Upon my reactions to a few mixed reviews and these mostly-positive user comments, it is proven that SLUMS OF BEVERLY HILLS succeeds for one golden accomplishment: it's trashy. At least we've come to experience once again what living in the 70s was all about, and it's got some trendy replicas of all things that were psychedelic (like the dome-shaped "Pic N' Save" store). What else could you ask for? It's a triumphant journey of drive-in movie days that would have no place in the high-tech multiplexes of the present. The terrible direction, the sex jokes, the awfully bland dialogue, the tasteless quality, you name it! But ho-hum! Why does a movie have to be so bad? Like numerous movies of this age, they are designed to cash in on our love for the reincarnation of yesteryear. My words sound appropriate, but otherwise, the slums is where this movie belongs! It's hard to explain how something like this is so horrible that it's a barely passable job to produce. Stay away from this one if you can. As a matter of fact, I will! And why was Robert Redford involved?
Review of Slums of Beverly Hills
