Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2h.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2h!hhs
From: hhs@hou2h.UUCP (H.SHARP)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Review of VOLUNTEERS (Some Spoilers)
Message-ID: <1020@hou2h.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 16:57:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2h.1020
Posted: Mon Aug 19 16:57:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 22:22:15 EDT
References: <2545@vax4.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 49

>From: moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer)
>Subject: Review of VOLUNTEERS (Some Spoilers)

>Folks, I may not be the person to listen to about this movie.  I came in
>with quite a few predjudices for the creative staff of _Volunteers_.

I, also, went to the movie ready and willing to enjoy every second.
I saw Hanks and Candy in Splash and thought they were very funny.  I
have been a fan of John Candy since Second City Television.  This seemed
like a sure-win movie.

>Nevertheless, about twenty minutes into this film, I was feeling a bit
>uncomfortable.  I had walked into _Volunteers_ expecting a rip-roaring
>don't-stop-at-anything gag fest. . .

These are my feelings exactly, except that it didn't quite take
twenty minutes and my final reaction was quite different.  I am not
sure where to begin.  For one thing the accents sounded terrible.
Hanks sounded like he was parodying an accent, which may be why his
lines were mumbled more than necessary.  The Peace Corps woman couldn't
seem to decide where she was from.  Only Candy seemed to have a grip
on his speech.
Hanks plays an upper-class sexist twit in the movie and nothing in the
movie seems to provide any reason for him changing, but the woman, after
being verbally abused and jerked around all of a sudden falls in love
with him.  I normally try to suspend my values when going to a comedy
but this movie was obnoxious.  What does the fact that the woman was
Jewish have anything to do with this movie except provide material for
old, cheap (and perhaps sick) jokes?
The only funny and redeeming things I found in the movie were
John Candy and At(Watanabe?).  I guess _Splash_ was just a fluke for Hanks
in terms of being an interesting comic actor.  The actress (sorry, I
forgot her name)  did okay, but her main role in the film seemed to be
as an object of desire for the men.

>_Volunteers_ is a updated Bing Crosby/Bob Hope Road movie, with Hanks
>playing both Crosby and Hope's roles (He's a coward and a wisecracker, but
>he also has a lot of sophisticated charm...).  And if you can see it as
>that, I think you'll enjoy it a lot, especially after the first half-hour,
>which tends to drag a little.  

One giant problem I found is the lack of originality in the movie.  It
is a rehash (hack) of every movie from the Road movies to _Animal House_
and _Arthur_.  I felt very cheated after seeing it.  Tom Hanks'
"sophisticated charm" seemed to me as more patronizing condescension.
However, if you do enjoy the kind of movie described in the original
posting, you will probably enjoy this.  If lack of originality and
sexist humor upset you very much, then I can't advise going.
Good luck.