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.