Down and Out in Beverly Hills was an adaptation of a French play, Boudu Suave des Eaux. But I fear something pretty important got lost in the translation.
The central character is a mildly disgruntled tramp, played by Nick Nolte, who once again chose to throw away his immense talent on a mediocre movie.
While searching for his lost dog, he finds himself in the back garden of a Beverly Hills mansion. Before you can blink more than a few hundred times, he has entrenched himself in the family. The family's dog has adopted him, he has 'adopted' the female members of the family, and the servants too (if you can take 'adopted' as a loose synonym for the 'F' word), and he has become confidante/analyst to both the father and son. The bum becomes the family's beating heart.
It is a nice, if a bit over-familiar, premise. But it just doesn't hang together. I have neither seen nor read the French original, but I imagine the French family were what American film-maker Whit Stillman described in his wonderful Metropolitan as UHBs - ultra-haute-bourgeoise. Well-off of course, desperately desperate and hollow and needing the redemption only a tramp could bring, but somehow possessing some class and style.
In Beverly Hills, it seems, there is plenty of wealth, but not a shred of class. The family, from father Richard Dreyfuss and mother Bette Midler down, are loud, ignorant barbarians - and proud of it. The children, it is true, aren't quite as bad as their parents. But the parents are two of the crassest, crudest nouveau-riche refugees from a refuse pile as you could ever hope not to meet.
You just don't care about them or their petty problems. And it becomes a matter of total irrelevance whether the bum helps them, or just totally screws them. He ends up doing a bit of both, but who cares? Early double-homicide would have helped this viewer a whole lot more.
Rock star Little Richard has a cameo role of total inconsequence, as a wealthy black neighbour who can hit a mean keyboard. So little is made of his character that we're just left wondering why he's there at all.
Funny thing is, I do remember seeing this movie quite a few years ago, around its original release in 1987, and being mildly diverted by it. I must have been stoned...
The excellent soundstage is crisp and clear, and fully matches the terrific picture quality.
This isn't a movie demanding great depth or special effects, but it does get tremendous treatment for its age. There is no obvious background noise and no distortion.
