text: Given the budget and the inexperience of everyone involved, Livin' tha Life could have been worse. Jamal wants to be Chris Tucker (whom I've always found very annoying), as a previous commentator has noted, but Peanut (Edward D. Smith), while some of his (over)reactions go on way too long (a director's problem), has some comparatively subtle and funny moments, such as when he is trying to instruct Jamal on the proper method of smoking a joint with a buddy. Throughout, he is usually more poised and self-possessed than Jamal, which could have been the germ of a nice exploration of the contrasts in the relationship but wasn't developed very far.<br /><br />But the inexperience of the writer/director/cinematographer/etc. is no excuse for his inattention. Has he ever seen a movie? Faces are important! Has he ever heard of a closeup? Even Ed Wood could do a closeup. I don't think it's much of a budget issue. I could only give a general description of what any of the actors look like, and not just because of no closeups, but the lighting ...! Lights for outdoor shooting may cost too much, but you can make a reflector with pieces of paper! That would have required moving the camera closer to keep the reflector out of the shot, helping to solve the closeup problem at the same time. If that's too technical you can turn the actors around so they are not in shadow, or you can expose for the shadows, and if it hadn't been shot in L.A. I'd say take advantage of cloudy days. It goes without saying that the movies this one steals from are all, with the possible exception of Weekend at Bernie's, better than this one, but Livin' tha Life would have left a much better impression if it hadn't made the viewer squint all the way through just to catch a glimpse of whatever the human element might have been.<br /><br />P.S. The scene in the barbershop is just stupid.