, this movie was quite influential (beyond the 3 first random examples that came to my head). However it did not get the acclaim it should have (for some reason). I even read a Roger Ebert review which while it does acknowledge some eternally memorable moments...still seems to miss the boat by criticizing everything outside of the concept and the first ten minutes of the film. Similarly, complaints about Albert Brooks being "too extra" fail to understand he was intentionally overwhelming.

Albert is a genius. Even the trailer for the film is highly creative and next-level ridiculous in the meta department (especially for it's time). Albert seems to have come from a very talented family. For those that don't know, Bob Einstein ("Super Dave Osborne" / "Marty Funkhauser") is his real life brother.

Anyway, this is an immediate "favourite" of mine. Hopefully more people come to recognize this extremely well-written comedy as one of the best out there.

Real Life

[jboothmillard · 5/10 · 12 February 2018]

This is the directorial debut of comedian Albert Brooks, best known for voicing Marlin in Finding Nemo and Finding Dory, it was rated average by most critics, but it sounded like a really interesting concept, and it was featured in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Basically Albert Brooks (whose real name is Albert Einstein!) plays a darker version of himself, he has become a documentary filmmaker, his new cinematic and scientific experiment is a film that will capture every waking moment in the everyday life of an American family. Many families are auditioned, they are whittled down to two, until Brooks and his other producers settle on the ordinary Yeager family from Phoenix, Arizona: husband/father Warren Yeager (Charles Grodin), wife/mother Jeanette (Gremlins' Frances Lee McCain), and their children, Lisa (Lisa Urette) and Eric (Robert Stirrat). The concept is for the family to go about their business, at home, at work and at school as if nothing is different, ignoring the fact that men wearing cameras that look like Star Wars helmets are recording every move they make and every word they say. Brooks promises to be as unobtrusive as possible, taking a separate residence in the neighbourhood and not interfering, "for the good of the show". But the presence of the crew causes stress and complications for the family, and Brooks has unwittingly becoming the object of Mrs. Yeager's affections. Yeager is a vegetarian, he is traumatised being filmed when causing the death of a horse, and Jeanette is devastated by the death of a grandparent, tension is put on the leading couple, leading to "lifeless" material. There is a point when Mrs. Yeager is going for a medical examination, but she seems to have no reservations about allowing the film crew to capture it, this is course causes a lot of controversy. Brooks from Hollywood is unscrupulous and will do almost anything to make a more interesting film, including dressing as a clown to cheer them up. Brooks has a meeting with his fellow producers, and the two doctors evaluating the ongoing project, one of whom leaves, sighting that the project has lost control, and soon enough press start hounding the Yeagers. Brooks has a meeting with the institute, who are considering bringing the project to an end, Brooks tries to defend it, reminding them that it is supposed to last for an entire year. But the family also do not wish to be part of it any longer, despite pleas from Brooks, they will not change their minds to abandon the project. Brooks decides the only thing he can do to keep the show going is to set the house on fire, in a Gone with the Water style, joyfully exclaiming that it is a spectacular ending. Also starring Dick Haynes as Councilman Edmund Harris, Matthew Tobin as Dr. Howard Hill, J.A. Preston as Dr. Ted Cleary, Mort Lindsey, Joseph Schaffler as Paul Lowell - Realtor, Phyllis Quinn as Donna Stanley - Gift Shop Owner, James Ritz as Jack from Cincinnati and James L. Brooks as Driving Evaluator. This film is a spoof of the then popular docusoap An American Family, reality TV has now become a staple of television over the years, especially ones about families, e.g. The Osbournes, Wife Swap, Supernanny, The Family and Keeping Up with the Kardashians, so this film is much more relevant today, and it could almost be a premonition to the whole thing. It really does mock what goes on behind the scenes, the destructive influence that happens to the subjects, and the various attempts make an entertaining show, some turning into mishaps, a clever and amusing satirical comedy. Worth watching!

Albert Brooks is the ultimate farceur.

[lensecap · 4 September 1999]

'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.

Droll, outlandish and full of laughs

[Mr-Fusion · 8/10 · 13 January 2015]

Albert Brooks' REAL LIFE maintains an eerie prescience, but the man simply took a PBS experiment from the '70s and smashed it into Hollywood artifice to profound comedic effect. His character's film experiment (you guessed it, to document real life as movie) seems novel, but the family's miserable and it only goes downhill from there. It's a well-chosen cast, full of funny personalities - Grodin is a highlight here and can't stop making contact with the camera - and then there's Brooks' used car salesman filmmaker, virtually devolving matters into absurdity by his own hand. And he's on fire here, playing a fictionalized dickish version of himself (and pulling no punches doing it).

The man's a genius, if for no other reason than for introducing one of the funniest props in movie history: the Ettinauer 226XL! Very good stuff.

8/10

Albert Brooks contradicts the classic movie phrase "transported into another world for a few hours" with his frank American media satire "Real Life"

[redcrossaint · 8/10 · 10 August 2022]

Real Life (1979)

3/4

There are some funny moments in Albert Brooks's "Real Life", and I enjoyed it. It's an interesting satire on invasive reporters and American life. I liked its idea, too, especially how Albert Brooks imagined the film - people famously go to the movies to be transported somewhere else from reality, and Brooks, here, keeps them in reality. It functions as satire and commentary.

"Real Life" follows Albert Brooks and his film crew as they set out to find the perfect image of the American family and film a movie about them. Through a series of events, Brooks becomes a bit intrusive (including a hilarious scene where the wife asks Brooks if she can be alone by herself and he asks if he can film her alone...) and things start to go completely wrong.

Here is an interesting idea executed well. It's a fun take on the American family with some great jokes and an ending that I laughed long, hard and loud on - I just about loved the last 20 minutes. "Real Life" is an interesting project for sure - and often funny, too.

You Haven't Had An Emergency Since We've Been Here

[rjwiiams · 10/10 · 17 January 2024]

I'm not sure there is a funnier scene ever put on film - the poor horse overdosed on halothane....(sorry PETA)

The operation was over, way ahead of schedule!

Albert Brooks in the 70s and 80s was absolutely a comic genius - and teamed up with another comic genius, Charles Grodin - what a brilliant piece of work

The late 70s feel is perfect - I was a teenager then and had the same hairdo that Brooks has in the film - anybody not familiar with his work must also see Modern Romance - then Lost In America

I liked Defending Your Life, but not nearly as much as the prior stuff

If you were there as I was, or are fascinated by the 70s, this film will take you there!

Along with Spinal Tap...

[AnonII · 9/10 · 23 December 2002]

...this is one of the funniest American movies of the late 20th century, and like 'Tap' it also mines the rich vein of documentary-film arrogance. Brooks' strength as a comic observer lies in his self-obsessed insincerity, a man of riotously extreme unction. It's almost impossible to pick a favorite scene from this spoof, especially for industry insiders.